Impacts of Australian Policies on LGBTIQ Student Rights
Tiffany Jones
The legal obligations of States to safeguard the human rights
of LGBT and intersex people1 are well established in international human rights law on the basis of the Universal Declarationof Human Rights and subsequently agreed international humanrights treaties. All people, irrespective of sex, sexual orientationor gender identity, are entitled to enjoy the protections provided
for by international human rights law, including in respect ofrights to life, security of person and privacy, the right to be freefrom torture, arbitrary arrest and detention, the right to be freefrom discrimination and the right to freedom of expression, association and peaceful assembly (United Nations, 2012, page 10).

In June 2011, the United Nations (UN) Human Rights Council adopted resolution 17/19 – the first United Nations resolution on humanrights, sexual orientation and gender identity. It received support from
Human Rights Council members from all key regions. The UN has placedpressure on all countries, including Australia, to support greater recognition of discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, gender identity,
gender expression and intersex status in direct legislative provisions (UNHuman Rights Council, 2011; United Nations, 2012; United Nations HighCommissioner for Human Rights, 2011).
LGBTIQ Rights in Education
Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, intersex and queer (lgbtiq) students
are largely overlooked in education efforts around the world (Carlson, 1992;
Moran, 2000; Sears, 2005; Stieglitz, 2010). There exist controversies about
their inclusion even in “progressive” countries like Australia (Kissane, 2009;
Marr, 2011). A national survey of Australian secondary school students
found that about 10 percent of students are same-sex attracted (Smith,
Agius, Mitchell, Barrett, & Pitts, 2009). Bisexuality may count for upwardsof one-third of young people’s sexual experiences (Sears, 2005, page xx).
203

204

H u m a n R i g h t s E d u c at i o n i n A s i a - Pa c i f i c

Also, 1.7 percent of students are “born intersex” and a growing number have“transgender,” “genderqueer” and “variant” gender identities (Carroll, 2005a,
2005b). Thus, at least one tenth and perhaps over one third of Australian
students may find lgbtiq-themed topics personally relevant. Moreover,many students (regardless of whether or not they identify as lgbtiq)
experience homophobic bullying.
In 2011, two hundred UN member-states attended a panel discussion held in New York entitled “Stop Bullying – Ending Violence andDiscrimination Based on Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity.” There
the UN Secretary-General Ban Ki Moon contended:
Bullying of this kind is not restricted to a few countries but
goes on in schools […] in all parts of the world. This is a moral
outrage, a grave violation to human rights and a public healthcrisis (UN Secretary-General, 2011).
The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization(unesco) held the First International Consultation on Homophobic Bullyingin Educational Institutions in Rio de Janiero, Brazil on 6-9 December
2011. The event was attended by government and non-governmental
representatives and education research experts on the topic from key
continents (US National Commission for unesco, 2011) – including myself– who collaborated to create the Rio Statement on Homophobic Bullying
and Education for All (unesco, 2011). The statement, released on the 2011
International Human Rights Day, stated that the right to education must not
be “curtailed by discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender
identity.” The Global Safe Schools Coalition was formed and had several
meetings (Brazil 2011, Paris 2012, South Africa 2012, Argentina 2013, etc.)with representatives of unesco and US government funding and leadership.
Goals have been set by the network for collaborating on research, policy
and resource development. Its publications have included a review of key
international research (unesco, 2012b), educational policy guidelines(unesco, 2012a), videos, resources and other texts for use in schools andteacher education around the world.

Impact of Australian Policies on LGBTIQ Student Rights

205

Backlash to LGBTIQ Student Rights
The US, the UK and Australia have embraced their role in the Transnational
lgbtiq Rights Movement.2 They have developed foreign policies on international investigation, diplomatic pressure, boycott and restriction of aid
to countries in lower socio-economic level based on lgbtiq anti-discrimination achievements (Pace, 2013; Pollard, 2013; Robinson, 2011). The US
has particularly contributed funds to Global Network’s gatherings – thus
gaining a privileged role in determining who is funded for which events,
which goals would be pursued and how (Edwards, Fisher, & Reynolds,
2007). Representatives from countries such as Ireland, Brazil, Finland,South Africa and Israel have been quite active in promoting collaborative
policy developments.
However, there has been significant global tension, resistance and backlash to their efforts. Russia banned “homosexual propaganda” in schools,
with President Vladimir Putin directly declaring his aim to prevent the “interference” of “certain countries” on Russian children, schooling and governance (acara, 2012; Jenkin, 2012). Many African governments have beenoutraged at the attempts at Western influence (Douglas, 2012; Pflanz, 2011;
Rehman, Lazer, Benet, Schaefer, & Melman, 1999; Robinson, 2011) on thelgbtiq issue. Ugandan politicians cited foreign influence as a motivation
in introducing what was termed the “kill the gays bill” (Fisher, 2012; Phoon,2010), Nigerian educators have been said to construe new homosexual
identities as a foreign import in ways that erase the work on culturally-specific lgbtiq sexualities in their cultural history (Igwe, 2009). India rejected
recommendations to combat school homophobic violence and Poland committed to protect “the natural family and marriage” from the movement(Fisher, 2012). In Taiwan, the Ministry of Education released a memo about
thwarting the development of homosexual students (The China Post, 2010).
While in 2011 it did plan to bring reform and promote homosexual equity
education in primary schools according to the Gender Equity Education Act(性別平等教育法), it backed down in 2012 following protests from conservative groups. (Chi-wei, 2012)
At the Third International Human Rights Education Conference in
Poland in 2012, homosexuals were directly likened to “animals” by one invited keynote speaker. Several attendees (including myself ) walked out inprotest, but considering the room was packed with “human rights educa-

