Should we care if nosy data wonks ask about our sexuality?

Do you want the government to ask about your sexuality? What about your gender identity? Or whether your genitalia varies from the norm? These were all census questions which were considered by the Australian Bureau of Statistics for the 2026 census, but which were (initially) rejected last week for inclusion by the Albanese government.

Defending the government’s abandonment of the questions, Deputy Prime Minister Richard Marles offered the rather weak excuse that “we’ve seen how divisive debates have played out across our country” and said “the last thing we want to do is inflict that debate on a sector of our community right now”.

Who counts? And who’ll be counted? The 2024 Sydney Mardi Gras. Credit: Flavio Brancaleone

Guess what? We got a divisive debate. Opposition Leader Peter Dutton said the questions shouldn’t be included and that they represented a “woke agenda”. There was robust criticism of the government from the LGBTQI+ community and many of Labor’s own MPs, and then the prime minister relented.

Anthony Albanese said on Friday that one new question about sexual orientation would be included in the 2026 census, provided ABS testing of the question was successful. Other potential questions about trans and intersex identity would not be included.

The background to the issue is that many in the LGBTIQ+ community said the failure in the 2021 census to specifically ask about their sexuality, gender identity, trans/intersex identity, and correct family make-up made them feel “invisible”. Labor appeared to agree. Its 2023 National Platform included a commitment to “include LGBTIQ+ Australians in the consultation and planning process for the 2026 Census” and to “ensure that the 2026 Census gathers relevant data on LGBTIQ+ Australians”.

A long and presumably costly two-phase ABS consultation process commenced, and then this week the government made its captain’s call, and then backed down from its first captain’s call to make a different captain’s call.

It’s a shame there was no sensible public debate about the census changes because there are sensible views on both sides.

Census data is anonymised, of course, but there absolutely would be Australians who would object to the government inquiring into a subject considered private in a way that income or marital status is not. Likewise, a question asking about your gender (the options now are female, male and non-binary), with a follow-up question about your biological sex at birth, might be offensive to some.

Others might not like being asked to nominate as “Parent 1” and “Parent 2″ instead of “Mother” and “Father”. The biological experience of motherhood is sacred to many women, and they want it recognised in language.

There would also be trans and intersex people who don’t want to disclose their anatomy on an ABS form, and many Australians might not want to out themselves as LGBTIQ+ to the bureaucracy. Or they might fear the consequences of disclosing their sexuality to their household (census forms are given to a household, for one person to fill out on behalf of the household, although they can be done individually online).

“Coming out” on the census form might be especially risky for some people from conservative religious communities or anyone living in a non-LGBTIQ+ friendly household. If you’re a young person, you might not even be sure of your sexuality yet, and people who have migrated from authoritarian countries may feel they are risking exposure if they tick a box identifying themselves as a potentially persecute-able minority.

Many of these are questions for data collectors, the expert ABS statisticians who weigh up whether the data is useful to harvest, and whether it will be corrupted by people who (for valid reasons) don’t tell the truth on their form.

Any new sex/gender identity questions were to be optional, and activists argue that some information about this cohort is better than none.

But ultimately, it is for the government to decide whether or not it wants to fund new census questions, and there are valid reasons why it may not want to include inquiries about gender identity and biological sex. Every new census question costs taxpayer money, to compile and properly analyse the information. Nosy data-wonks no doubt have a long list of questions they would like to include to shore up their stat-banks. Every new line of inquiry has to balance usefulness against cost.

But if there are valid reasons to exclude potential new questions, the government should communicate clearly those reasons and argue the case transparently with the public. Instead, it unfairly raised the hopes of the LGBTQI+ community and began a process to include them, only to abandon the process without explanation beyond the vague accusation that the very mention of this stuff would cause social disruption.

Most Australians are averse to politically correct cant and there is genuine community anxiety where the rights of trans people intersect with the rights of biologically born women. Those clashes are not going away on their own. They must be resolved with civility and sensitivity – we saw the very opposite of that happen with the global humiliation of the Algerian boxer Imane Khelif at the Olympics.

But to lay the blame for those conflicts at the feet of LGBTIQ+ people, and to imply that even talking about them is creating social division, is regressive. One person’s “woke agenda” is another person’s idea of inclusion, and it’s a debate that needs to be had respectfully.

The prospect of social division was also the reason given by the Albanese government for abandoning its pledge to resolve the issue of the legal exception faith organisations currently have from discrimination legislation.

There is little point in lamenting the social division and economic dislocation of our time from the position of government. The political weather is unlikely to change any time soon. It’s a government’s job to face it, and to lead a way through it.

Jacqueline Maley is a senior writer and regular columnist.