A Tasmanian magistrate will soon decide whether a local supermarket unlawfully discriminated by denying entry to a woman accompanied by an alpaca.
In December 2023, Abbygail-Nigella Borst and Desmond Gaull filed a complaint with Tasmania’s Office of the Anti-Discrimination Commissioner. They allege they were asked to leave the Orford IGA Everyday supermarket after entering with Violet, an alpaca that Ms Borst uses for support.
Supermarket staff reportedly refused access on the basis that Violet was livestock and therefore not permitted inside the premises.
Violet is no ordinary alpaca. She has become a recognisable figure across Tasmania, often seen in public places including supermarkets, RSL clubs, cruise boats, and even Hobart Airport. Her public appearances have attracted attention online, and she has been filmed navigating airport security and baggage areas.
The couple behind the complaint live on a 50-acre farm and work with alpacas as part of therapeutic training. They maintain that Violet is a support animal trained to help manage the effects of post-traumatic stress disorder. According to them, Violet provides more effective support than any conventional assistance dog.
The legal situation is complicated by Tasmania’s unique position within Australia. It is currently the only state or territory without legislation clearly defining what qualifies as an assistance animal. Under existing Tasmanian law, only seeing-eye and hearing dogs are officially recognised.
This legal gap presents challenges for individuals who rely on other types of trained support animals. While alpacas are not typically recognised under state law, the couple argues that Violet performs essential functions that improve quality of life and enable participation in everyday public life.
Under federal law, specifically the Disability Discrimination Act 1992, assistance animals are defined as those trained to perform specific tasks that support a person with a disability. These animals are granted access to public spaces and services under this national legislation.
However, not all animals qualify. Emotional support animals and companion animals, while helpful in many circumstances, do not meet the legal criteria for assistance animals under the Act and are treated as pets rather than working animals.
This case has sparked broader conversation about the adequacy of existing laws, particularly in Tasmania. The outcome could prompt legislative reform to expand the state’s definition of assistance animals and offer better protection for individuals using unconventional support animals.
The decision from the magistrate will determine whether the supermarket’s actions constituted discrimination, potentially setting a legal precedent for how alternative assistance animals are treated in the state.
As more people seek support from non-traditional animals for various mental and physical health needs, legal frameworks may need to evolve. For now, Tasmania remains behind other Australian jurisdictions in formally recognising the role of assistance animals beyond dogs.
The case underscores the ongoing debate over how disability support is defined and delivered, and whether the law is keeping pace with changing therapeutic approaches.
For the latest retailer news and information, check out the IndiHub website or to speak to us about how we can help your business contact us.