206

H u m a n R i g h t s E d u c at i o n i n A s i a - Pa c i f i ction advocates” there was surprisingly little outcry. Just because lgbtiq
education issues have been acknowledged by the UN, unesco, and now for
the first time as a direct theme in the Fourth International Human Rights
Education Conference (for this development I commend the organizers), it
should not be assumed that lgbtiq students’ rights are widely supported– even by human rights educators. Many education bodies and even someindividual human rights advocates (particularly those more concerned withthe right to freedom of religion) refute the need for educational policies protecting lgbtiq students on the basis of “moral” rejections. Others remain
unconvinced of the potential for such policies to have any impact. For those
who do not see the need to protect lgbtiq students, or believe they cannot
be protected, I now provide information from my Australian study regarding these students’ experiences at school and the power of policy.
Study on Australian Students
This study aimed to explore the usefulness of constructions of lgbtiq students in the dominant discourses of Australian secondary schooling educational policy. It specifically answered the following research questions:
1. What are the dominant discourses on lgbtiq students in Australianeducational policies?
2. How were the students constructed in the policies?
3. Were these approaches useful in combatting discrimination or negative wellbeing issues for lgbtiq students?
In this study I took an emancipatory approach to the topic, conducting the research towards the interests of lgbtiq students and therefore
privileging the view that if such students experienced policy protection as
somehow useful (directly or indirectly) then relevant educational policy wasnecessary, and vice versa.
I employed a mixed method based on Critical Discourse Analysis(cda) attributed to Fairclough’s Language and Power and subsequent texts(Fairclough, 1989, 1992, 1998, 2000), and drawing on post-structuralism
and critical linguistics. Fairclough’s approach analyses discourse as a social
practice that is potentially discernible in texts, interactive practices andcontextual practices. The study drew on three data sources and reflected on
the relationships between them. These were:Impact of Australian Policies on LGBTIQ Student Rights

207

i. data from the third national survey of Australian lgbtiq young
people aged 14-21, collected for the Writing Themselves In 3 project (Hillier
et al., 2010; Jones & Hillier, 2012) 3
ii. over eighty Australian policy documents that relate directly or indirectly to the sexuality education of lgbtiq students (mainly from national,
state-specific and independent education provider websites); andiii. eight confidential interviews with relevant policy informants fromkey state-level education departments, policy committees and advocacy
agencies. The paper focuses specifically on data from Victoria, New South
Wales and Queensland.
Results of the Study
Policies, Discourses, Constructions
Australian educational policies on lgbtiq students comprised varied
terrain at the time the study took place in 2010. At the time there was nonational anti-discrimination law protecting lgbtiq people in Australia, so
there was no national protection for students. The first goal of the Melbourne
Declaration on Educational Goals for Young Australians (mceetya, 2008)
outlined a commitment from all governments to ensure an education
service free from discrimination based on “gender” and “sexual orientation,”among other traits (page 7). Yet its action plan omitted this focus, so that the
Declaration’s reference to orientation “surprised” most policy informants
interviewed (from policy officers to activists) and had not been enforced.
lgbtiq student issues were absent from national independent sector
policies.
Eight Australian states and territories banned discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. Most states also banned discrimination on the basisof gender identity, except the Northern Territory and Tasmania.4 However,there were exemptions for religious schools in all state laws. Only two state
education sectors had direct policy protection for lgbtiq students: New
South Wales’ (nsw) government schools and Victoria’s (vic) government
schools. In nsw there was a direct one-page memo-style policy against homophobia in schools (Boston, 1997). This memo reminded principals in 1997of state anti-discrimination law on grounds including “homosexuality”, requiring them to “address homophobia” through student welfare and Personal
Development, Health and Physical Education (pdhpe)/ sex education cur-208

H u m a n R i g h t s E d u c at i o n i n A s i a - Pa c i f i criculums. It had become an online policy. It featured an Anti-Discrimination
Discourse’s legal framing of sexuality as a potential discrimination ground inits vocabulary, grammar and textual structures. It framed lgbtiq students
as “potential victims” to be protected from violence according to law, and as“potential complainants” in schools who could potentially sue the school.
Investigation of the development of the policy through key informants
and reports revealed that it was, itself, the result of such a lawsuit. The year
it was issued a young gay student Christopher Tsakalos had provided evidence of discrimination in court proceedings against the New South Wales
Department of Education and Training (det) and Cranebrook High School;
detailing his experience of weekly bashings by large groups of students(Kendall & Sidebotham, 2004). The action against the det was settled with
Tsakalos returning to school and implementing anti-homophobia training;damages were sought from the school for its breach of duty of care (Kendall& Sidebotham, 2004). The case set a precedent and Director General Ken
Boston issued the policy memorandum and advised that the det would
gather information on the incidence of homophobia in secondary schools(Thonemann, 1999).
The nsw det investigated two schools (using forty one interviews withstaff members and students) to understand the enabling conditions forteaching about homophobia, and recommendations were made for teacher
training and the mainstreaming of gender and homophobia as educational
issues (Thonemann, 1999). The state also mandated sex education to combat
homophobia (Board of Studies nsw, 2003; Catholic Education Commission
nsw, 2004), and required formal democratic teaching approaches around“controversial issues” (nsw Government, 1983). A policy officer informant
identified the nsw Anti-Homophobia Interagency (AHI, which includes forexample the nsw det, Police and Twenty10 glbt Youth Support) and the
Network of Government Agencies (noga, chaired by the Attorney General’s
Department), as key structures enabling the recommendations to be tackled
via conferences, research and training.
Victoria (vic) featured the most explicit pro-diversity policies in the
public sector; principally the eight-page Supporting Sexual Diversity in
Schools (vic Government, 2008) and large sections on gender identity andsexuality in other policies (vic Government, 2007, 2010). These policies
mobilized Safe and Supportive Spaces Discourse’s framing of sexuality as
safety issue, and constructed lgbtiq students as having their psychologicalImpact of Australian Policies on LGBTIQ Student Rights

