Australia's rainbow population rising after 'burst of acceptance'
Researchers at Charles Darwin University estimated Australia's LGBTQI population doubled between 2012 and 2020, increasing from 3.3 per cent to 5.8 per cent of adults over 15.
The data came from the HILDA longitudinal survey of 17,000 Australians with responses from participants who identified as lesbian, gay, bisexual or another sexual identity.
The data was collected in 2012, 2016 and 2020.
During this time period there was a "burst of acceptance" of sexual minorities in Australia, particularly after the 2017 same-sex marriage vote, lead researcher Fiona Shalley told AAP.
"Being a minority sexual identity and engaging in that used to be criminal, but Australia has come a long way," she said.
"There was also stigma and discrimination associated with being a sexual minority so a lot of people did not disclose their identity until more recently."
If the young adults who participated in the study maintained their sexual minority identities throughout their life, Australia's LGBTQI population could grow by about three percent each year.
By the time the next data is updated from 2024, the population size could be about 1.7 million people, Ms Shalley said.
"If you think about the sexual revolution of the 1960s and 70s, it was in response to changes in behaviours and social attitudes," she said.
"This boom in population could also be in response to changing attitudes around sexual behaviours."
While Australia's LGBTQI demographic has been a hidden group with little national data capturing the population, researchers hope to change that.
The Australian Bureau of Statistics in 2024 estimated 4.5 per cent - or about one in 20 - Australians aged 16 and over were LGBTI+, based on combined data from multiple household surveys.
A new category of sexual orientation and gender will be included in the 2026 census questions for the first time.
"We still don't know enough about (the LGBTQI demographic) to understand how the population will grow in the future, but we are certainly noticing them now," Ms Shalley said.
"The growing confidence of people identifying as LGB+ is likely influenced by the number of visible positive role models, social media attention, and in our storytelling."
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Scoop
7 hours ago
- Scoop
Proposed Changes To New Zealand Dawn Raid Laws Not Enough, Pacific Advocates Say
Pacific advocates in Aotearoa say a proposed law change for out-of-hours immigration visits - like dawn raids - doesn't go far enough. The contentious enforcement practice involves immigration officers searching homes for people they have reasonable grounds to believe are liable for deportation between 6pm and 8am. It has been criticised for targeting Pacific people, particularly in the wake of the dawn raids of the 1970s and 80s. In 2021, the then-government apologised for the Dawn Raids era. However, two years later, the plight of a Tongan man whose home was dawn raided while his children slept hit headlines. At the time, his lawyer Sione Foliaki described how police and immigration officers showed up at the family's South Auckland home at 5am. "The loud banging was heard first by the children. Of course they didn't know it was police. They were terrified ... and crying and very, very upset and scared," he told RNZ Pacific. "And the parents heard it from upstairs - it was that loud - and they looked out the window from upstairs and saw that it was police. So they ran downstairs to try and calm the children. The case prompted Immigration New Zealand to cease out-of-hours immigration searches, and an official review was ordered . Now, a bill has been brought before parliament seeking to incorporate the review's findings into law. If successful, it would result in extra checks being required before a raid is carried out, and sign-off from a district court judge. However, it does not go as far as banning dawn raids, something Pasifika advocates and leaders have long called for. No dawn raids have been carried out in the country for the past two years. Former National MP Anae Arthur Anae has said the practice was unnecessary. "They've now proved they can do it within the normal hours. They don't need to go and do what they were doing before." Anae has been a long-term advocate for visa-free travel between Pacific Island nations and Aotearoa. Of the 60 countries that have visa-free access, none are Pacific nations. Meanwhile, Australians, UK nationals, and European visitors all qualified for visa-free access. Anae said the double-standard against Pacific was part of the problem. "If you make it very difficult for people to come, when they come they're going to stay as long as they can because there's not guarantee they can come back tomorrow when they go back on time. "I think Immigration [NZ which] created all of this in my opinion should look at themselves and ask themselves these questions: 'Can we find a way of eliminating the need for people to overstay." 'Trying to find a better way of life' Tongan community leader Pakilau Manase Lua agreed with Mr Anae and said New Zealand must face up to the bias in its system. He pointed to trends in immigration enforcement that showed Pacific people, and people of colour are overrepresented. "Why is it justified to target people who are here trying to find a better way of life," Pakilau said. "They're here in the country. In fact, they're actually paying taxes, and some of them are paying PAYE, Even though they're unlawful, they pay taxes by the fact …they're working." Undocumented migrants also contributed via GST when they bought things like groceries and petrol, he said. Green Party Pacific Peoples spokesperson Teanau Tuiono said an amnesty for overstayers was the right thing to do, particularly in light of the 2021 Dawn Raids apology. He supported outlawing out-of-hours immigration enforcement visits. "If they [Immigration New Zealand] have found a way to better engage with our communities, then why is this going to be on the statute books? Why is this going to be part of the rules? It should be removed because we know of the trauma that it does create," Tuiono said. Immigration New Zealand said in a statement that any out-of-hours compliance activity was rare and a last resort. Prior to the 2023 review, the enforcement tactic made up three percent of compliance visits. "While we retain the option of an out of hours visit it has so far not been judged necessary in an individual case," department spokesperson Steve Watson said. "We have also focused on visiting employers and since the…review we have put into practice an immigration infringement regime which allows us to sanction non-compliant employers." Watson also said the department would implement any changes that resulted from the proposed law changes. These were part of the government's wide-ranging Immigration (Fiscal Sustainability and System Integrity) Amendment Bill. The bill was at select committee stage. RNZ Pacific also sought comment from Immigration Minister Erica Stanford, but she did not respond before publication.
