This year’s backflip by the Australian government, reversing its decision to exclude LGBTQIA+ questions from the 2026 census, has sparked an important conversation about data justice and the visibility of marginalised communities in our increasingly automated world. The decision, which now includes a new topic on gender identity and sexual orientation, came after a backlash from LGBTQIA+ advocates and public figures, including the Sex Discrimination Commissioner.

This change reflects growing awareness of the significance of data in shaping not only policy but also the lives of LGBTQIA+ individuals who have been historically sidelined in such decision-making processes. In the context of educational research, the inclusion of LGBTQIA+ questions in the 2026 census marks a pivotal moment for Australia’s research community.

By addressing historical gaps in data collection that have excluded LGBTQIA+ individuals, this move creates new opportunities for researchers to better understand and support these communities. Educational research, which often draws heavily on census data to inform everything from policy development to classroom practices, has previously lacked the insights needed to address the specific challenges and needs of LGBTQIA+ students. The inclusion of these questions in the census is a critical step toward ensuring that educational research accurately reflects the diversity of the population it serves.

The Fight for Visibility

In August 2024, the Albanese government initially scrapped plans to include questions about gender identity and sexual orientation in the upcoming 2026 census. As highlighted in an article we wrote titled “Missing in Action: Queer(y)ing the Educational Implications of Data Justice in an Age of Automation,” the absence of LGBTQIA+ data has deep ramifications in the era of algorithmic governance and automation.

This exclusion perpetuates inequalities and reinforces the invisibility of these communities in public discourse and policy. Data justice—the concept of ensuring that all students are fairly represented and treated in data systems—is crucial for promoting equity and inclusion in a digital age. By omitting LGBTQIA+ data, systems built around these datasets risk further marginalizing those who are already underrepresented in society. 

Socio-Technical Imaginaries and the Automation Debate

The absence of LGBTQIA+ data isn’t just an issue of oversight—it’s part of a larger problem regarding the way marginalized communities are treated within automated systems of governance. And it has implications for our students. The exclusion of LGBTQIA+ identities from the 2021 census, and almost from the 2026 census, is a prime example of how governance systems rooted in heteronormativity reinforce existing social hierarchies through automation and data collection into our schools.

Automation, whether in government systems or educational technologies, relies heavily on data. However, when data about LGBTQIA+ individuals is missing or misrepresented, automated systems can perpetuate harmful biases. Biases can become embedded in decision-making processes, including mental health assessments and social services algorithms, leading to potentially unfair outcomes for LGBTQIA+ students. The decision to restore LGBTQIA+ questions to the 2026 census is therefore a significant step toward addressing these issues, as it will provide a clearer picture of the community’s needs and ensure that students are not excluded from supports in the digital age.

Reflecting on Data as a Form of Power

The recent census controversy illustrates a broader point made by us about the relationship between data, power, and representation. Data is not just a neutral tool for making decisions—it carries with it the potential to either reinforce or challenge existing power structures. In the case of LGBTQIA+ individuals, the exclusion from census data is a clear manifestation of their marginalization in broader societal narratives.

The decision shocked many in the LGBTQIA+ community, as well as advocates who had been working closely with the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) to ensure that the census would reflect the diversity of Australia’s population. The Sex Discrimination Commissioner expressed concerns about the “long-lasting” impact of excluding these questions, warning that such a move would make it impossible to create effective policies for the LGBTQIA+ community. The backlash was swift, and just weeks later, the government reversed its decision, confirming that questions on gender identity and sexual orientation would now be included in the census.

As highlighted in The Guardian’s article on the government’s reversal, Treasurer Jim Chalmers stated, “LGBTIQ+ Australians matter. They have been heard, and they will count in the 2026 census.” This statement underscores the political importance of being counted in official data. For LGBTQIA+ communities, visibility in the census is about more than just numbers—it’s about asserting their right to be recognized and accounted for in national decision-making processes.

Data Justice and Automated Governance

The inclusion of LGBTQIA+ questions in the census marks a victory for data justice, a concept we argue should be at the centre of any discussion about automation and governance. Automated systems increasingly govern many aspects of our lives, from social services to education to healthcare. If these systems rely on incomplete or biased data, they risk perpetuating the inequalities they are supposed to address.

For LGBTQIA+ individuals, who are often left out of traditional data collection methods, the inclusion in the census represents a critical step toward ensuring that their needs are considered in the design of these systems. The census data will inform policies on education, healthcare, housing, and more, and by including LGBTQIA+ individuals, it ensures that their voices are part of the national conversation.

However, as we point out, merely collecting data is not enough. It’s also essential to critically examine how that data is used, who controls it, and whose interests it serves. The inclusion of LGBTQIA+ questions in the census is just one part of a broader movement toward data justice, which seeks to empower marginalized communities by ensuring that they are fairly represented and treated in digital systems.

Looking Toward the Future

We hope that our article has, in some way, contributed to the decision to include LGBTQIA+ questions in the 2026 census. This is a crucial step for LGBTQIA+ visibility in Australia, marking a significant shift in how data will inform educational research and policy. The inclusion of gender identity and sexual orientation questions will equip researchers with the necessary data to better understand the unique challenges faced by LGBTQIA+ students, fostering more inclusive and equitable educational practices.

While this is a vital achievement, it’s just the beginning. As automation continues to shape education, we must remain vigilant to ensure that systems serve all students, not just those who fit traditional norms. As we’ve emphasized, data is a powerful tool, and in educational research, it must be harnessed to create more just, supportive, and equitable environments for all learners.

Mark Vicars is an associate professor in the College of Arts and Education at Victoria University Melbourne, Australia. Mark’s philosophy of praxis as a scholar and teacher is underpinned by principles. He has been awarded the Australian Learning and Teaching Council Citation for pedagogical approaches that motivate, inspire and support socially disadvantaged and culturally diverse students to overcome barriers to learning and to experience success. 

Janine Arantes is a senior lecturer and research fellow at Victoria University in Melbourne, Australia. Her research focuses on digital learning and leadership, education policy, and the rights of teachers in the workplace. With over 20 years of experience in education, she has contributed significantly to the field through her roles as a classroom teacher, course leadership, Director roles, and educational researcher.