When a Magician Can Have a Rabbit but a Person With Disability Cannot: Rethinking Queensland’s Approach to Assistance Rabbits

Queensland has some of the strictest rabbit regulations in Australia, and there are important reasons for this approach.

The European rabbit (Oryctolagus cuniculus) is recognised as a significant invasive species that has caused substantial environmental and agricultural damage across Australia. Rabbits contribute to land degradation, compete with native species, damage vegetation, and create ongoing challenges for conservation and agricultural management (Queensland Government Department of Agriculture and Fisheries, n.d.).

Protecting Australia’s unique environment from invasive species is a legitimate and necessary responsibility.

However, effective regulation requires more than identifying a species as a potential risk. Good regulatory systems consider context, purpose, containment, management practices, and the individual circumstances of each situation.

Currently, Queensland legislation provides limited pathways for rabbits to be kept for approved purposes, including certain regulated exhibition and entertainment activities. However, there is no equivalent pathway specifically recognising an assistance rabbit supporting a person with disability.

This creates a significant policy gap.

A person may potentially obtain approval for a rabbit used in a regulated entertainment context, such as a magic act, yet a person with disability may have no pathway to bring their trained assistance rabbit into Queensland to support their daily life.

This raises an important question:

Why does the regulatory system recognise some controlled uses of rabbits, but not a pathway for a carefully assessed assistance animal supporting a person with disability?

Assistance animals are not ordinary companion animals

WAFA supports strong biosecurity protections and recognises the importance of preventing environmental harm.

However, regulation should distinguish between different circumstances.

An unmanaged rabbit population presents a different risk profile from an appropriately managed assistance animal.

Assistance animals operate within a framework of:

• individual suitability assessment;
• behavioural evaluation;
• health management;
• responsible ownership;
• training and ongoing support;
• welfare monitoring.

International animal-assisted intervention guidelines emphasise that responsible animal involvement requires consideration of animal welfare, suitability, training, and appropriate management practices (International Association of Human-Animal Interaction Organizations [IAHAIO], 2018).

The relevant question should not simply be:

“What species is this animal?”

The question should be:

“What is the individual animal’s role, training, management, and level of risk?”

Australian disability law focuses on function, not species

The Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Cth) provides the primary legal framework for assistance animals in Australia.

Section 9(2) defines an assistance animal based on its purpose and function:

an animal trained to assist a person with disability to alleviate the effect of the person’s disability.

The legislation focuses on what the animal does for the person rather than restricting recognition to a particular species (Australian Government, 1992).

Dogs remain the most common assistance animal species due to their long history of domestication, trainability, and suitability for many working roles.

However, Australian disability legislation does not define assistance animals solely as dogs.

This distinction is important.

Where an animal has been appropriately assessed, trained, and managed as a disability support, policy decisions should consider the individual circumstances rather than relying solely on assumptions about species.

Human–animal relationships and disability support

A growing body of research demonstrates that human–animal interactions can contribute to wellbeing, emotional regulation, social connection, and stress reduction when appropriately implemented (Beetz et al., 2012).

The broader animal-assisted intervention literature recognises that successful outcomes depend on several factors, including:

• appropriate matching between the person and animal;
• realistic expectations;
• preparation and training;
• ongoing support;
• protection of animal welfare (Fine, 2019; Nimer & Lundahl, 2007).

This evidence does not suggest that every animal of every species is suitable for every assistance role.

Rather, it demonstrates that suitability is determined through assessment, preparation, and responsible management.

The focus should therefore be on evidence-based evaluation of individual animals and their circumstances.

The importance of recognising non-canine assistance animals

While dogs are the predominant assistance animal species, people with disability may form meaningful and beneficial partnerships with other appropriately selected animals.

Different animals may provide different forms of support depending on:

• the person’s disability-related needs;
• their environment;
• the animal’s temperament;
• the tasks required;
• welfare considerations.

A one-size-fits-all approach risks excluding people whose disability support needs are met through appropriately trained non-canine animals.

The question should not be whether a particular species is common.

The question should be whether the animal can safely and ethically fulfil its role while meeting appropriate welfare and regulatory standards.

A risk-based approach is possible

Queensland already demonstrates that rabbits can be managed under controlled circumstances through permit and regulatory systems.

Rather than creating a blanket exclusion, a specific pathway for assistance rabbits could apply appropriate safeguards.

A potential framework could include:

• evidence of genuine assistance animal status;
• assessment by an appropriately qualified professional;
• veterinary health certification;
• identification and registration requirements;
• desexing requirements where appropriate;
• secure containment standards;
• prohibition on breeding;
• ongoing owner responsibility.

Such a framework would not remove biosecurity protections.

It would apply them proportionately.

Risk-based regulation is not the absence of regulation.