209

wellbeing endangered when subjected to unsupportive environments. The
policies also, to a lesser extent, showed features of Anti-Discrimination,
Inclusive Education and Diversity Education Discourses in their vocabulary,grammar and textual structures.
The Victorian policies were the result of highly publicized researchon homophobia and activism in the late nineties and start of the newmillennium, according to key policy informants. A research report had
highlighted problems for lgbtiq youth in schools. Initially, one researcher
said, the Victorian Education Department at the time “fought us on thefront of the newspaper.” Shortly after, a new Labor government made a preelection promise to Victorian lgbtiq voters to establish an lgbtiq Health
Ministerial Advisory Committee (macglh) if elected. A policy committee
member informant explained that key gay activist Labor party members
used their influence to deliver the promise. The party was elected in 1999,
the macglh was established in 2000, and over time the members createdaction plans and influenced politicians to consider lgbtiq students’ needs.
By 2005, the macglh pressured the Education Department’s Student
Wellbeing Branch to include homophobic abuse in anti-bullying policies.
Initially, macglh informants said the department staff members wereresistant to developing the policies, but the activists repeatedly broughtup the issue. They organized a private data briefing with researchers on
homophobic bullying to further convince the staff. Ultimately, informants
say “the nagging and the data” led to the inclusion of strategies against
homophobic bullying in the subsequent anti-bullying educational policies.
Victorian policy staff said policies on lgbtiq students no longer have togo through as much “tape” because the sector had started to become more
pro-active on the issue.
Several Victorian policy committee informants argued that the macglh,
lgbtiq rights champions and the use of research underscored Victoria’s
extensive policy achievements. Such public evidence and political support
is now impacting other states to turn the tide in favor of lgbtiq students’rights. Victoria also had a Safe Schools Coalition funded by the Victorian
Government, which educates schools on lgbtiq issues and requires thatmembers develop anti-homophobia policies at the school-level, and engage
in particular strategies to support lgbtiq people (such as treating samesex couples equally at school dances and formal events, engaging in antibullying education and so on).

210

H u m a n R i g h t s E d u c at i o n i n A s i a - Pa c i f i c

LQBTIQ Student Demographics
The national survey data on Australian lgbtiq young people aged 14-21
exposed particular identity trends for the group. Of the 3,134 participants,
56.35 percent were female, 40.36 percent male, and 2.90 percent “gender questioning” (genderqueer, transgender or “other” categories5). Over
one third of the students had known their sexual identity before puberty.
Concerning sexual identity; 55.87 percent identified as gay/lesbian/homosexual, 28.10 percent bisexual, 5.26 percent questioning, 4.18 percent queer,
and 4.18 percent gave an alternative response such as pansexual.6 Another1.12 percent identified as “heterosexual,” but included themselves in the survey due to feelings of same sex attraction or because they questioned theirgender status. Girls were less likely to identify as homosexual than boys
(38.52 percent of girls vs. 82.42 percent of boys were homosexual) but more
likely to identify as bisexual (43.58 percent of girls vs. 9.42 percent of boys
were bisexual). The “gender questioning” group was more evenly divided
in their identifications (28.89 percent were gay/homosexual/lesbian, 24.44
percent queer, 22.22 percent bisexual, and 20.00 percent ‘other’).
Survey participants were asked what type of school they attended/attended most recently. The 3,094 responses mimicked broader Australiandemographics: 65.16 percent attended government schools, 17.58 percent
Catholic schools, and 11.86 percent other Christian schools. The remainder attended Jewish, Steiner, Islamic, secular private, and other schools. In
total, 60.61 percent of lgbtiq students reported having experienced verbal
homophobic abuse (70.22 percent of boys, 53.39 percent of girls and 65.93
percent gender questioning youth), and 18.07 percent had experienced
physical homophobic abuse (23.17 percent of boys, 13.72 percent of girls, and30.77 percent gender questioning youth). Further, 26.08 percent reported
other forms of homophobia including rumors, graffiti and cyber-bullying(75.72 percent of boys, 63.92 percent of girls, and 81.32 percent gender questioning youth). Of those who were abused, 80.00 percent underwent theexperience(s) at school.
Therefore, while lgbtiq students are present in all Australian education
sectors (primary, secondary and higher), they are not always welcome there.
Overall, the homophobic abuse has significantly increased since previous
national surveys in the past decade or so (Hillier et al., 1998; Hillier, Turner,& Mitchell, 2005). I speculate that this increase in general violence againstImpact of Australian Policies on LGBTIQ Student Rights

