40 stories for 40 Years | LGBTIQA+ rights

L - Report cover R - Wear It with Pride campaign launch, 2010. This campaign helped promote the legislative changes that came out of the Same-Sex Entitlements Report. (ABC)

In 2003, a quiet but powerful case changed the course of equality for same‑gender couples in Australia. When the Australian Government refused Mr Edward Young a bereavement payment after the death of his partner - a decorated war veteran – because his partner had been male, the UN Human Rights Committee found that Australia had discriminated against him on the basis of his sexuality.  

The Committee was clear: Australia had a responsibility to ensure this kind of discrimination never happened again. 

But in 2004, instead of expanding equality, the political landscape hardened. Both major parties supported the Marriage Amendment Bill, which blatantly denied recognition of same‑gender marriages performed overseas. It highlighted the strong government opposition to marriage equality at the time. 

The Australian Human Rights Commission responded by shifting focus to the foundations of equality: access to basic legal and economic entitlements available to unmarried heterosexual couples. Guided by Australia’s obligations under international human rights law - including the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the Convention on the Rights of the Child - the Commission set out to understand the true impact of exclusion. 

The Commission launched a national inquiry in 2006. It audited hundreds of laws, released public discussion papers, held seven public hearings and 18 community forums around the country, and received more than 680 written submissions. People shared not just statistics, but their lives - the stories of families who were invisible in the eyes of Australian law. 

The final report painted a stark picture when it was published in 2007. It identified 58 federal laws across taxation, superannuation, migration, veterans’ affairs, social security, child support, aged care, employment and more that explicitly excluded same‑gender couples and their children. The cost of discrimination was not abstract - it was financial, emotional, and present in everyday life.  

The Commission recommended a single, inclusive definition of a de facto relationship across all federal laws: to recognise same‑gender couples equally. 

This recommendation became a catalyst for sweeping reform. Within a year, federal laws were amended to recognise same‑gender couples as de facto couples, extending fundamental rights and protections, including: 

• recognition of parental status 

• partner visas 

• social security and veterans' entitlements 

• workplace rights, including parental, carers’, personal and compassionate leave 

• Medicare and PBS safety nets 

• superannuation benefits 

• aged care assessments 

• tax thresholds 

• division of property and maintenance after relationship breakdown 

For the first time, same‑gender couples had access to the rights and responsibilities long afforded to others. But while the burden of discrimination eased, marriage equality remained out of reach. 

It would take another decade before Australian law finally recognised the right of same‑gender couples to marry. 

This wasn’t just a turning point in law reform, but of national understanding and acceptance. It remains one of the Commission’s most significant contributions to equality in its 40‑year history. 

For more, read the report here: Same-Sex: Same Entitlements report, 2007

LGBT protest, 1992 (ABC)

In the early 1990s, Tasmania was the last jurisdiction in Australia that still criminalised sexual relationships between men. Attempts to reform the law in 1991 were met with fierce resistance and ultimately failed. 

In response, Nicholas Toonen, a member of the Tasmanian Gay and Lesbian Rights Group, petitioned the UN Human Rights Committee. He argued that Tasmania’s laws violated his rights to privacy and equality under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. He was the first person to petition any of the UN human rights treaty bodies regarding Australia.  

In 1994, the UN found that Australia was indeed in breach of its human rights obligations because of Tasmania’s law. 

Tasmania defended their legislation on public health and ‘moral’ grounds. It lost Mr Toonen his job, with the Tasmanian government threatening to withdraw funding from his employer, the Tasmanian AIDS Council, if they did not fire him.  

Seeing the implications for human rights in Australia, Federal Human Rights Commissioner Brian Burdekin undertook an independent examination of the Tasmanian Criminal Code. His report recommended the immediate repeal of the provisions criminalising homosexuality. He argued that if Tasmania refused, the Commonwealth should intervene. 

Tasmania did refuse - and the federal government acted. The Human Rights (Sexual Conduct) Act 1994 was passed, asserting that all adults have the right to consensual sexual activity in private. This was a defining moment: it showed how international human rights law, combined with national leadership, could protect people whose rights were being denied. 

Three years later, in 1997, Tasmania amended its Criminal Code. In time, it would go on to adopt some of the strongest anti‑discrimination protections in the country - a stark transformation from where the journey began. 

This story stands as an early and powerful example of the Commission’s role in advancing LGBTIQA+ rights across Australia. 

Read the original report here: Human Rights (Sexual Conduct) Act 1994

Sport is central to Australian life. But for too long, trans and gender diverse people have been pushed to the margins of it. 

In 2015, the Commission identified a significant gap in national guidance. While many LGBTIQA+ inclusion initiatives existed, they overwhelmingly overlooked the experiences of trans and gender diverse people. 

A nationwide community survey revealed the consequences: 

• 66% of trans and gender diverse respondents had felt unsafe in a sporting environment. 

• 90% had withdrawn from a sport or recreational activity because they did not feel welcome or safe. 

At the same time, sporting organisations across the country were seeking advice on how to develop respectful, lawful and inclusive policies. 

The Commission partnered with the Australian Sports Commission and the Coalition of Major Professional and Participation Sports to meet this need. In 2019, they created the first national guidelines for trans and gender diverse inclusion in sport. 

The guidelines provided clear, practical advice on: 

• leadership and governance 

• inclusive policies and codes of conduct 

• uniforms and facilities 

• data and privacy protections 

• understanding discrimination under the Sex Discrimination Act 

These guidelines gave sporting organisations of all sizes - from local clubs to national bodies - the tools to create environments where everyone can participate safely and with dignity. 

In 2023, the Australian Sports Commission built on this foundation by releasing the Transgender & Gender Diverse Inclusion Guidelines for High Performance Sport. 

This collaboration marked an important point in Australia’s sporting history, setting a national benchmark for fairness, safety and inclusion. They helped shift sport toward recognising and valuing the diversity of the communities it serves, and they continue to shape how organisations create respectful environments for all participants.  

As new challenges and opportunities emerge in the world of sport, these guidelines remain a vital tool for ensuring sport in Australia is a place where everyone - now and in the years ahead - can belong, participate and thrive. 

Find the guidelines here:  Guidelines for trans and gender diverse inclusion in sport, 2019

In 2021, the Commission released a landmark report that redefined the national conversation about the rights of people with variations in sex characteristics (VSC) -often referred to as intersex people. 

People with VSC have innate physical sex characteristics that do not fit typical medical or social expectations. Many have experienced medical interventions in infancy or childhood designed to “normalise” their bodies - procedures performed long before they could express their own views or identity or give consent. These interventions have had lifelong physical and psychological consequences for many intersex people. 

The Commission’s report, Ensuring Health and Bodily Integrity, laid out a clear human rights framework for protecting children and young people with VSC. It emphasised: 

• the right to bodily autonomy 

• the right to informed consent 

• the right of children to participate in decisions affecting them 

The report helped shift national expectations around medical practice and was instrumental in shaping the ACT Government’s Variation in Sex Characteristics (Restricted Medical Treatment) Act 2023. This pioneering legislation restricts deferrable medical interventions on intersex children until the child themselves can participate in decision‑making. It has since become a model for law reform across the country. 

This work represents a profound step forward in valuing the autonomy, dignity, and humanity of intersex children and young people. 

Read the report here: Ensuring Health and Bodily Integrity, 2021