It is regulation that recognises different levels of risk.

The impact on people with disability

The absence of a pathway for assistance rabbits can create significant barriers for people with disability.

A person may be required to:

• avoid travelling to Queensland;
• separate from their assistance animal;
• lose access to a support that contributes to independence and participation;
• navigate complex regulatory barriers without a clear process.

For many people with disability, an assistance animal is not simply a companion.

It may be an important support that assists with daily functioning, confidence, emotional regulation, routine, and community access.

Disability inclusion requires governments to consider how legislation affects people in real-world situations.

Could Commonwealth disability law override Queensland restrictions?

An important legal question is whether Commonwealth disability discrimination protections could apply where a Queensland law prevents a person from bringing an assistance animal into the state.

Under section 109 of the Australian Constitution, where a valid Commonwealth law and a state law are inconsistent, the Commonwealth law prevails to the extent of the inconsistency. This principle is known as Commonwealth “paramountcy” or inconsistency of laws.

The Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Cth) is a Commonwealth law that provides protections against discrimination on the basis of disability, including protections relating to assistance animals (Australian Government, 1992).

However, whether section 109 would apply in the context of an assistance rabbit would ultimately be a matter for judicial determination. A court would need to consider complex questions, including whether Queensland’s biosecurity legislation is inconsistent with Commonwealth disability discrimination protections, whether the state law creates unlawful discrimination, and whether any exemptions or legitimate public interest considerations apply.

The existence of a Commonwealth disability law does not automatically invalidate a state law. A person or organisation would generally need to challenge the issue through appropriate legal proceedings and ask a court to determine whether an inconsistency exists.

In practice, accessing such a legal pathway can be extremely difficult for many people with disability. Court proceedings can involve significant financial costs, lengthy timeframes, complex legal processes, and substantial emotional demands.

This creates a broader policy question: should individuals with disability be required to undertake expensive litigation simply to determine whether they can access a support that may be essential to their independence?

WAFA believes that proactive policy development is preferable to leaving these issues unresolved until they reach the courts. Clear, transparent, and evidence-based regulatory pathways would provide certainty for people with disability, regulators, and the community while avoiding unnecessary legal disputes.

Environmental protection and disability inclusion can coexist

WAFA recognises that invasive species management is essential.

Australia’s experience with introduced species demonstrates the importance of strong biosecurity systems.

However, environmental protection and disability inclusion are not competing goals.

A modern regulatory system can protect the environment while also recognising carefully managed assistance animals.

The issue is not whether rabbits require regulation.

They do.

The issue is whether every rabbit presents the same level of risk regardless of:

• purpose;
• training;
• containment;
• ownership responsibilities;
• regulatory oversight.

A call for evidence-based reform

WAFA calls for Queensland to consider developing a transparent, evidence-based pathway for genuine assistance rabbits and other non-canine assistance animals.

Any future framework should involve consultation with:

• people with disability;
• assistance animal organisations;
• animal behaviour professionals;
• veterinarians;
• biosecurity experts;
• environmental stakeholders.

Good policy protects both people and animals.

It recognises legitimate environmental concerns while ensuring disability supports are not excluded without consideration of individual circumstances.

Because when a regulatory system can recognise a rabbit assisting in entertainment but cannot provide a pathway for a rabbit assisting a person with disability, it is time to ask whether the balance between risk management and inclusion is being achieved.

References

Australian Government. (1992). Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Cth). Federal Register of Legislation. https://www.legislation.gov.au/C2004A04426/latest/text

Australian Human Rights Commission. (n.d.). Assistance animals. https://humanrights.gov.au

Beetz, A., Uvnäs-Moberg, K., Julius, H., & Kotrschal, K. (2012). Psychosocial and psychophysiological effects of human–animal interactions: The possible role of oxytocin. Frontiers in Psychology, 3, Article 234. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00234

Fine, A. H. (Ed.). (2019). Handbook on animal-assisted therapy: Foundations and guidelines for animal-assisted interventions (5th ed.). Academic Press.

International Association of Human-Animal Interaction Organizations. (2018). The IAHAIO definitions for animal assisted intervention and guidelines for wellness of animals involved in animal assisted intervention.

Nimer, J., & Lundahl, B. (2007). Animal-assisted therapy: A meta-analysis. Anthrozoös, 20(3), 225–238. https://doi.org/10.2752/089279307X224773

Queensland Government. (2014). Biosecurity Act 2014 (Qld). Queensland Legislation. https://www.legislation.qld.gov.au

Queensland Government Department of Agriculture and Fisheries. (n.d.). Rabbit. Queensland Government. https://www.business.qld.gov.au/industries/farms-fishing-forestry/agriculture/biosecurity/animals/invasive/restricted/rabbit