211

lgbtiq students in Australia could possibly be related to the fact that more
lgbtiq students come out in Australia now at younger ages as opposed
to remaining closeted (as was more common in the past), so that they
are therefore a more “visible” target. It could also perhaps be due to thehomophobic backlash in the Australian media against lgbtiq marriage
rights advocacy and anti-discrimination efforts by activists, which appears
to have created a period of volatile and divisive change in the country,
such that while more people are speaking out “for” lgbtiq students, more
people are also speaking out “against” them – including local politicians andreligious leaders – in ways which could be a contributing factor towards
violence.
The Impacts of Policies for LGBTIQ Students
Lgbtiq students’ schooling experiences were impacted by particular stateand sector-specific contexts. Participants were asked if their school had
policies that protect them against homophobia: 42.95 percent selected“Don’t Know,” 31.80 percent selected “No,” and 25.25 percent selected “Yes”(N=3,101). The lgbtiq students who attended government schools weremore likely (p < 0.001, χ2=36.510, df=4) to report policy-based protection(26.46 percent), and less likely to report they were not protected (28.99 percent). Lower percentages of lgbtiq students who attended religious schools
reported policy protections; for example Christian schools (23.77 percent)and Catholic schools (19.30 percent). This decrease reflected legal and policy contexts.
Another highly significant factor influencing perceived policy protection was state, in a comparison of Victoria, nsw and Queensland (p < 0.001,
χ2=25.290, df=4). Although through those (and all) states more lgbtiq students “didn’t know,” the highest percentage of lgbtiq students who perceived themselves as protected by policies came from Victoria (29.79 percent). They were followed by those from nsw (26.53 percent). This reflected
how those two states had direct protections in place, and particularly theway in which Victoria had more policies. It appeared direct policy protections did translate into increased protection for lgbtiq students according
to these correlational data. Both states had lower percentages of students
who believed themselves to not be protected by school policy (Victoria 29.36 percent, nsw- 31.16 percent). In Queensland, a reduced portion of

212

H u m a n R i g h t s E d u c at i o n i n A s i a - Pa c i f i c

lgbtiq students were protected by policy (19.45 percent). Queensland also
had the greatest percentage of students who reported that they were notprotected (38.73 percent). Therefore, it appeared lgbtiq students’ sense of
security at school was indeed related to direct state-level policy protections.
Breaking down the statistic further by distinct sectors; more lgbtiq
students who attended Victorian government schools reported that there
were policy protections than did not (31.93 percent yes, 26.01 percent no).
On the other hand, smaller percentages of lgbtiq students who attended
Victorian Catholic schools reported there were policy protections (20.69
percent yes, 36.78 percent no). Pointedly, lgbtiq students attending thensw other Christian independent schools were much more likely to reporttheir school did not have protection than those students in other sectors(12.66 percent yes, 54.43 percent no). Therefore, it appeared that school policy-based protection of lgbtiq students did to some extent ‘trickle down’to students’ reporting of school-level policy, although the existence of sector or state-level policy-based protection did not directly determine student
perceptions of protection or actual school-level policies.
Messages Received by LGBTIQ Students
The sexuality messages that students received inside classrooms were also
related to policy contexts. Survey participants could select from fourteen
key sexuality messages that they received in their classes. These messages
were abridged versions of school sexuality education discourses resultant
from a broader literature review on the history of international sexuality
education (detailed in Jones, 2011a; Jones, 2011b). The overwhelming majority selected a specific combination of messages; particularly ‘How the bodychanges at puberty’ (87.50 percent received this message) – showing thedominance of Physical Hygiene Discourse. Other popular messages were‘About protecting against sexual dangers’ (stds, pregnancy) (84.59 percent)and ‘How humans mate and reproduce’ (84.59 percent); messages typical of
Sexual Risk and Biological Science Discourses.
Therefore, Australian lessons (from the perspectives of lgbtiq students) clearly privileged both conservative discourses and liberal discourses. These discourses focused on the “normative” sexual developmentof males’ and females’ physiques, heterosexual breeding and sexual risks.
These themes excluded lgbtiq identities, issues and pleasures. More criti-

213

Impact of Australian Policies on LGBTIQ Student Rights

cal discourses (including anti-homophobia messages) and post-modern discourses (such as messages disrupting the requirement of normative gender
performances by boys and girls) did not prevail. Distressingly, some lgbtiq
students received no education on sexuality at all, or were taught that sex
outside of marriage was wrong (in a country where same sex marriage is notlegal). In addition, just under one tenth of Australian lgbtiq students werebeing taught to convert to heterosexuality (a damaging message strongly
denounced by the apa Task Force on Appropriate Therapeutic Responses to
Sexual Orientation, 2009).
Policy-based Protection
A range of strong associations suggested that policy-based protection canmake a positive difference for Australian lgbtiq students (see Table 1).
Firstly, policy-based protection had highly significant relationships with
reduced likelihood of thinking about self-harm, actual self-harm, suicidal
ideation and attempted suicide. Generally, 36.92 percent of students had
thought about self-harm. But only 31.55 percent of lgbtiq students who
were aware of policy-based protection against homophobia at school had
these thoughts, compared to 46.55 percent who said their school had nopolicy, and 32.96 percent who did not know.
Table 1. Relationships between LGBTIQ Students’ Perceived School Policy Protection
and Psycho-social Measures
Psycho-social Measures

