ASSISTANCE ANIMALS UNDER THE DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION ACT


TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN

I am a person with invisible disabilities; psychiatric and physical. To look at me you would not know that I am disabled. I am also a person who 
uses a small breed dog as an assistance animal. It is clear that she is an assistance animal, she wears a cape to identify her as one. The cape 
distinctly says "Do not pet me, I am working". I have found this request has always been respected. My assistance dog accompanies me whereever I go. 
I have travelled widely with her; within NSW and interstate, using all forms of public and private transport. She has accompanied me to 
restuarants, hotels, motels, B & B's and caravan parks. She accompanies me when I go about my usual day; for example shopping or to University. She is 
very well behaved and is well trained. She is trained to perform specific tasks to alleviate the effects of my disabilities. The impact of which 
would cripple me, robbing me of my quality of life, if she did not do her job. I have had her since she was 12 weeks old and I have trained her 
myself. To do this I have undertaken 3 seperate training courses to facilitate my understanding of what is required in order to successfully 
train her. I have undertaken such training seriously and responsibly. The training my dog has received is consistently reinforced using positive 
reinforcement techniques, so that she has learned the skills necessary to perform the tasks expected of her. I have also registered her as an 
assistance dog with my local council. As I go about my daily activities, I carry with me a copy of my medical documentation ascertaining that she is 
an assistance dog under the act of law, I also carry with me a copy of the DDA and a copy of certification by my local council that she is an 
assistance dog. If necessary I produce this and have taken a proactive role in educating people in the community that I have contact with regarding her 
role in my life.

If I were deprived of the opportunity to use my dog as an assistance dog, I would loose my current quality of life and become housebound. I am deeply 
concerned by the issues raised in the current discussion paper regarding assistance animals under the Disability Discrimination Act and wish to 
address those issues, bearing in mind the high stake I have in ensuring that I am able to continue to use my dog as an assistance dog, equitably 
with guide dogs and hearing dogs and mobility dogs, to alleviate the effect of my disabilities, as referred to under current federal law.

I, like many others within Australia and overseas, use a dog as my preferred choice of assistant animal to alleviate the effects of my 
disability. Currently the law refers to the use of assistant animals other than guide and hearing dogs to alleviate the effects of the disability. 
Personally I do not know of any other animals being used in Australia as assistant animals, although I am aware that horses are used overseas to 
alleviate the effects of a disability. I do not think that Australia is yet ready to embrace any other animal for use to alleviate the effects of a 
disability.

Clearly the current wording of the law to include any other animal, has the potential to be misused, because in reality it could include any animal. It 
is necessary to include the rights of a wide range of people with both visible and invisible disabilities, and I think a more appropriate wording 
of the act, should be changed to define unlawful discrimination as including treating  a person with a disability less favourably because he 
or she is accompanied by a guide dog, hearing assistance dogs and other dog trained to assist the aggrieved person to alleviate the effect of the 
disability. Whilst only a slight change of wording, it is more appropriate choice of words which reflects, preserves and maintains the rights of 
people who currently use dogs that are trained to alleviate the effects of their disability, regardless of the nature of the disability and whether 
they are trained by owner trainer or trained by a specific organisation.

I am extremely concerned that the act and its implementation continues to reflect and accept that assistance dogs may be either owner trained or 
trained by a specific organisation; for example guide dogs and hearing dogs. The wording of the act should NOT just reflect mainstream users and 
training organisations, such as guide dogs and hearing dogs and mobility impaired dogs, otherwise people like me with very real and disabling 
disabilities, who have responsibly and seriously trained their own dog to be an assistance dog, would be excluded. This in itself would be 
discriminatory and serve to isolate and reject responsbile owner trainers of assistance dogs, such as myself, from being able to participate fully in 
life within the wider community. It is crucially important owner trainers of assistance dogs, not be marginalised or discriminated against.

My fear is that mainstream training organisations have more of a voice, than does someone like myself, who has trained their own dog to perform 
specific functions to enable me to participate more fully in daily life. The role that my assistance dog performs for me is no less valuable or 
meaningful than the role that other assistance dogs, such as guide dogs, hearing dogs, or mobility dogs, performs.

