As the 2025 federal election approaches, the Affiliation of Australian Women’s Action Alliances (AAWAA) and its member groups are taking action. Across the country, our women-led organisations — and our individual members — are writing directly to candidates, urging them to restore clarity and fairness to Australia’s anti-discrimination framework.
Our member groups have joined the national call, and will soon be sending letters to all candidates contesting the upcoming election. Their message is clear: the 2013 amendments to the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 (Cth) (SDA) have produced unintended but serious consequences for women’s rights, democratic freedoms, and institutional accountability.
Our groups identify four major areas of concern:
1. Institutional conflicts of interest and policy bias
The pursuit of external advocacy benchmarks—such as the Australian Workplace Equality Index (AWEI)—has resulted in public institutions, including the Department of Health and Aged Care, adopting policies that compromise impartiality and evidence-based governance. For instance, public health materials have been altered (e.g., the removal of the word “mum” from pregnancy advice) to meet AWEI compliance, sidelining the public interest and creating conflicts under the Public Service Act 1999.
2. Erosion of freedom of association and assembly
Legal ambiguity introduced by the SDA amendments has made it harder for women to organise and meet in female-only settings. Even groups like the Lesbian Action Group have faced barriers when attempting to book publicly funded venues for women-only events. Our groups point out that these limitations clash with international human rights obligations—such as those in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR)—and weaken women’s ability to gather where biological sex is relevant to their dignity, privacy, or safety.
3. Tensions with international human rights frameworks
Australia is a signatory to the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW), which mandates the protection of sex-based rights. However, the current framework of the SDA tends to prioritise gender identity over sex, putting Australia at odds with its international obligations. The Australian Human Rights Commission’s refusal to grant exemptions for female-only events, despite acknowledging systemic discrimination against lesbians, is a clear example of this conflict.
4. Workplace implications and chilling effects on free speech
While the Respect@Work amendments were intended to protect women from workplace harassment, they lack guidance on balancing sex-based protections with gender identity policies. The result? Women who advocate for single-sex spaces now risk being labelled discriminatory. In some public sector environments, staff feel coerced into adopting gender-neutral policies, such as removing single-sex toilets, without consultation—potentially violating obligations under the Fair Work Act 2009.
A call for balance and reform
Our groups are urging candidates to support common-sense reforms, including:
- Clarifying the legal definition of sex to ensure women’s rights to female-only spaces are protected.
- Reviewing public institutions’ involvement in external benchmarking schemes like AWEI to prevent conflicts of interest.
- Ensuring SDA provisions are consistent with CEDAW and ICCPR obligations, so that sex-based rights aren’t automatically subordinated to gender identity.
This letter is part of a coordinated, national effort by AAWAA and its member groups to highlight what is becoming an increasingly urgent voting issue. Across Australia, many women feel silenced, sidelined, or ignored on matters that affect their safety, freedom of speech, and ability to associate.
