Why Australia’s Emerging Human Rights Act Matters — Especially for People with Disability and Assistance Animal Handlers

Australia is in an important period of human rights reform, with growing discussion about the need for a federal Human Rights Act. While Australia already has anti-discrimination laws like the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Cth), many advocates argue these laws are no longer enough on their own to prevent systemic exclusion.

For people with disability — and particularly assistance animal handlers — the gap between having rights “on paper” and experiencing those rights in real life remains significant.

A Human Rights Act has the potential to shift Australia from a reactive system to a preventative one, where rights are built into decision-making from the start.

What a Human Rights Act does differently

A Human Rights Act sets out fundamental rights and requires government agencies (and sometimes public authorities) to:

• actively consider human rights before making decisions
• prevent rights violations before they occur
• justify decisions that limit rights
• embed rights into policies, services, and legislation

This is different from Australia’s current model, which is largely complaint-driven.

At present, if someone’s rights are breached, they generally must:

• experience the harm first
• then make a complaint
• then go through legal or conciliation processes

A Human Rights Act aims to reduce reliance on “after the fact” enforcement.

Why this matters for people with disability

People with disability continue to face systemic barriers in:

• transport
• education
• employment
• healthcare
• housing
• access to public spaces and services

While the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Cth) is a critical legal safeguard, it is primarily reactive, meaning it depends on individuals initiating complaints after discrimination has already occurred.

The missing piece: a strong positive duty

A positive duty requires organisations to actively prevent discrimination, rather than simply respond when it happens.

In disability access — particularly assistance animal public access — this is essential.

Why we need a positive duty for assistance animal access

Assistance animal handlers regularly experience inconsistent and unlawful barriers, such as:

• staff not knowing the law
• businesses applying “no pets” rules incorrectly
• demands for unnecessary identification or documentation
• refusal of access due to fear, assumptions, or misinformation

Even when access is legally protected, the burden often falls on the handler to:

• educate staff in real time
• advocate under pressure
• manage public confrontation
• leave environments if access is denied

What a positive duty would change

A positive duty for assistance animal access would require organisations to proactively ensure lawful access is supported, including:

• staff training on assistance animal law and etiquette
• clear, visible access policies aligned with legislation
• proactive inclusion planning (not case-by-case improvisation)
• complaint prevention systems
• accountability for repeated unlawful refusals

Instead of expecting the handler to enforce their own rights in the moment, the responsibility shifts to the organisation to ensure access is understood and upheld before the interaction occurs.

This is not about special treatment — it is about lawful access being reliably implemented in practice.

What positive duty looks like in other Australian laws

We already have strong examples of positive duty frameworks in Australia.

Example: Work Health and Safety (WHS) laws

Under WHS legislation, employers have a positive duty of care to:

• identify risks before harm occurs
• implement controls to prevent injury
• provide training and supervision
• maintain safe systems of work

Importantly, this does not rely on workers getting injured first and then making a complaint. The obligation is proactive.

This is a useful comparison: we do not wait for harm to occur in workplaces before requiring safety systems — yet in disability access, we often still rely on post-harm complaints.

Example: Sex Discrimination Act reforms (positive duty for sexual harassment)

Australia has also strengthened the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 (Cth) to include a positive duty to eliminate sexual harassment and discrimination in the workplace.

This means employers must:

• take reasonable and proportionate measures to prevent harassment
• not wait for a complaint before acting
• create safer systems and workplace cultures
• be proactive rather than reactive

This reform recognises that individual complaints alone were not enough to prevent systemic harm.

Why assistance animal access deserves the same protection

Assistance animal handlers are often expected to repeatedly prove legitimacy in everyday environments where:

• the law is inconsistently understood
• enforcement is difficult
• refusal often occurs in real time with no immediate remedy

A positive duty would help shift this imbalance by requiring businesses and services to:

• understand their legal obligations in advance
• train staff appropriately
• reduce unlawful refusals before they happen

It would also reduce the emotional and practical burden placed on handlers to educate every new environment they enter.

WAFA’s role: building education and culture change

This is exactly the gap the Working Animals Federation of Australia (WAFA) is working to address through its Assistance Animal Ambassadors and Allies Courses.

These courses are designed to:

• improve public understanding of assistance animal rights and responsibilities
• educate businesses, services, and communities
• reduce unlawful access refusals through prevention-focused training
• build a consistent, national understanding of best practice inclusion

Rather than relying solely on complaints after discrimination occurs, WAFA’s approach focuses on prevention through education, which aligns closely with the intent of positive duty frameworks.

You can explore the program here:
WAFA Assistance Animal Ambassadors and Allies Course

By building awareness and capability across communities, programs like this help create the cultural foundation that legal positive duties rely on to be effective in practice.

Why a Human Rights Act strengthens this further

A federal Human Rights Act could embed disability rights — including assistance animal access — into decision-making at the highest level by:

• requiring public authorities to consider accessibility before acting
• embedding inclusion into policy design
• strengthening accountability for systemic exclusion
• supporting a shift from complaint-based enforcement to preventative governance

This would complement, not replace, existing anti-discrimination law — but it would significantly strengthen how rights are applied in real-world systems.

Final reflection

The current disability rights framework in Australia still relies heavily on individuals experiencing harm and then seeking redress. For assistance animal handlers, this often means repeated exposure to access barriers, confusion, and preventable discrimination.

A stronger Human Rights Act — combined with a clear positive duty for assistance animal access — would help move Australia toward a system where inclusion is not optional or situational, but expected and embedded.

And importantly, where access is not something individuals must constantly fight for — but something systems are required to get right in the first place.