It must be recognised that assistance dogs may be either traditional size dogs or small breed dogs. The fact that my dog is a small breed dog, does 
not distract her from being able to perform her role. In fact, she is more able to perform her role and specific tasks, and assist me because of her 
size, than would a larger breed dog.  Being a small breed dog, she will sit on my lap, rather than lie at my feet; a fact which helps her to perform 
her functions which assist me in my disabilities. The fact that she does this, should not preclude me from using public transport with her and to 
date, it has not. I do not support the recognition of dogs as assistance dogs that are by their very nature aggressive or intimidating. I do believe 
thought that the dog in question's temperament is something that can be readily and easily assessed by a credible trainer, but not limited to 
recognised training organisations. Such a trainer needs to be empathic to the cause of disabled people.

There is a very narrow view by some organisations on what is an assistance dog. It needs to be widely recognised that assistance dogs may be small or 
traditional size assistance dogs. I have been challenged in the past by people who have not been educated accordingly and have been questioned on 
the use of my dog. When this has occured, I have produced a copy of my medical documentation, the DDA and my dogs certificate of registration with 
my local council. To date, this has served me well. It should never be forgotten that the purpose of assistance dogs is to alleviate the effect of 
the disability. The evidence of producing a medical certificate, a copy of relevant law and registration by the local council should be sufficient to 
certify the purpose of an assistance dog, so that the disabled individual has equitable rights to non disabled people.

It must be remembered that all people with disabilities who use assistance dogs to alleviate the effects of their disability are able to continue to 
do so, regardless of whether they are owner trained or trained by a specific organisation. It must also be acknowledged and accepted that 
specific organisations, such as those who train guide dogs, hearing assistance dogs and mobility assistance dogs have a huge investment in 
maintaining the existence of their charitable organisation. THIS SHOULD NOT BE done at the expense of owner trainers, who do not have the voice or the 
money that these large organisations have to ensure that they continue their work. Owner trainers, such as myself, who responsibly train their 
dogs MUST ALSO BE ACKNOWLEDGED AND ACCEPTED as being able to have the same rights and accomodations as those people whose dogs are trained by more 
traditional training organisations. This will ensure that this group of people, who like myself have trained my own dog, may continue to lead 
meaningful lives similiarly to those people who have assistance dogs trained by such an organisations.

It must be stressed that to limit the training of assistance dogs to only those currently recognised agencies denies the fact that the foundations of 
these very organisations were built by people like me who are struggling to get acceptance and recognition for the training they have undertaken with 
their dogs. It would be unfair and limiting to deny the existence of and reject the viability of owner trainers and to do so would create a monoply 
of training assistence dogs to a few, who do not currently meet the wider community needs of people who use assistance dogs. I am specifically 
referring to those individuals who use assistance dogs as seizure alert dogs and those individuals who use psychiatric assistance dogs. The rights 
of these people must be protected so that they are able to choose a trainer to train their dogs to suit their disability, or else undertake training so 
as to train their dogs themselves, as I have.

I believe that a disabled person, in conjuntion with a responsible trainer can effectively train their own dog to a high standard that is stable and 
consistent to ensure that the dog behaves appropriately in all situations in which the person with a disability requires of them; in addition to what 
is expected by the non disabled community at large who accomodate them. I agree that the dog must be able to perform specific tasks, either physical 
or psychological, to alleviate the effects of the disability for the person who uses the dog. In my case, my dog mitigates the effects of my 
disabilities by performing tasks psychologically and physically for me. Providing a forum where such tasks are cited and rationalised is necessary 
to include the scope of tasks that an assistance dog can perform across disabilities to suit different individuals. The scope of this should NOT be 
limited as it is now by the narrow scope of training organisations avialable within Australia which target a narrow range of disabilities.

As an individual I do not have the financial resources or political voice that these training organisations have to ensure that as an individual 
owner trainer that my needs are heard. Personally I am a disability support pensioner who has had to fund my own training. This is expensive and I am 
limited by my very socioeconomic position and the narrow range of available and accessible training organisations, in that I have had no choice other 
than to train my dog myself. This does not mean though that her training has not been of a high standard or that I have not put in the hours 
necessary to ensure that she is stable across varying situations. The reverse is in fact true. When I started training my dog, I contacted a 
number of training organisations within NSW to enlist their help to train my dog and my requests for assistance in training and assessment were 
rejected because of the limited focus of such training organisations that trained and assessed dogs for people in wheelchairs, guide dogs or hearing 
dogs. It left me no choice other than to train my dog myself. People such as me must be recognised and validated as a real and credible alternative 
to those people with disabilities who do not fit the mould of being visually or hearing impaired, or mobility impaired. To limit the training 
of assistance dogs to the more recognised and traditional organisation is to deny me the right to have my dog recognised as a very real resource and 
accomodation which improves the quality of my life.