Scoop
26-06-2025
- Scoop
Why Asia-Pacific Should Be Rooting For Iran
Setting aside any thoughts I may have about theocratic rulers (whether they be in Tel Aviv or Tehran), I am personally glad that Iran was able to hold out against the US-Israeli attacks this month. The ceasefire, however, will only be a pause in the long-running campaign to destabilize, weaken and isolate Iran. Regime change or pariah status are both acceptable outcomes for the U.S-Israeli dyad. The good news for my region is that Iran's resilience pushes back what could be a looming calamity: the U.S. pivot to Asia and a heightened risk of a war on China. There are three major pillars to the Eurasian order that is going through a slow, painful and violent birth. Iran is the weakest. If Iran falls, war in our region – intended or unintended – becomes vastly more likely. Mainstream New Zealanders and Australians suffer from an understandable complacency: war is what happens to other, mainly darker people or Slavs. 'Tomorrow', people in this part of the world naively think, 'will always be like yesterday'. That could change, particularly for the Australians, in the kind of unfamiliar flash-boom Israelis experienced this month following their attack on Iran. And here's why. U.S. chooses war to re-shape the Middle East Back in 2001, as many will recall, retired General Wesley Clark, former Supreme Commander of NATO forces in Europe, was visiting buddies in the Pentagon. He learnt something he wasn't supposed to: the Bush administration had made plans in the febrile post 9/11 environment to attack seven Muslim countries. In the firing line were: Saddam Hussein's Iraq, the Assad regime in Syria, Hezbollah-dominated Lebanon, Gaddafi's Libya, Somalia, Sudan and the biggest prize of all: the Islamic Republic of Iran. One would have to say that the project, pursued by successive Presidents, both Democrat and Republican, has been a great success – if you discount the fact that a couple of million human beings, most of them civilians, many of them women and children, nearly all of them innocents, were slaughtered, starved to death or otherwise disposed of. With the exception of Iran, those countries have endured chaos and civil strife for long painful years. A triumph of American bomb-based statecraft. Now – with Muammar Gaddafi raped and murdered ('We came, we saw, he died', Hillary Clinton chuckled on camera the same day), Saddam Hussein hanged, Hezbollah decapitated, Assad in Moscow, the genocide in full swing in Palestine – the US and Israel were finally able to turn their guns – or, rather, bombs – on the great prize: Iran. Iran's missiles have checked U.S.-Israel for the time being Things did not go to plan. Former U.S. ambassador to Saudi Arabia Chas Freeman pointed out this week that for the first time Israel got a taste of the medicine it likes to dispense to its neighbours. Iran's missiles successfully turned the much-vaunted Iron Dome into an Iron Sieve and, perhaps momentarily, has achieved deterrence. If Iran falls, the U.S. will be able to do what Barack Obama and Joe Biden only salivated over: a serious pivot to Asia. Could great power rivalry turn Asia-Pacific into a powderkeg? For us in Asia-Pacific a major U.S. pivot to Asia will mean soaring defence budgets to support militarisation, aggressive containment of China, provocative naval deployments, more sanctions, muscling smaller states, increased numbers of bases, new missile systems, info wars, threats and the ratcheting up rhetoric – all of which will bring us ever-closer to the powderkeg. Sounds utterly mad? Sounds devoid of rationality? Lacking commonsense? Welcome to our world – bellum Americanum – as we gormlessly march flame in hand towards the tinderbox. War is not written in the stars, we can change tack and rediscover diplomacy, restraint, and peaceful coexistence. Or is that too much to ask? Back in the days of George W Bush, radical American thinkers like Robert Kagan, Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld created the Project for a New American Century and developed the policy, adopted by succeeding presidents, that promotes "the belief that America should seek to preserve and extend its position of global leadership by maintaining the preeminence of U.S. military forces". It reconfirmed the neoconservative American dogma that no power should be allowed to rise in any region to become a regional hegemon; anything and everything necessary should be done to ensure continued American primacy, including the resort to war. What has changed since those days are two crucial, epoch-making events: the re-emergence of Russia as a great power, albeit the weakest of the three, and the emergence of China as a genuine peer competitor to the USA. Professor John Mearsheimer's insights are well worth studying on this topic. The three pillars of multipolarity A new world order really is being born. As geopolitical thinkers like Professor Glenn Diesen point out, it will, if it is not