Pearson Chi-Squaredf

Thought about engaging in self-harm (N=3,101)

57.964***2

Self-harmed (N=3,101)

43.000***2

Thought about attempting suicide (N=3,101)

65.493***

2

Attempted suicide (N=3,101)

37.787***2

How safe they feel at school (N=2,994)

201.966***

4

How they feel about their sexuality (N=3,095)

24.679***4Overall rating of their school as supportive (N=3,003)

595.892***4Note. * p < 0.05, ** p< 0.01, *** p< 0.001

214

H u m a n R i g h t s E d u c at i o n i n A s i a - Pa c i f i c

Likewise, 30.80 percent had self-harmed in total, but only 25.67 percent
of lgbtiq students who were aware of policy-based protection against homophobia at school had done so, compared to 38.64 percent who said theirschool had no policy, and 28.00 percent who did not know. Additionally,
while 37.02 percent of students had thought about suicide overall, only 34.10
percent of lgbtiq students who were aware of policy-based protection
against homophobia at school had done so, compared to 47.16 percent who
said their school had no policy, and 31.23 percent who did not know. While
16.54 percent had attempted suicide, only 12.77 percent of lgbtiq students
who were aware of policy-based protection against homophobia at school
had done so, compared to 22.21 percent who said their school had no policy,
and 14.56 percent who did not know. Thus, well-promoted school policy
protection against homophobia appeared to contribute to a context that decreased lgbtiq students’ suicide and self-harm risks.
Secondly, policy-based protection had a highly significant relationshipwith lgbtiq students’ increased feelings of safety at school. In total, 61.29
percent felt safe at school; however, 75.07 percent of lgbtiq students who
were aware of policy-based protection against homophobia at school felt
safe there (compared to 46.11 percent who said their school had no policy,
and 64.19 percent who did not know). In total, 11.96 percent of lgbtiq students felt unsafe at school reducing to only 6.04 percent of students whoreported school policy protection feeling unsafe, (compared to 21.83 percent
of students who reported no policy protection, and 8.28 percent who were
unsure). Therefore, perceived policy protection appears to contribute to acontext in which students feel safe, and decreases their sense of danger.
Thirdly, policy protection had a highly significant relationship with students feeling good about their sexuality. Generally, 78.74 percent felt goodabout their sexuality. Yet 84.53 percent of lgbtiq students who were awareof policy-based protection against homophobia at school felt good about it,compared to 77.66 percent who said their school had no policy, and 76.13
percent who did not know. In addition, 3.72 percent felt bad in total. This included 2.56 percent of lgbtiq students reporting awareness of policy, 4.67
percent reporting no policy, and 3.69 percent who were not sure. Thus, perceived policy protection appears to contribute to a context where students
feel safer, and their sense of endangerment decreases.
Lastly, from Table 1, policy protection had the most highly significant
relationship of all correlations with the students’ rating of their school as
supportive. These data come from a question asking the students to rank

215

Impact of Australian Policies on LGBTIQ Student Rights

their school on a five-point scale from homophobic to supportive. Of the
1,156 students who classified their school on the homophobic end of thescale, the majority (51.80 percent) reported there was no anti-homophobia
policy at their school (35.60 percent did not know, and only 12.60 percent reported there was a policy). Of the 1,269 students who classified their schoolas neutral, the majority (53.10 percent) did not know if there was an antihomophobia policy at their school while the rest were evenly divided (23.90
percent reported no policy, and 23.00 percent reported there was a policy).
Yet of five hundred seventy eight students who classified their school on the
supportive end of the scale, the majority (55.70 percent) knew there was ananti-homophobia policy at their school (33.90 percent did not know andonly 10.40 percent reported no policy). This suggests that policy protection
is positively related to lgbtiq students’ appraisal of their schools, and isuseful as a factor in making them feel “supported by their school” or contributing to “supportive environments.” In addition, the presence of known
policy lessens the likelihood schools will be experienced as “homophobic.”
Some lgbtiq students’ awareness of policies may mediate their impressionof their schools directly. However, data on reduced homophobic abuse inschools with policy protection (see Table 2) suggest protection from homophobic abuse itself, at the ground-level, could be the key contribution ofpolicy. Schools with known policy protection featured less verbal, physicaland other types of homophobic abuse. This lessened abuse likely decreases
negative impacts for students, including their willingness to self-harm.
Table 2. Relationships between LGBTIQ Students’ Perceived School Policy Protectionand Homophobic Abuse

Abuse Type

Pearson
ChiSquaredf

Percentage
of students
abusedat school
whose
school had
policy:Verbal homophobic abuse(N=1,876)

35.253***2

25.18%

36.62%

38.20%

Physical homophobic abuse(N=561)18.283***2

23.20%

29.40%

47.40%

Other types of homophobic
abuse (N=2,143)

26.842***

2

25.12%

37.25%

37.63%

Note. * p < 0.05, ** p< 0.01, *** p< 0.001

Percentage
of students
abusedat school
unsureof policy
context:

Percentage
of students
abusedat school
whose
school had
no policy:

