2 September 2024

Only one LGBTIQ+ question in next census won't cut it, says CPSU

| Chris Johnson
Join the conversation
25
Maddy Northam

CPSU ACT regional secretary Maddy Northam says adding only one question on gender identity in the next census isn’t good enough. Photo: Region.

The ACT branch of the public service union is leading the call for the Federal Government to clear up confusion over the 2026 Census and ensure all members of the LGBTIQA+ community are counted in it.

Following a week of heated debate about whether questions on sexuality would be included in the next census, it appears Labor is still sorting out its position.

After first saying new questions and topics would not be included in the 2026 survey of the Australian population, the government revealed that one question is, in fact, now being tested by the Australian Bureau of Statistics.

While Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has said there might be a sexual orientation question included, the Community and Public Sector Union says adding just one question about LGBTIQ+ is not good enough.

CPSU ACT regional secretary Maddy Northam said while the union is pleased to see the government admit the initial decision to exclude Australia’s LGBTIQ+ community from the census was wrong, adding just one question to the census on sexuality is a half-baked response.

“Excluding the LGBTIQ+ community from the census was a mistake made by this government, and the CPSU is pleased to see them admitting that,” said Ms Northam, who is also CPSU Queer Network co-convenor.

“It is now crucial that the government follows through by expanding the scope of questions to make sure all LGBTIQ+ Australians are counted.

“It is essential to survey and get a snapshot of the entire LGBTIQ+ community in the census because this data is vital for shaping effective and equitable public policy and services.”

READ ALSO PM backs down over LGBTIQA+ being part of next census

The union insists it is necessary to collect data on the entire LGBTIQ+ community so the government and the public service can deliver appropriate and effective services for all Australians.

It says the work of the ABS and the data it collects is vital in supporting informed decision-making, guiding resource allocation and service provision, and monitoring and evaluating the impacts of policies and initiatives.

“The ABS apologised in 2021 for excluding questions on gender identity and sexuality and acknowledged the hurt and distress it caused,” Ms Northam said.

“They then established an LGBTIQ expert advisory committee to help frame additional census questions. The responsibility for supporting this good work now lies firmly with the government.

“The CPSU is calling on the Albanese Labor Government to now accept the proposed test questions provided by the ABS in full.”

Speaking on Saturday (31 August), however, the Prime Minister tried to calm the debate, suggesting there was nothing to see here.

“Nothing has changed. We are consistent about having a common sense approach to these issues,” Mr Albanese said.

“We want to make sure that everyone is valued, regardless of their gender, their race, their faith, their sexual orientation.

“We value every Australian, and we’ll work with the ABS. This is a census in 2026. It is two years away, and we’ll work with the ABS.

“But I think that common sense would see that asking about sexual orientation is a common sense thing to do.”

READ ALSO CPSU reform group attacks Labor over CFMEU administration

The PM denied he was limiting the scope of the census to only one question around sexuality and identity.

“There’s a range of other questions, including there’s already an identity question in the census,” he said.

“The ABS will work these things through.”

Speaking again on Sunday, the PM added: “There is already an identity-type question asked in the census last time, so that’s already there. I think as well, there should be something about sexual orientation as well to be included, but we’ll work those issues through.”

Social Services Minister Amanda Rishworth added on Sunday that questions had been initially omitted from the next census because they were “very complex”.

“We want people to complete the census and we want simple questions that people can understand and answer, that’s really important,” she told Sky News.

“The census isn’t for another two years, and I think we’ve got plenty of time to make sure that we get the questions right.”

Deputy Prime Minister Richard Marles said last week, however, the reason for excluding the questions was to avoid socially divisive debates.

Liberal senator Andrew Bragg told the ABC’s Insiders program that the government didn’t seem to know what it was doing about including or excluding gender identity questions in the census.

“I think the fact that the Prime Minister has tied himself in knots on this issue shows a great weakness in his own leadership,” Senator Bragg said.

“I mean, the Labor Party promised this at the last election. So I’m not surprised that the LBGT lobby is very disappointed and feels let down.”

Join the conversation

25
All Comments
  • All Comments
  • Website Comments
LatestOldest

Two years is not a “lot of time” for a process that for the 2026 Census started before the last Census. The tests and later dress rehearsals would have been long ago.

It seems Labor under Albanese is treading the same path as the Liberals when they were in government, undermining the ABS by starving it of funding! A party who promised to do better should they win government!

The ABS website is abysmal in trying to find information and the number of surveys which are outdated or have been discontinued is alarming!

How disappointing this Labor government has been!

David Watson1:51 pm 02 Sep 24

The snow ball keeps rolling – next it will be a privileged voice in parliament . Yes/No

Yup. It happens repeatedly: The more you give people for free, the more they’ll demand more. You never get to a point where they’ll go “thanks, that’s good enough”.
The only way to get there is to go “no we’re not giving you any more.”

first, LGBT people said they just wanted to be allowed to marry.
Now they want to be in the census.
And there are other examples I could use, too.
I wonder, then, if they already know that they want even more out of society but aren’t being completely open and honest about that.
Whatever the case, it’s interesting to note, I think, that for people whose main argument used to be ‘what happens in my bedroom is none of your business’, now very much want to make to it everyone’s business.
Clearly and indisputably, there are some inconsistencies about this movement, and anyone who’s curious will ask questions

@Vasily M
So, when LGBT people were given the right to marry, did your worls come falling down around?