killed in the cradle, replace the U.S. unipolar world order that has existed since the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991. Many countries are involved in its birthing, including major players like India and Brazil and all the countries that are part of BRICS. Three countries, however, are central to the project: Iran, Russia and, most importantly, China. All three are in the crosshairs of the Western Empire. If Iran, Russia and China survive as independent entities, they will partially fulfill Halford MacKinder's early 20th century heartland theory that whoever dominates Eurasia will rule the world. I don't think MacKinder, however, foresaw cooperative multipolarity on the Eurasian landmass – which is one of the goals of the SCO (Shanghai Cooperation Organization) – as an option. That, increasingly, appears to be the most likely trajectory with multiple powerful states that will not accept domination, be that from China or the U.S. That alone should give us cause for hope. Drunk on power since the collapse of the Soviet Union, the U.S. has launched war after war and brought us to the current abandonment of economic sanity (the sanctions-and-tariff global pandemic) and diplomatic normalcy (kill any peace negotiators you see) – and an anything-goes foreign policy (including massive crimes against humanity). We have also reached – thanks in large part to these same policies – what a former US national security advisor warned must be avoided at all costs. Back in the 1990s Zbigniew Brzezinski said, "The most dangerous scenario would be a grand coalition of China, Russia, and perhaps Iran." Belligerent and devoid of sound strategy, the Biden and Trump administrations have achieved just that. Can Asia-Pacific avoid being dragged into an American war on China? Turning to our region, New Zealand and Australia's governments cleave to yesterday: a white-dominated world led by the USA. We have shown ourselves indifferent to massacres, ethnic cleansing and wars of aggression launched by our team. To avoid war – or a permanent fear of looming war – in our own backyards, we need to encourage sanity and diplomacy; we need to stay close to the U.S. but step away from the military alliances they are forming, such as AUKUS which is aimed squarely at China. Above all, our defence and foreign affairs elites need to grow new neural pathways and start to think with vision and not place ourselves on the losing side of History. Independent foreign policy settings based around peace, defence not aggression, diplomacy not militarisation, would take us in the right direction. Personally I look forward to the day the US and its increasingly belligerent vassals are pushed back into the ranks of ordinary humanity. I fear the U.S. far more than I do China. Despite the reflexive adherence to the US that our leaders are stuck on, we should not, if we value our lives and our cultures, allow ourselves to be part of this mad, doomed project. The US Empire is heading into a blood-drenched sunset; their project will fail and the 500-year empire of the White West will end – starting and finishing with genocide. Every day I atheistically pray that leaders or a movement will emerge to guide our antipodean countries out of the clutches of a violent and increasingly incoherent USA. America is not our friend. China is not our enemy. Tomorrow gives birth to a world that we should look forward to and do the little we can to help shape. Eugene Doyle
The Spinoff
25-06-2025
- The Spinoff
The one simple trick to social cohesion? Trust your neighbours more than your MP
At a gathering of global religious, political and cultural experts in Singapore this week, one action has been cited over and over as a key to social harmony. At the International Conference on Cohesive Societies (ICSS), more than 1,000 delegates from around the world have listened to former politicians, academics and digital entrepreneurs speak about the increasing polarisation around the world and what it will take for societies to flourish in a new reality. And the message that keeps coming back around, whether in talks about combatting online extremism, increasing social cohesion or embracing multiculturalism, is almost laughably simple: talk to your neighbours. In April, the Helen Clark Foundation released its commissioned report on social cohesion in New Zealand, which painted a bleak picture of the country as one filled with uncertainty, resentment and dissatisfaction. The worrying headline that emerged in local reporting on it was that New Zealanders were 'less happy than their Australian mates, have a lower sense of worth, and are less satisfied with their finances'. 'On every dimension, New Zealand is falling behind,' said co-author Shamubeel Eaqub at the time, pointing to levels of happiness and financial satisfaction. But there was one area where New Zealanders scored significantly higher than Australians. 