216

H u m a n R i g h t s E d u c at i o n i n A s i a - Pa c i f i c

Conclusions
The data suggested the value of distinct, well-promoted educational policies that directly provide lgbtiq students with protection from homophobic discrimination and bullying. Such educational policies ideally contain adirect anti-homophobia message, and encourage the promotion of the wellbeing of lgbtiq students. Like the Victorian model, they should also makerecommendations for specific features of schools which create supportive
school environments through messages of inclusion and affirmation (supportive posters and displays, library resources, equal treatment of same sex
partners at events, flexible options in gendered uniforms, and the dissemination of information about counselling).
The research presented in this article has been subsequently used tosuccessfully advocate for national protection for lgbtiq students throughan amendment to Australia’s national anti-discrimination law (Jones, 2013a;
The Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee, 2013).
However, despite my own and other advocates’ efforts, exemptions were allowed for religious schools, except in their service provision to intersex students (who were seen as biologically different from other lgbtiq students
and not a particular challenge to religious dogma). I maintain that exemptions for religious schools in anti-discrimination laws should be removed. It
is not necessary for the religious institutions, school staff and parents to discriminate against students in educational provisions (by ignoring bullying
against them, seeking their expulsion or otherwise) in order to express theirfaith. Protection can be extended to lgbtiq students in ways that are congruent with the moralities at the heart of various faiths through a focus onsafety, love, kindness and other concepts. As UN Leadership have argued:[People] are free to disapprove of same-sex relationships, for example. They have an absolute right to believe – and to follow intheir own lives – whatever religious teachings they choose. Butthat is as far as it goes. The balance between tradition and culture, on the one hand, and universal human rights, on the other,must be struck in favour of rights (Pillay, 2012).
The research discussed in this paper has also been used to advocate
for and develop policy provisions in several Australian states which previ-Impact of Australian Policies on LGBTIQ Student Rights

217

ously lacked such guidelines. For example, there have been developments
in states including Queensland (Jones, 2013b), Tasmania (Jones, 2012a; tas
Department of Education, 2012), Western Australia (Jones, 2012b; WA Equal
Opportunity Commission, 2012) and South Australia (SA Department for
Education and Child Development, 2011). It has been useful to encourage
sectors to look to best practice models in Victoria in particular in their policy development processes, and to include local lgbtiq stakeholders andparents groups in their preparation.
In the Australian Capital Territory (act) Education Minister Andrew
Barr asserted that the research served as inspiration for “ramping up efforts
to stamp out homophobia in act schools” in other ways (Barr, 2011). In addition to developing policies and guidelines, sector leadership is encouraged
to also support sexual and gender diversity through curriculums, resourcesand equal treatment at events. Teacher educators and school staff are encouraged to police homophobia and provide an inclusive environment for
lgbtiq students.
References
Acara 2012. Draft Shape of the Australian Curriculum: Health and Physical
Education. Sydney: Australian Curriculum Assessment and Reporting
Authority.
Apa Task Force on Appropriate Therapeutic Responses to Sexual Orientation.
2009. Report of the Task Force on Appropriate Therapeutic Responses to Sexual
Orientation. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Barr, A. (Producer). (2011, 17.02.11) Confronting homophobia in schools.
Andrew Barr Website. Retrieved from www.andrewbarr.com.au/story/
confronting-homophobia-schools.
Board of Studies NSW. 2003. Personal Development, Health and Physical Education
Years 7–10 Syllabus. Sydney: Board of Studies nsw.
Boston, K. 1997. Homophobia in Schools. Retrieved from www.det.nsw.edu.au/policies/student_serv/student_welfare/homoph_sch/PD20050287.shtml?level=Sch
ools&categories=Schools%7CAccess+%26+equity%7CHomosexuality.
Carlson, D. L. 1992. “Identity conflict and change.” In J. T. Sears, editor, Sexuality andthe curriculum: the politics and practices of sexuality education (pages 34–58).
New York: Teachers College Press, pages 34-58.
Carroll, L. 2005a. “Gender identity.” In J. T. Sears, editor, Youth, education and sexualities: An international encyclopedia (Vol. One: A–J). Westport: Connecticut:
Greenwood Press, pages 358-361.
Carroll, L. 2005b. “Intersex.” In J. T. Sears, editor, Youth, education and sexualities: An international encyclopedia (Vol. One: A–J). Westport, Connecticut:
Greenwood Press, pages 440–444.

