Key Points
- The government has stepped back from a commitment to include several Census questions about the LGBTIQ+ community.
- It said it hoped to avoid a “divisive” debate that would be “weaponised”.
- Experts urge reversing the decision, as the visibility of these communities is crucial for long-term planning.
Two Labor MPs have broken ranks with their party and called on the federal government to count LGBTIQ+ Australians in the next Census.
Victorian backbencher Josh Burns said on Thursday afternoon that he had made “representations inside government” after Labor on Sunday walked back a pledge — contained in its 2023 national platform — to count the queer community in the 2026 Census.
And a few hours later, the government’s social cohesion envoy Peter Khalil said he had been doing the same.
Deputy prime minister Richard Marles and Treasurer Jim Chalmers have said the changes would have led to a “nasty” and “divisive” debate, with Chalmers warning the issue could be “weaponised against members of [the] community”.
Khalil, the MP for the Victorian seat of Wills, said he had “heard the hurt and pain” from the LGBTIQ+ community in his electorate following the decision, saying they “simply want to be counted amongst the rest of our population”.
“I also completely understand the rationale behind not wanting to subject any community to divisive culture wars. There are bad actors who can’t help themselves and are always looking for ways to divide our nation.
“But on balance, I personally believe that questions regarding sexuality and gender identity should be included on the 2026 Census, as an important evidence base for policy development.”
Khalil’s remarks echoed those of Burns, who said it was important for the federal government to “show strength … and courage”.
“I think that the Census … is a really important tool to be able to gather data; to be able to gather information that feeds into the delivery of government services to hopefully get better health outcomes,” Burns told ABC television on Thursday.
He said the LGBTIQ+ community “deserves to be included” and the government needed to consider its decision.
Burns also over its decision to back a non-binding United Nations General Assembly resolution that recommended the Security Council “favourably” reconsider Palestinians gaining full membership.
The backflip and lack of data supporting the Census decision have prompted a swift backlash from advocates, LGBTIQ+ groups and experts alike. Along with crossbenchers, they are urging the government to reconsider its decision.
Among the critics was Sex Discrimination Commissioner Anna Cody.
The Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS), which runs the Census, “cannot treat one group in our community less favourably in providing goods and services”, she said.
“So it is opening itself up to an unlawful discrimination complaint,” she said.
But Opposition leader Peter Dutton welcomed the government’s rejection of what he labelled a “woke agenda”.
“I think the set of questions that we’ve got at the moment, the long-term way in which we’ve collected this data, has stood us well as a country,” Dutton said.
But Liberal MP Bridget Archer disagreed with Dutton, describing the decision to scrap the questions from the 2026 census as “frustrating”.
“The questions should be included. They said they would be included. It really should be a non-issue.”
Archer also disagreed with Dutton’s characterisation of the questions as being part of a “woke agenda”.
“It’s just information,” she said. “If you don’t collect that information, then you can’t use it.”
How are LGBTIQ+ Australians reflected in the Census?
In 2016, for the first time since 1911, the online version of the Census offered a sex other than male or female, with the option of ‘other’.
Then in 2021, the Census allowed all respondents to select from male, female and non-binary sex. It did not have a question on gender or variations in sex characteristics.
Morgan Carpenter, executive director of Intersex Human Rights Australia, said these changes were ultimately “harmful” to the community and did not produce useful results.
“It takes four questions to get the information in a way that is respectful, meaningful, unambiguous, scientific, and evidence-based,” he told SBS News, referring to the ABS’s 2020 standard for Sex, Gender, Variations of Sex Characteristics and Sexual Orientation Variables.
A copy of the 2021 Census question that asked people to identify as male, female or non-binary sex. Source: SBS News / Australian Bureau of Statistics
Experts told SBS News that the Census has struggled to keep up with modern Australia.
A fact that ABS acknowledged when it issued a rare statement of regret following with the Human Rights Commission after the 2021 Census.
“The ABS is aware that for some respondents, the absence of questions on their gender identity, variations of sex characteristics or sexual orientation meant that they felt invisible and excluded when completing the Census and in the Census results produced,” it read.
It recognised the “hurt, stress, anguish and other negative reactions” to some Census questions.
As a result, the ABS committed to reviewing its questions for 2026, establishing a LGBTIQ+ Expert Advisory Committee and recommended the government include a series of questions to identify the LGBTIQ+ community.
The addition of questions is subject to approval by the government and put to parliament ahead of the Census.
Why is inclusion in the Census important?
Demographer Dr Liz Allen from the ANU Centre for Social Research and Methods said the Census “is a family photograph of Australia” that gathers information about our needs.
“Census provides vital information to inform service provision, government allocation, and of course to indicate where needs are present for local areas to provide supports and community level programs,” she said.
“We know from sample surveys a slice of Australia’s population for people who are not heterosexual, social and health disparities are enormous.
“Census allows us to not only identify needs, but it sends a clear signal that this community matters, that people who do not fit that heteronormative expectation are seen.”
Carpenter said asking the questions in a respectful way would not only minimise harm but would provide never collected data “about population, health outcomes, employment outcomes, needs and circumstances”.
What has been the reaction to the changes?
Equality Australia CEO Anna Brown said the community “deserved to be counted” or the government was running “blind when it comes to making decisions about programs and funding”.
“Today, the deputy prime minister has said asking questions about whether we exist would be divisive. We reject that outright the idea that our existence and counting who we are is a threat to social cohesion is absurd and deeply offensive,” she said.
Drag queen Shane Gilberto Jenek, better known under the stage name Courtney Act, argued that “visibility” was crucial to health outcomes across the community.
“It’s all about allocating resources and we know that LGBT Australians suffer poor mental health at the right as our heterosexual counterparts and that is largely due to stigma and discrimination like witnessing right now from the Australian Labor Party,” he said.
Allen expressed frustration that after in-depth community consultation and thousands of submissions, the federal government was stepping away from the “most reflective Census in Australia’s history”, labelling it the “death of the Census”.
“This government has come in and interfered in what is a thoroughly independent process out of fear of creating or stoking division. In my mind, that is an utterly inadequate explanation,” she said.
Independent member for Wentworth Allegra Spender has criticised the federal government over the decision. Source: AAP / Bianca De Marchi
Independent MP Allegra Spender said excluding LGBTIQ+ Australians from the next Census “made no sense” and has written to Prime Minister Anthony Albanese to reverse the decision.
“[We are] deeply disappointed by the government’s recent announcement that it will not include these questions. No clear justification has been provided for this so far,” she said, with ten other crossbench MPs signing the letter.
“Excluding LGBTIQA+ people and ignoring the evidence that demonstrates the need for this data will impact negatively on people’s lives for many years to come.”