A credible trainer who is empathic to the use of assistance dogs is an untapped resource to certify an owner trainers assistance dog, to provide 
certification, which could then be lodged with local council to provide authenticity and satisfy the certification process which to date has been 
unclear.This process would satisfy the larger communitities needs for proof of certification and satisfy state and local government and retail and 
service providers. Proof of certification by council by way of registering the assistance dog with them lends well to the role of ranger already 
provided by council. Dog registration by council ascertaining the role of the assistance dog verifies and validates their existence by the very 
people employed to moniter and control dogs in the community.

There also has to be a willingness amongst the disabled community and the organisations that train assistance dogs, that their exists amongst the 
fringe a wide number of people with disabilities different to their own that have just as much right to use the services of an assistance dog to 
alleviate the effects of their disability in addition to them. Sadly, and as recognised in the discussion paper recognition and regulation of 
categories of assistance animal additional to guide and hearing dogs has been slow to emerge. I am not surprised that this is the case when their is 
already a a trend to monopolise and limit training resources and funding to a specific few organisations. Not everyone has the resources or energy to 
set up and establish a charity whose sole purpose is too train assistance dogs. Personally it is a big enough job to just be living and surviving my 
life with disabilities, as well as train my own dog, without having an other burdens to carry. Please do not forget that people with psychiatric 
disorders and seizure disorders benefit from the use of an assistance dogs, and these dogs as I have stressed repeatedly throughout my letter improves 
quality of life by the very bond the form emotionally with their dog in addition to the tasks they perform for them. These peoples rights need to 
be heard and protected, and should NOT be limited by a narrow vision of what is an assistance dog or who trains or assesses them.

Just recently I have been denied access with my dog by a large organisation because they would not accept my medical documentation from my specialist 
that I use my dog as an assistance dog because I could not provide documentation from a recognised training organisation that she is an 
assistance dog. While their remains a limited view of what constitutes recognition and training of assistance dogs, especially when they have been 
owner trained, will mean that such discrimination continues. There is a real danger that if owner trainers are not accepted and validated that 
people such as me will continue to be discriminated against and will continue to be marginalised and neglected as real stakeholders with a real 
needs to be fulfilled.

I recognise that the issue of what constitutes effective assessment and certification of training is a key issue here. I do not think there are any 
easy answers, but I propose that a body be set up which is representative of all those varying groups of people who use assistance dogs to meet and 
discuss ways of meeting all their needs in a way that is not limited to only those organisations that currently train and assess assistance dogs. I 
think it is sad that so few have responded to the dicussion paper, and advocate wider community discussion that incorporates dthe disabled 
communit who use assistance animals, and it should be more widely advertised so more poeople are informed of the nature of issues involved.

Also a burning priority is necessary to educate the public to the variety of assistance dogs serving people with disabilities. This would inform the 
public, retailers, transport providers and others who serve the public. I find it abhorrent that it is people with disabilities and often those with 
limited means and who go to great lengths to train their assistance dogs, should have the additional burden of feeling they do not have the rights of 
passage that oinly a select few disabled groups of people have, along with non disabled people. It is a right of every disabled person to use their 
assistance dog, regardless of who does the trasing, so long that the training is of a high standard of behaviour. Whe should I have to become 
ill and housebound because I trained my assistance dog myself. It would be morally wrong to depriove me of a meaningful life because of this. 
Education and information is paramount in educating not only these people, but also sadly the more recognised training agencies who service a narrow 
range of people would improve the rights of my like myself. I believe that such education would also enlist the support of credible trainers who are 
empathic to the plight of people with disabilities, lessening the difficulties disabled people may have in securing training for their dog.

I hope and pray that what I have written will be listened to and acted upon credibly so that I can continue to live and practise a meaningful life 
accompanied by my assistance dog. To deny the reality of what I have written and NOT act upon it empathically so that I can continue to use my 
assistance dog would be unethical and immoral.

Sincerely,

D. Fahey


_________________________________________________________________
Get less junk mail with ninemsn Premium. Click here  
http://ninemsn.com.au/premium/landing.asp