218

H u m a n R i g h t s E d u c at i o n i n A s i a - Pa c i f i c

Catholic Education Commission nsw. 2004. Towards Wholeness K–6: The Catholic
Perspective on the nsw Personal Development, Health and Physical Education
K–6 Syllabus. Retrieved from www.redi.gov.au/reading_room/profile/towards_
wholeness.htm#topics.
Chi-wei, C. 2012. “Education key to end menace of homophobia.” Taipei
Times.
Retrieved
fromwww.taipeitimes.com/News/editorials/
archives/2012/06/04/2003534457.
Douglas, L. (2012, 01.10.12). “Thwaites says no to gay lifestyle in school.”
Jamaica Observer. Retrieved from www.jamaicaobserver.com/news/
Thwaites-says-no-to-gay-lifestyle-in-school_12622849#ixzz2ByqqAcgx.
Edwards, J. W., Fisher, D. G., & Reynolds, G. L. 2007. “Male-to-female transgender and transsexual clients of hiv service programs in Los Angeles County,
California.” American Journal of Public Health, 97 (6), 1030-1033.
Fairclough, N. 1989. Language and power. London: Longman.
Fairclough, N. 1992. Discourse and social change. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Fairclough, N. 1998. Political discourse in the media: An analytical framework.
Oxford: Blackwell Publisher Inc.
Fairclough, N. 2000. “Discourse, social theory and social research: The discourse of
welfare reform.” Journal of Sociolinguistics, 4 (2), 163–195.
Fisher, J. 2012. Human Rights Council session: overview and next steps. Unpublished
UN SOGI list Newsletter. ARC International.
Hillier, L., Dempsey, D., Harrison, L., Beale, L., Matthews, L., & Rosenthal, D. 1998.
“Writing Themselves.” In A National Report on the Sexuality, Health andWellbeing of Same-sex Attracted Young People. Carlton: National Centre in hiv
Social Research, La Trobe University.
Hillier, L., Jones, T., Monagle, M., Overton, N., Gahan, L., Blackman, J., et al. 2010.
“Writing Themselves.” In The Third National Study on the Sexual Healthand Wellbeing of Same-sex Attracted and Gender Questioning Young People.
Melbourne: Australian Research Centre in Sex, Health and Society.
Hillier, L., Turner, A., & Mitchell, A. 2005. Writing themselves in again: 6 years on,
the 2nd national report on the sexuality, health and wellbeing of same-sex attracted young people in Australia. Melbourne: La trobe University
Igwe, L. 2009. “Tradition of same gender marriage in Igboland, Nigeria.” Nigerian
Tribune. Retrieved from www.tribune.com.ng/19062009/opinion.html.
Jenkin, M. 2012. “Russia issues ‘gay family’ warning to parents of UK summer
school kids.” Gaystarnews. Retrieved from www.gaystarnews.com/article/
russia-issues-gay-family-warning-parents-uk-summer-school-kids180712.
Jones, T. 2011a. “Saving rhetorical children: Sexuality education discourses fromconservative to post-modern.” Sex Education, 11(4), 369–387.
Jones, T. 2011b. “A sexuality education discourses framework: Conservative, liberal, critical and post-modern.” American Journal of Sexuality Education, 6 (2),
133–175.
Jones, T. 2012a. Data Brief: the Tasmanian Education Context. Hobart: Report submitted to Rodney Croome of the tglrg and the Tasmanian Department of
Education.

Impact of Australian Policies on LGBTIQ Student Rights

219

Jones, T. 2012b. Discrimination and Bullying on the Grounds of Sexual Orientation
and Gender Identity in Western Australian Education. Perth: Western Australian
Equal Opportunity Commission.
Jones, T. 2013a. Advance Australia Fairer: A Submission to the Inquiry by the
Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee on the Sex Discrimination
Amendment (Sexual Orientation, Gender Identity and Intersex Status) BiIl 2013.
Canberra: Australian Parliament.
Jones, T. 2013b. Data Brief: Homophobic Bullying in Queensland Schools. Brisbane:
Report submitted to Janet Berry of Parents and Friends of Lesbians And
Gays (pflag) and the Queensland Department of Education Training and
Employment.
Jones, T., & Hillier, L. 2012. Sexuality Education School Policy for glbtiq Students.
Sex Education, 12 (4), 437-454.
Kendall, C., & Sidebotham, N. 2004. “Homophobic bullying in schools: Is there aduty of care?” Australian & New Zealand Journal of Law & Education, 9 (1),71–93.
Kissane, K. 2009. “Court lets girl 17 remove breasts.” The Age. Retrieved from www.
theage.com.au/national/court-lets-girl-17-remove-breasts-20090503-arem.
html?page=-1.
Marr, D. 2011. “‘Appalling’ law lets schools expel gay students.” Sydney Morning
Herald (National). Retrieved from www.smh.com.au/national/education/appalling-law-lets-schools-expel-gay-students-20110211-1aqk2.html.
Mceetya. 2008. Melbourne Declaration on Educational Goals for Young
Australians. Retrieved from www.mceetya.edu.au/mceetya/publications,11582.
html#Safe%20school%20environment.
Moran, J. P. 2000. Teaching sex: The shaping of adolescence in the 20th century.
London Harvard University Press.
Nsw Government. 1983. Controversial Issues in Schools. Retrieved from www.det.
nsw.edu.au/policies/curriculum/schools/cont_issue/PD20020045.shtml.
Pace, J. 2013. “Obama Pushes African Leaders On Gay Rights, Rebuked By SenegalesePresident Macky Sall.” Huffington Post, www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/27/
obama-africa-gay-rights_n_3512530.html.
Pf﻿lanz, M. 2011. “Africa reacts to Obama’s pro-gay rights foreign policy with ire.”
Jewish World Review,. Retrieved from www.jewishworldreview.com/1211/clinton_gay_africa.php3#.Ugzscjl-8cA
Phoon, A. 2010. “The role of US evangelists in Uganda’s ‘kill the gays’ bill.” The Age.
Retrieved from www.theage.com.au/opinion/politics/the-role-of-us-evangelists-in-ugandas-kill-the-gays-bill-20100111-m2lf.html#ixzz2C9vbdv3y.
Pillay, N. 2012. How gay rights debate began at the UN - UN human rights chief Navi
Pillay looks back at the evolution of the gay rights [Video clip]. Geneva: United
Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights.
Pollard, D. 2013. “Foreign Minister Bob Carr says lgbti Rights Core Issue forAustralian Foreign Policy.” The Stirrer. Retrieved from www.thestirrer.com.au/
foreign-minister-bob-carr-says-lgbti-rights-core-issue-for-australian-foreignpolicy/.

