When Australian governments develop policies that fundamentally affect women’s sex-based protections and rights, FOI evidence and analysis of processes reveals that LGBTQIA+ organisations are invited, resourced, and embedded in advisory structures, and considered at the development stage; women’s groups focused on sex-based protections and rights, on the other hand, must monitor parliamentary websites, track down consultation portals, and scramble to meet deadlines we often learn about too late — if we learn about them at all.
This isn’t just unfair; it’s a systematic violation of our international human rights obligations under CEDAW Article 7, which requires that states ensure women’s meaningful participation in the formulation and implementation of government policy — and that especially means policy that affects our rights and interests.
CEDAW Article 7: Meaningful participation, not tokenism
Australia ratified the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) in 1983. Article 7 explicitly requires states to “take all appropriate measures to eliminate discrimination against women in the political and public life of the country” and to ensure women’s right “to participate in the formulation of government policy and the implementation thereof”.
Significantly, Article 7 requires that women’s participation be on “equal terms with men” and CEDAW General Recommendation No. 23 emphasises that a ‘token’ presence of women is unacceptable. Women must be “equally involved in decision-making at all levels” and “have full equality in the exercise of political and economic power” for states to meet their obligations. This ‘equal participation’ and avoidance of tokenism is what we talk about when we talk about ‘meaningful participation’. But specifically, the UN CEDAW Committee has stated that “when women are not broadly represented in the senior levels of government or are inadequately or not consulted at all, government policy will not be comprehensive and effective”.
Applied to consultation processes on policies affecting women’s sex-based protections and rights, these principles require that women’s groups are genuinely engaged from the earliest stages of policy development, given adequate time to provide considered responses, and that our input genuinely shapes policy outcomes—not merely provides a veneer of consultation after key decisions have already been made.
None of these standards were met in the development of the 2013 SDA amendments or the 2013 Guidelines on Sex and Gender Recognition. Nor have they been met in subsequent policy developments affecting women’s sex-based protections and rights, including the LGBTIQA+ Health Action Plan, census consultations, and sporting policy guidelines.
What ‘stakeholder’ really means
Freedom of Information requests have exposed the stark reality of how government decides whose voices matter on policies affecting women and girls. The documents reveal two fundamentally different levels of engagement: not merely different in degree, but different in kind. One pathway leads to genuine influence over policy development; the other offers only the appearance of consultation.
When LGBTQIA+ organisations engage with government on sex and gender policies, they do so as stakeholders — a status that confers systematic power and embedded influence throughout the policy development process. Being recognised as a stakeholder means
- Formal appointment to Advisory Groups with defined roles, influence, and decision-making power
- Direct email invitations to consultation processes before they’re publicly announced
- Paid positions, travel allowances, and meeting expenses
- Regular teleconferences with department officials during policy drafting
- Access to draft policies weeks or months before any ‘public’ consultation
- Having your organisation’s input actively sought and incorporated at every stage
This is the gold standard of policy influence, the kind of access that shapes legislation before it’s even drafted, that determines which questions get asked, and which options are considered. This is how policy gets made.
Women’s groups focused on sex-based protections and rights, by contrast, are relegated to an entirely different process. When we engage with government on these same policies — policies that directly affect our rights, safety, and access to female-only spaces — we do so by making a submission. The FOI evidence reveals what this actually means:
- Finding out about consultations through your own research, if you discover them at all
- Three to four weeks to respond (including over holiday periods) once you learn they exist
- No resources, no travel support, no seat at the drafting table
- Submissions that may never be made public or even acknowledged
- No influence over which questions are asked or what options are considered
- Being told you had your chance to participate — if you were paying attention
This is consultation theatre: it creates the appearance of democratic process whilst systematically excluding those of us most affected by the policies under development. The consultation has often occurred, the key decisions have already been made, and the policy direction has been set — all before we’re even invited to comment.
And the difference between these two pathways is the difference between writing the rules and being subject to them.
Evidence from FOI documents
Freedom of Information documents obtained from federal departments paint a damning picture of this differential treatment.
The LGBTIQA+ Health and Wellbeing 10-Year National Action Plan Expert Advisory Group (2023-2024) demonstrates what genuine stakeholder status looks like. The Department of Health and Aged Care established a 17-member Expert Advisory Group, with every single member drawn from LGBTIQA+ organisations or holding LGBTIQA+ health expertise. Members received formal appointment letters, terms of reference, conflict of interest protocols, and ongoing administrative support, as well as travel allowances paid for by the department. The group met regularly to shape policy development from the ground up. Not a single women’s group focused on sex-based protections and rights was included — despite the policy’s direct implications for female-only health services, data collection on women’s health outcomes, and women’s privacy in healthcare settings.
The Attorney-General’s Department 2013 Australian Government Guidelines on Sex and Gender Recognition followed a similar pattern. An Advisory Group was established with representatives from Intersex Human Rights Australia (then OII Australia) and the Australian Human Rights Commission (AHRC). OII Australia was consulted on draft Guidelines from at least November 2012 — five months before the April 2013 ‘public’ consultation — and explicitly referenced their participation ‘through the working group’ in email correspondence with the Attorney-General’s Department.
When the draft Guidelines were finally circulated for ‘public consultation’ in April 2013, the process lasted just four weeks. The 36 submissions received were never made public and most submitter names remain redacted in FOI documents. There’s no evidence that any women’s groups focused on sex-based protections and rights were even invited to participate. Meanwhile, email records show ongoing correspondence between the Attorney-General’s Department and the Advisory Group members, with detailed feedback loops and policy refinements based on their input.
