Refusing assistance dog access to public places in Australia: penalties, responsible agents, and pathways for reform

This is the authors' abstract. We don't add key points for this paper.

Across Australia, anti-discrimination, animal management, and public transport legislation preserves the public access rights of assistance dogs and their handlers. However, assistance dog handlers are still regularly refused access to public places, undermining their legal rights. This situation is exacerbated by the inconsistency between Australian jurisdictions. This article, therefore, examines the extent of this inconsistency, as well as other factors which undermine legal recourse for assistance dog handlers. For civil claims of discrimination, except in cases of extremely discriminatory conduct, damages are rarely awarded. For criminal penalties for assistance dog refusal, there are significant inconsistencies in penalties between different states. Some states and territories do not provide penalties for refusal more broadly or only penalise refusal in certain places, such as public transport, along with a lack of clarity on who can enforce penalties. This article concludes by offering recommendations for law reform using the Responsive Regulation framework.