'More New Zealanders believe government can be trusted to do the right thing (42% vs 33% in Australia),' read the report's summary. Speaking at the ICCS on the newly released 2025 Southeast Asian Social Cohesion Radar, which aims to track a similar sentiment to New Zealand's own report, Dr Farish Noor pointed out the slight decline in trust in government institutions but an increase in civic mindedness across the region. A decline in trust in the state is not inherently a cause for concern, he posited, or a suggestion of decaying social cohesion. In fact, when coupled with a rise in civic-mindedness or community engagement, it was actually a positive. 'Ultimately the state can't be a micro-manager,' he said. 'You have to trust your own neighbours and people.' Ideally there'd be an increase in both trust in the government to do the right thing and trust in our neighbours, but on its own, an increase in what's known as 'horizontal trust' is a positive thing, said Noor. In New Zealand, one's satisfaction with their financial position and trust in government appeared to have an inverse relationship with community engagement and trust. Of the respondents in the New Zealand social cohesion report, Māori and Pasifika were more likely to have had to skip meals due to finances, were more concerned with crime in their neighbourhoods and were least trusting of the government, but were also more likely to be happy, more likely to have helped out someone they didn't live with in the past four weeks, more likely to be part of a community group and more likely to view their neighbourhood as a place where a diverse range of people got along. This apparent contradiction was mirrored in the Southeast Asia social cohesion radar, which showed there was no connection between political systems (or civil liberties) and social cohesion. One very clear signifier of disenchantment in the New Zealand report, however, was age. Those aged under 30 were most likely to feel unstable financially, as well as isolated and disconnected from community. Younger people have reported higher levels of loneliness compared to older people for generations but as the first generation to grow up entirely with the internet, there are new concerns about young people's likelihood of finding real-life community later in life. A recent trend on Tiktok has been young users having their minds blown by the phrase 'the price of community is inconvenience'. The words adorn videos of neighbours moving furniture together, young women getting ready for a birthday they really can't be bothered attending, and cross-generational friendships. The moral? Sometimes being a part of something bigger than yourself means making sacrifices or compromises for the sake of maintaining community. This is the crux of the issue being tackled at the ICCS. Building horizontal trust relies on human-to-human interaction – whether it's speaking over the fence with your neighbour, dropping a friend to the airport or making small talk with the supermarket checkout operator. It depends on exposure, in mundane ways, to people different from ourselves in order to find connection and a common goal (to happily live alongside one another). So how do we do that when digital advancements are removing these opportunities at every turn? In an earlier panel, former ICANN CEO Fadi Chehade predicted that by the time there are 10 billion humans in the world, there will be 100 billion artificial agents representing them. AI 'advocates' who can negotiate on our behalf for better insurance, or work with other people's artificial agents to coordinate schedules. You potentially wouldn't have to speak to another person ever again. A representative from Google then spoke of the developments to its Gemini AI assistant tool and how there would soon be a version specifically for children under 13. There was extensive talk of the role of regulation and governments in fostering community and limiting harmful content on social media platforms in order to create resilient digital systems. No one suggested any of this would increase social cohesion, simply that they would be necessary to reduce the current growing harms. Instead, the one solution for increasing social cohesion that everyone – former politicians, economists, tech experts, dignitaries – could agree on was just to be a real-life neighbour to those around you while you still know how to. Apparently nothing breeds trust, connection and empathy like regular human exposure. As social media expert Benjamin Lee was spoke about the impenetrability of online forums and the resentment they breed, a group of women at the table next to me in the cavernous hotel ballroom started a whispered conversation. I couldn't understand what they were saying but I could certainly hear them over the top of the panel speakers. It was distracting and, if I'm honest, really annoying. I wouldn't have had to listen to them if I was watching the livestream of the event from my hotel room instead. But if I'd done that, I'd have had no idea they existed at all.