The Office for Women’s absence
Perhaps most tellingly, when a Freedom of Information request sought documents showing what advice the Office for Women provided on the 2013 Sex Discrimination Act amendments — changes that would fundamentally alter legal protections for women and female-only spaces — the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet’s response was stark: no documents exist.
The Office for Women provided no documented written advice to the Prime Minister. There are no records of correspondence with the Attorney-General’s Department officials working on the Bill. There is no documented evidence of the Office for Women providing advice to Parliamentary committees or to individual MPs and senators. The office that exists specifically to advance women’s interests was apparently silent on legislation that would remove sex-based definitions and introduce the legally undefined concept of ‘gender identity’ into Commonwealth anti-discrimination law.
The 2013 SDA amendments: Consultation by whose standards?
The 2013 Sex Discrimination Amendment (Sexual Orientation, Gender Identity and Intersex Status) Bill provides a case study in how ‘consultation’ can occur whilst systematically excluding the voices of those of us most affected. A Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee inquiry received 90 submissions. Of these, only two raised concerns about impacts on women’s sex-based protections and rights. First was the Equality Rights Alliance, which supported the Bill’s aims but cautioned that “the inclusion of these grounds in the Sex Discrimination Act must not be permitted to reduce protection against discrimination on the grounds of sex”. Crucially, ERA concluded in 2013 that ‘the current Bill does not decrease that protection’ — a view that could not have anticipated how the removal of the definitions of ‘man’ and ‘woman’, combined with the introduction of the legally undefined concept of ‘gender identity’, would be interpreted over the following decade. The other was Women’s Legal Services NSW, whose specific concerns are not detailed in available records.
A Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee inquiry was established and received 90 written submissions; however, the Committee did not hold public hearings where submitters could appear to give oral evidence or be questioned by Senators. Instead, the Committee sought clarification on issues through written correspondence with the Attorney-General’s Department. The Bill passed through both Houses within three months of introduction — a relatively standard timeframe, but inadequate given the Bill’s far-reaching implications for women’s sex-based protections and rights and the absence of oral testimony from affected groups. And Parliamentary debate records show that not a single parliamentarian mentioned the implications for women’s existing sex-based protections and rights or special measures under the Act.
Meanwhile, LGBTQIA organisations — ACON, OII Australia, and others — made detailed written submissions to the Senate inquiry. Their expertise shaped the Bill’s final form: the Senate Committee explicitly adopted their recommendations on key definitions, including the inclusion of ‘intersex status’ as a standalone protected attribute. Their status as primary stakeholders whose interests the Bill was designed to protect was never questioned. But women’s groups focused on sex-based protections and rights weren’t at the table — or even in the room.
The consequences of exclusion
This differential treatment isn’t just a procedural failure. It produces bad policy with real consequences for women and girls. When policies are developed without input from those of us most affected, they
- Create legal uncertainty about women’s access to female-only spaces and services
- Fail to protect vulnerable women in prisons, refuges, and healthcare settings — and more
- Ignore evidence about impacts on women’s sport, lesbian organising, and girls’ safeguarding
- Prioritise the interests of commercial and activist lobby groups over the sex-based protections and rights of women and girls
- Violate Australia’s international human rights obligations
Demanding our seat at the table
Women’s groups across Australia — including AAWAA — have repeatedly sought stakeholder recognition. We have made submissions to UN human rights reviews, written to ministers, published legal analysis, and documented the harms of excluding us from meaningful consultation. But we’ve been ignored.
It’s time for that to change. The differential treatment documented in these FOI records represents a clear breach of CEDAW Article 7. It demonstrates policy capture by lobby groups whose interests directly conflict with women’s sex-based protections and rights. And it shows that Australian governments are failing to meet even their own standards for best practice consultation.
We’re not asking for special treatment. We’re demanding equal treatment. LGBTQIA+ organisations gained formal stakeholder status through sustained advocacy and government recognition of their expertise. We are doing exactly the same.
When government develops policies on women’s health, women’s safety, women’s sport, women’s prisons, women’s refuges, and women’s legal protections and rights, women must be at the table from the start — not fighting for scraps of information about processes that have already concluded.
What needs to happen now
Australia’s obligations under CEDAW Article 7 require immediate action:
- Recognise women’s groups as primary stakeholders on all policies affecting women’s sex-based protections and rights, with the same formal status currently granted to LGBTQIA+ organisations
- Establish transparent stakeholder lists for all consultations affecting women, published at the start of policy development processes
- Require the Office for Women to provide written advice on all proposed legislation and policy affecting women’s sex-based protections and rights, with that advice made public
- Implement minimum consultation standards: 30-60 days (4-8 weeks, as per government guidelines), with 30 days minimum for major policy changes, public exposure drafts, published submissions, and documented responses to stakeholder input
- Audit past consultation failures and recommit to genuine consultation on policies developed without adequate input from women’s groups
- Establish an Independent Women’s Advisory Council with representatives from feminist organisations, including those focused on sex-based protections and rights, to advise government on all policy affecting women
The evidence is clear. The pattern is undeniable. The breach of our international obligations is documented. Australian governments must now decide: will they continue to exclude women from decisions about our own rights, or will they finally honour their commitments under CEDAW?
There’s a world of difference between being invited to the table and having to fight for a seat you didn’t know existed. It’s time we were invited.