220

H u m a n R i g h t s E d u c at i o n i n A s i a - Pa c i f i c

Rehman, J., Lazer, S., Benet, A. E., Schaefer, L. C., & Melman, A. 1999. “The reported
sex and surgery satisfactions of 28 postoperative male-to-female transsexual patients.” Archives of Sexual Behavior, 28 (1), 71-89.
Robinson, D. 2011. “Obama Elevates Gay Rights as a Foreign Policy Priority.” Voiceof America. Retrieved from www.voanews.com/content/obama-elevates-gayrights-as-a-foreign-policy-priority-135136743/174955.html.
SA Department for Education and Child Development. 2011. Challenging
Homophobia in Schools. Melbourne: Government of South Australia.
Sears, J. T. 2005. Youth, education and sexualities: An international encyclopedia(Vol. One: A–J). Westport, Connecticut: Greenwood Press.
Smith, A., Agius, P., Mitchell, A., Barrett, C., & Pitts, M. 2009. Secondary students
and sexual health 2008. Melbourne: Australian Research Centre in Sex, Healthand Society.
Stieglitz, K. 2010. “Development, risk and resilience of transgender youth.” Journal of
the Association of Nurses in aids Care, 21 (3), 192–206.
Tas Department of Education. 2012. Guidelines for Supporting Sexual and Gender
Diversity in Schools and Colleges.
The China Post. 2010. “Gays protest against government memo.” The China
Post. Retrieved from www.chinapost.com.tw/taiwan/national/nationalnews/2010/03/03/246610/Gays-protest.htm.
The Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee. (2013). Reporton the Sex Discrimination Amendment (Sexual Orientation, Gender Identity
and Intersex Status) Bill 2013 [Provisions]. Canberra: Parliament House.
Thonemann, A. 1999. Enabling and disabling conditions for teaching against homophobia. Paper presented at the The Symposium for cur99037 Challenging
Heterosexuality and Homophobia in Schools. Retrieved from www.aare.edu.
au/99pap/tho99040.htm.
United Nations Human Rights Council. 2011. Report of the Working Group on the
Universal Periodic Review Australia. Geneva: United Nations.
United Nations Secretary-General. 2011. Message to event on ending violence anddiscrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity. Office of theHigh Commissioner for Human Rights. Retrieved from www.ohchr.org/en/
NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=11717&LangID=E.
Unesco. 2011. Rio Statement on Homophobic Bullying and Education for All. Rio deJaniero, Brazil: unesco.
Unesco. 2012a. Education Sector Responses to Homophobic Bullying. Paris: unesco.
Unesco. 2012b. Review of Homophobic Bullying in Educational Institutions. Paris:
unesco.
United Nations. 2012. Born free and equal: Sexual orientation and gender identity ininternational human rights law. New York and Geneva: United Nations Human
Rights Office of the High Commissioner.
United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights. 2011. Discrimination Laws
and Practices and Acts of Violence against Individuals Based on their Sexual
Orientation and Gender Identity. Geneva: United Nations.
US
National
Commissionforunesco.
2011.
Ambassador
KillionApplauds
New
unescoInitiativetoPromotelgbt

Impact of Australian Policies on LGBTIQ Student Rights

221

Rights. United States Mission to unesco, http://unesco.usmission.gov/unescogay-rights.html.
Vic Government. 2007. Victorian Government Schools Reference Guide. Retrieved
from www.education.vic.gov.au/management/governance/referenceguide/default.htm.
Vic Government. 2008. Supporting Sexual Diversity in Schools. Retrieved fromwww.eduweb.vic.gov.au/edulibrary/public/teachlearn/student/supportsexualdiversity.pdf.
Vic Government. 2010. Building Respectful and Safe Schools: A resource for schoolcommunities. Melbourne: Communications Division for the Student Wellbeing
Division.
WA Equal Opportunity Commission. 2012. Sexuality and gender based bullying inschools: An equal opportunity fact sheet for staff. Perth: WA Equal Opportunity
Commission.

Endnotes
My emphasis.
Some of these findings were previously reported in the journal Sex Education.
3
This online survey questioned self-identified Australian same sex attracted andgender questioning young people aged 14-21 from all Australian states and territories about their health and wellbeing. A total of 3,134 (valid) surveys were collected
and analyzed, and a full report (including discussion on ethics, methodology, recruitment, findings and a copy of the questionnaire) is available at www.latrobe.edu.
au/ssay/assets/downloads/wti3_web_sml.pdf.
4Grounds are termed ‘sexuality’ in the Northern Territory and homosexuality,
bisexuality or transsexuality’ in Tasmania.
5
Other categories included ‘intersex’, ‘not sure’, ‘somewhere in between’ and ‘nogender’. Some ‘gender questioning’ students questioned not themselves, but the concept of gender.
6
Most commonly ‘pansexual’, ‘bi-romantic’, ‘myself ’ or a direct refusal of labels
altogether.
12