For many people, an assistance animal is not a “nice-to-have.” It is an essential, trained support that helps a person function, participate, and live with dignity. Yet one of the least discussed parts of having an assistance animal in Australia is the constant anxiety of access—the mental load of wondering whether today will be the day you are questioned, delayed, refused, or forced into an argument just to do ordinary life.
The part people don’t see: you’re always on alert
If you rely on an assistance animal, simple tasks can come with an extra layer of stress:
- Walking into a café and scanning faces to see if staff look uncertain
- Entering a shop and bracing for “No dogs allowed” before you can even speak
- Hearing “Is that really allowed?” in front of strangers
- Being asked personal questions about your disability
- Having to decide, in the moment, whether to push back or walk away for your own wellbeing
This is not just inconvenient—it can be exhausting. It creates a situation where the person with disability is repeatedly put in the position of educator, advocate, and negotiator—often while already managing anxiety, sensory overload, trauma responses, mobility limitations, or other disability impacts.
The law exists—but the knowledge on the ground is often low
At a federal level, Australia has protections that make it unlawful to discriminate against a person with disability using an assistance animal under the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Cth) (DDA). Government and human-rights guidance consistently recognises that suitably trained assistance animals are permitted to access public places and services with their handler.
But here’s the reality: rights only work when people understand them. Many workers have never been trained. Many managers are unsure. Some organisations rely on outdated “no animals” policies and treat assistance animals as if they are pets.
This gap between law and practice is where anxiety grows.
“I don’t want to argue” — and you shouldn’t have to
Most handlers are not looking for confrontation. They want to buy groceries, attend an appointment, sit for a meal, check into accommodation, or catch transport—without becoming the centre of a dispute.
A non-confrontational approach is often the safest option for a handler, but it should not mean losing access. What helps in practice is having a calm, consistent script and being prepared with the right evidence.
Here are examples of respectful, low-conflict wording that often de-escalates situations:
- “This is my assistance animal. Under the Disability Discrimination Act, we’re allowed to be here.”
- “I’m happy to show you the documentation you’re allowed to request.”
- “If you’re unsure, could we speak to the manager? I’d like to resolve it calmly.”
- “I understand your policy, but assistance animals are different to pets. Let’s work through it together.”
That said, it is not reasonable that a person with disability must rehearse scripts to access basic services.
What businesses can ask—and what they should not do
A major issue is confusion about what staff are permitted to request.
Across government and human-rights guidance, the consistent theme is:
- The animal must be a genuine assistance animal (not a pet).
- The handler may need to provide evidence the animal meets the legal definition (training/accreditation standards).
- The animal must be appropriately behaved, hygienic, and under effective control.
What staff should not do:
- Demand intrusive medical details
- Publicly interrogate the person in front of others
- Impose “pet rules” (fees, exclusions, separation) on an assistance animal
- Refuse entry simply because “we have a no dogs policy”
And importantly: refusing access can become a discrimination issue under federal law.
There must be stronger consequences for repeat breaches
Education is essential, but education alone is not enough when the same sectors repeatedly deny access—especially where policies are knowingly incorrect or where staff are trained poorly and the organisation does nothing to fix it.
More action is needed to address:
- Systemic refusals (where a business repeatedly blocks access despite being informed)
- Poor internal policies (blanket “no animals” rules with no assistance animal exception)
- Failure to train staff (especially frontline teams who make decisions at the door)
- Complaint fatigue (handlers often don’t report because it is stressful and time-consuming)
The Australian Human Rights Commission has long received complaints in this area, which reflects that this is not a rare issue—it is a recurring one.
The solution: practical, standardised training for companies
If a business genuinely wants to do the right thing, staff need more than a vague memo. They need clear, scenario-based training that answers:
- Definitions
- Assistance animal vs therapy animal vs pet
- What “trained to assist” means in an Australian context
- Access rules
- What the DDA protects
- How state/territory schemes interact with federal protections (and why confusion happens)
- What you can request
- What evidence is reasonable to ask for
- How to ask respectfully and privately
- Operational handling
- Seating, queues, tight spaces, lifts, shared facilities
- Hygiene concerns handled appropriately (without discrimination)
- What to do if the animal is not under control (rare, but procedures matter)
- Transport-specific obligations
- Public transport operators have responsibilities under standards linked to the DDA, and “service animals” are explicitly contemplated within these frameworks.
- A simple escalation pathway
- “If unsure, call a manager”
- “If still unsure, here is the policy and the contact point”
- “Do not refuse on the spot without checking”
The answer is not “argue harder.” The answer is clear rules, consistent training, and accountable enforcement.
What we’re calling for
We want an Australia where people with disability are not forced into conflict to access basic services. That means:
- Mandatory, practical training in high-contact sectors (hospitality, retail, accommodation, transport)
- Clear internal policies that staff can follow in real time
- Meaningful consequences for organisations that repeatedly breach access rights
- A culture shift: treating assistance animal teams with respect, privacy, and professionalism
If you are a business owner, manager, or team leader and you want your staff to handle assistance animal access correctly and confidently, training is one of the simplest ways to reduce risk, prevent complaints, and do right by the community.
Because access should not depend on how much energy a person has left to explain the law at the door.