Similarly, if the gender question in the Census includes more than the binary (male/female) option, will it change the world as you know it? You do realise that nobody is suggesting that the “male” and “female” options be removed as a choice, don’t you?

Once that minority started pushing their gender theory etc into Primary and preschools then that becomes something altogether different from gay marriage doesn’t it? So that minority are in fact trying to change Australia fundamentally and that’s a step too far not just for me but many, many Australians.

@Rob
I’m sorry you are so afraid of learning that not everyone comfortably fits into the standard ‘male’/’female’ pigeonhole.

Nevertheless, you are entitled to your opinion. However, given the results of the ‘Same Sex Marriage’ plebiscite, I wouldn’t necessarily agree that your “many, many Australians” are in the majority.

The census is supposed to be gathering facts, JS, not make believe.

@Ken M
Funny to hear you of all people talking about facts.

Nevertheless, that’s exactly what the census is doing – gathering factual information from individual Australians about their biodata and circumstances. That some Australians do not choose to conform to your ‘norm’ is an issue for you, not them.

Well, I’m not too mad Ken, it’s data and data is neutral.
There’s an assumption that the current meta will prevail, but to contrast how data doesn’t have its own agenda – 1930s Germany would have loved to have this kind of dataset too.

Could be useful having a long baseline in future, if there’s any interesting trends to be found.

All that said, I’ll still be identifying as an attack helicopter if there’s a gender bs question in it.

We have had same sex marriage for several years. I note that the sky has remained firmly where it is. It has not fallen. Any predictions of fire and brimstone have not come to pass.

At the end of the day, whether you like it or not, LGBTIQA+ people make up a sizable part of the population. They make worthwhile contributions to society just as much as any other group. Having a few relevant and appropriate questions will not cause the sky to fall, just as it did not fall when same sex marriage happened.

If you have an issue with a significant part of the population being appropriately included in the census, then perhaps it is you that needs to have some open and honest questions asked of you and your own prejudices. “Because Vasily doesn’t like it” is not a valid reason to exclude a significant population group from the census.

Exactly Ken. And who cares about data whether you like the same sex or not.

Might be a good idea, Tk. Same methodology as getting “Jedi” as a recognised religion a census or two back to show how ridiculous the whole thing is.

Bennett Bennett5:23 pm 02 Sep 24

What ‘biodata’? Biological data? Factual biological data?

No, dogwomble, the sky didn’t fall, but it has made them feel comfortable to admit they are coming for children, and for perverts to defend such things.

https://nypost.com/2023/06/28/lgbtq-activists-defend-were-coming-for-your-children-chant/

“significant part of the population being appropriately included in the census,”. Let me start by saying that I don’t have a dog in the fight, but this is a strange statement. You say it as if this part of the population don’t get to do the census at all, but they do so they are included in that their answers to all the other questions are counted. Also by that logic, since there is no question asking ‘are you straight?’, then you would have to conclude that straight people ‘aren’t included’ either.

Lol the New York Post, such a beacon of journalistic rigour and truth…. said no one ever.

Its almost like you didn’t even read beyond the headline – because it really doesn’t support your argument one little bit.

BSC your comment about my statement being strange is in fact strange itself.

This is not about the LGBTIQA+ community “not doing the census at all”. This is about them having questions that capture data about them. These are two very different things. The fact you thought my comment was about the former suggests you didn’t take the time to read, or comprehend, anything I wrote because I never suggested that was the case. My comment about them being included was directly related to capturing appropriate information about that demographic, as we do for many other demographics, is a perfectly reasonable endeavour and doing so will not make the sky fall in.

Please try and pay attention next time 🙂

@Bennett Bennett
“Biological data?”
Errr no. As per the Oxford languages definition –
“biodata: noun, details of a person’s life, education, and career; biographical details.”

Your welcome.

Oh, JS9, but it does. They do chant those things, and other weirdos support them saying it. The claim they made there of “Oh it’s just words” is BS, because when I say “just words” about them it’s suddenly not ok.

Typical for a whine about the source to gappen though. Would you be happier with a link to the guardian on the sane subject? LOL

Fair enough dogwomble. After having a re read I see why I misunderstood what you were trying to convey. I do stand by my second point, which I explained rather poorly which is that there are countless ‘groups’ that any one person could fit into but a line must be drawn somewhere. We could keep adding more questions every time there is another census but at some point we would have too many to be practical so there needs to be a good, specific argument for including any one question over another. I haven’t seen such an argument for this one… yet. It’s all a bit vague.

There needs to be clear definitions on the Census explaining what each of these different sexualities mean. To this day nobody knows what some of the letters are let alone the “+” symbol represents. Something only created in the 21st century by God knows who! Without rigorous definitions responses are meaningless!

@Sam Oak
Why? Do you need “rigorous definitions” to be able to answer “male”?

Like “religious denomination”, it’s a statistical classification. Nobody is going to be asked to prove that they are actually the “gender” they specify in the answer.

What are the exact test questions proposed by the ABS, they’re not included here or in the story last week?

Daily Digest

Want the best Canberra news delivered daily? Every day we package the most popular Riotact stories and send them straight to your inbox. Sign-up now for trusted local news that will never be behind a paywall.

By submitting your email address you are agreeing to Region Group's terms and conditions and privacy policy.