Australia, explained.
Commemorative stamps for a UN Free & Equal campaign (Rick Bajornas/UN Photo)
As LGBTQI+ rights retreat worldwide, Australia’s UN rejection squanders a chance to lead in the Asia-Pacific.
Subscribe to The Informer for monthly expert analysis, and to Events for advance notice of visiting world leaders and distinguished guests.
You may unsubscribe from Lowy Institute newsletters at any time. For information on our privacy practices and how to unsubscribe, see our Privacy Policy.
Australia’s missed moment on global LGBTQI+ rightsAustralia’s missed moment on global LGBTQI+ rights
In July, the Australian government rejected all recommendations (Opens in new window) for improving LGBTQI+ rights made via a United Nations process.
The UN Human Rights Council Universal Periodic Review enables countries to review each other’s human rights record and provide recommendations for improvement. Of 332 recommendations overall, the government accepted 128, but none of those were for LGBTQI+ people.
This matters particularly in the current political moment involving a backlash against LGBTQI+ identities and a regression on LGBTQI+ rights around the world.
The United Kingdom, for example, was ranked first in Europe (Opens in new window) on LGBTQI+ rights in 2013. By 2026, it has fallen to 22. The deteriorating rights space is so severe that the Lemkin Institute for Genocide Prevention has issued “red flag (Opens in new window)” alerts on anti-trans and intersex rights. The institute also put out an alert for the United States on anti-trans rights.
With states that previously championed protections for LGBTQI+ people taking hostile positions against LGBTQI+ rights, one academic recently argued (Opens in new window) that the world has passed “peak queer” given that “most ruling parties have abandoned all pretence of advocating for LGBTQI+ rights” and often ally with anti-gender activists. This is a long way from the 2011 proclamation (Opens in new window) by then US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton that “gay rights are human rights”.
When humanitarian aid targets women, gay male households may be excluded.
In our research on the backlash against LGBTQI+ rights and the prevention of mass atrocity crimes, we have found (Opens in new window) that there are significant gaps in both research and policy practice where LGBTQI+ people haven’t been factored into risk indicators for atrocities. The underlying assumption (Opens in new window) is that the community served by people working on atrocity prevention are all heterosexual and cisgender, which is not the case for any large group of people. We argue that researchers and practitioners need to remove the “cisheteronormative blindfold (Opens in new window)” and consider the specific needs of LGBTQI+ people.
Examples of policies and practices that have unequal outcomes for LGBTQI+ people in conflict or development settings include:
Laws and language that high-profile figures use to discuss LGBTQI+ people also have political effects. In Indonesia, a presidential regulation (Opens in new window) in 2025 classified “the spread of LGBTQ culture” as a non-military threat. Echa Wao’de, an Indonesian trans advocate, told the ABC that “because of the presidential regulation and discriminatory regional regulations, people feel able to commit violence arbitrarily because they believe the state has legitimised that violence”.
Australia’s rejection of the UN’s recommendations on LGBTQI+ human rights was a missed opportunity for Australia to be a leader on LGBTQI+ rights in the Asia-Pacific region and beyond.
With Australia now bidding for a seat (Opens in new window) on the United Nations Security Council for 2029–30, currently uncontested, its positions on these issues carry real weight. In 2023, Australia’s annual statement (Opens in new window) to the UN General Assembly on the prevention of mass atrocity crimes included references to the persecution of LGBTQI+ people, which was one of the first statements (Opens in new window) in that forum to make these connections. If Australia does secure an elected seat on the UN Security Council, this is an example of the kind of leadership it could show in this area. Advocacy of this type matters as demonisation and persecution of LGBTQI+ people intensify around the world.
About the authors
Jess Gifkins
Dr Jess Gifkins is an Associate Professor in International Relations at the University of Technology Sydney.
Dean Cooper-Cunningham
DrDean Cooper-Cunningham is an Assistant Professor of International Relations in the Department of Political Science at the University of Copenhagen.
The most-pressing world events explained by Lowy Institute experts and global contributors, in your inbox, every Thursday.
You may unsubscribe from The Interpreter at any time. For information on our privacy practices and how to unsubscribe, see our Privacy Policy.
