LGBTQIA+

LGBTQIA+ Data and the 2026 Census: A Victory for Inclusion in the Age of Automation

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.

How to say gay: what should happen in Australia

The recent resurgence in anti-LGBTQIA+ sentiment promoted by far-right conservatism poses a threat to the safety and mental health of LGBTQIA+ people, and particularly LGBTQIA+ students. LGBTQIA+ rights and visibility have improved substantially in many nations around the globe since the 1990s but there is now a backlash.

And our research shows, young LGBTQIA+ people are at significantly greater risk of absenteeism from school because they feel unsafe in their educational environment, in part due to a lack of visibility and gender-affirming actions.

The most stark example of this concerted effort to push LGBTQIA+ identities back into the closet and out of public discourse is Florida’s ‘Don’t Say Gay’ laws, which restrict the teaching of gender and sexuality in Florida schools. 

This was later compounded by the Stop the Wrongs to our Kids and Employees (W.O.K.E) Act, which allows parents to oppose the inclusion of books in school libraries and curricula. 

So far, just 11 parents have been responsible for more than 600 of the 1000+ complaints about books in the 2021/22 school year, many on the basis of references to gender and sexuality. This far-right conservatism also underpinned the repeal of Roe v Wade,restricting everyone from accessing reproductive health care and impacting their bodily autonomy.

Think it can’t happen in Australia?

Anti-trans activist Posey Parker found an audience for her ideas in her visit to Melbourne, with neo-Nazis present in support. The closure of the Safe Schools program, which offered LGBTQIA+ gender and sexuality education is another example of the general reduction in support for LGBTQIA+ inclusion in schools. The legislative landscape in Australia has not suffered the same reversals as the United States, with anti-discrimination legislation at both a state and federal level offering protection.

This finds its way into schools through state government requirements that schools provide a safe and inclusive learning environment. Our recent research reveals this is not consistently enacted in school policy. As we said earlier, our research shows  LGBTQIA+ students are at significantly greater risk of absenteeism from school.In our findings, the disconnect between policy and practice was clear. In 2021, the Queensland Department of Education developed the Diversity Policy to reflect legislation to support, affirm and protect LGBTIQA+ students. 

But when we looked at one Queensland school region during our research, only four out of thirty-six state secondary schools had an LGBTQIA+ specific inclusion policy that was publicly available to LGBTQIA+ students and their families. 

What we found in Australia

And if you were looking to the Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority (ACARA) for LGBTQIA+ voice and representation, it’s clear LGBTIQA+ people and their experiences are invisible in statements regarding diversity and in the Australian Curriculum itself. 

On a separate site, intended to enhance the Australian Health and Physical Education Curriculum, schools are encouraged to use the materials from the Queensland Government’s Respectful Relationships Hub. Here, students may have one lesson during years P-12 on the human rights of all diverse peoples, with LGBTIQA+ people briefly mentioned, in Year 11. Just one lesson in 13 years. Just one.

Our research showed the devasting impact upon mental health, wellbeing, and longitudinal outcomes for LGBTIQA+ people when not supported through policy, inclusion, visibility and representation in schools. The Writing Themselves In surveys conducted by La Trobe University, spanning from 1998 to 2021 consistently demonstrate most LGBTQIA+ youth experience discrimination, lack of affirmation and feelings of unsafety while at secondary school.

Our scoping review of literature regarding the experiences of LGBTIQA+ youth in Australia identified six ways to include, affirm and protect LGBTIQA+ students in schools. We also found the literature  unanimously showed the benefit of LGBTQIA+ specific inclusion and anti-bullying policies and LGBTQIA+ representation in the curriculum. But Queensland school policy does not consistently include LGBTQIA+ students, and some actively stymie gender-expression through restrictive uniform policy. 

Include, affirm, protect

The six key themes identified in inclusive school environments were: 

  • schools having LGBTIQA+ specific inclusion policies 
  •  LGBTIQA+ specific anti-bullying and harassment policies
  •  an inclusive curriculum that acknowledges and affirms LGBTQIA+ identities and relationships in both general and sex education classes.  
  • Beyond policy, the creation of affirming school structures such as choice in uniform and toileting facilities,
  •  The creation of LGBTQIA+ groups and spaces
  •  staff professional development to further support these school structures were also identified as strong supports for LGBTQIA+ youth. 

In much of the literature reviewed, there was an overarching finding – that a combination of these strategies could be adopted to develop a whole of school approach to LGBTQIA+ inclusion.As our research and the findings of others suggest, there is work still to be done to ensure the physical and psychological safety of LGBTQIA+ young people in schools. Through a combination of policy reform, changes to school structures and the development of a more representative curriculum, schools can achieve meaningful change. For the benefit of LGBTQIA+ people the disconnection between Australian law, Australian school policy and individual schools’ application of these laws and policies must be amended.

Kahlia Seeley is a Guidance Officer with the Department of Education, Queensland. She holds a Masters in Education from University of Southern Queensland, Australia. Her interest in research, policy and practice is in the areas of wellbeing, inclusion and behaviour support for young people. You can find her on Instagram or on LinkedIn

Alison Bedford is a senior lecturer in history curriculum and pedagogy. She provides supervision to students undertaking systematic and scoping literature reviews and is interested in the methods of discourse analysis in her own work. You can find her on LinkedIn and Threads.