OPINION
Rodney Croome AM is a long-time LGBTIQ+ rights advocate and national spokesperson for Just.Equal
There’s a lot missing from Australia’s new LGBTIQA+ health action plan.
Take your pick from…
- Concrete targets for 2035 in areas such as how many health care workers will be trained in LGBTIQA+ inclusion, how many LGBTIQA+ people will have access to dedicated health services, how much shorter wait times will be for gender affirming care, and how much lower mental health risk will be.
- Critical law and policy reforms like stronger hate speech laws, a prohibition on discrimination in faith-based hospitals and health services, ending medically unnecessary surgeries on infants with innate variations of sex characteristics, allowing transgender people to claim gender affirming treatments on Medicare and measures to improve LGBTIQA+ safety and health in schools.
- High-profile public information campaigns to reduce the stigma and discrimination that lead to poorer LGBTIQA+ health outcomes.
- More money. The plan allocates about $13m for grants. If we estimate there are 1.3 million LGBTIQA+ Australians, that’s $10 each over one year. If the funding is for a decade, it’s $1 each per year. Clearly, more is needed to address the legacy of centuries of stigma and hate.
Is all this too much to ask from the nation’s LGBTIQA+ health plan?
Not if we compare it to the recently-released Tasmanian equivalent.
The Tasmanian plan has concrete targets (for example, 85% of mental health staff trained in LGBTIQA+ inclusion), contested reforms (for example, lower wait times for gender affirming care), steps to new services (for example, a dedicated mental health service), and health promotion campaigns addressing the causes of our poorer health outcomes.
If a state Liberal Government can issue a plan with these kinds of actions, why not a federal Labor Government?
The type of funding that accompanies the action plan also raises questions.
Will the $13m in grants go to ongoing, core funding for essential services, or will it be spent on one-off projects?
In Dan Andrews’ Victoria a lot of LGBTIQA+ projects were seeded, which looked good at the time, but are now withering because of lack of ongoing funds.
I fear the same sugar-hit strategy will prevail nationally given the relatively small amount available.
For example, per capita Tasmania would receive $65,000 which is nowhere near enough to provide core funding for an essential service.
We need to shift the way we think about LGBTIQA+ community funding away from the Victorian model towards ongoing, core funding for key services, and these services should be where they’re needed most, not just in inner-city electorates where parties hope to win pink votes.
While we’re on funding, last year the Government announced $26m for LGBTIQA+ health research, and an extra $2m as part of the new action plan.
Why has researching our health problems been allocated more than twice as much money as fixing those problems?
Unfortunately, it’s much easier for governments to fund research than solutions, something LGBTIQA+ communities should push back against.
At the least, community grant funding and research funding should be matched.
Another question is who will oversee the implementation of the plan?
In 2023 the Government announced “an LGBTIQA+ Health Advisory Panel” to help develop the action plan.
It was heavy with reps from the inner-city, academia and big funded services.
Will such a group continue? If so, will it be expanded to include reps from regional and rural areas, from more bi, trans and ACE groups, from a range of intersectional perspectives, from smaller services and from every state and territory (oddly, Tasmania was the only state denied a rep despite leapfrogging other states on relevant policies)?
Will the group report back to the LGBTIQA+ community so we can ensure it stays on track?
Will it continue to be convened by a government minister, or will it become an advisory group for the health department?
In my experience, LGBTIQA+ advisory groups convened by government agencies rather than political figures are much more effective and get much more done.
The federal government is only just beginning to liaise with the LGBTIQA+ community. We need to make sure this liaison meets a high standard from the start.
Proponents of the action plan continue to defend it, which is a sign they understand its weaknesses.
Their main arguments are to highlight the dire health stats for LGBTIQA+ people (which are an argument for a better plan), and to point out this plan is the first of its kind at a national level (which is also a reason to do better).
I’m not convinced.
The deficiencies of the LGBTIQA+ action plan are both disappointing in themselves and raise a range of questions about who makes decisions for our community and how they are accountable for these decisions.
The insufficiencies of the action plan show it’s time for more voices around the national LGBTIQA+ table.
