In a new LGBTIQA+ Australia-wide survey released by national advocacy group, Just.Equal Australia, a majority of participants supported the inclusion of police in pride parades.
But most of those who support inclusion want it to come with conditions such as training in LGBTIQA+ policing issues and more support for LGBTIQA+ police officers.
The survey of 1516 respondents across the nation also found support for inclusion in pride parades for big business, religious groups, political parties and government agencies with strong support for conditions-of-participation for all four.
The survey not only allowed respondents to indicate if they support inclusion with conditions, but also what conditions they preferred.
Researcher and report author, Dr Sharon Dane, said the research was important as it’s been a divisive issue in recent years.
“The issue of who can participate in pride parades, has caused division in LGBTIQA+ communities for several years.”
“The overall results of this survey suggest that LGBTIQA+ communities favour a path towards a less acrimonious and more productive debate, one in which participation depends on an organisation’s record of LGBTIQA+ equality and acceptance.”
Just.Equal Australia spokesperson, Rodney Croome, also commented on the survey.
“The survey makes it clear that the majority of LGBTIQA+ people believe in inclusive pride parades, but also believe participation is a privilege that comes with the responsibility to improve policies and practices.”
“We will distribute the survey to pride parade organisers across Australia to help inform their decisions about who participates in pride and under what conditions.” Croome said.
The survey found opposition to pride parade participation to be the highest in regard to police (36.1%), although it was still a minority next to those who support inclusion without conditions (26.7%) and inclusion with conditions (37.2%).
Within LGBTIQA+ communities, a majority of younger people (18-34) and a majority of people identifying as non-binary, trans, bisexual or queer opposed police participation outright.
Mr Croome said this shows a need for community groups and the police to work more closely together to improve policing practices and foster greater trust.
The next highest level of opposition to inclusion was to big business (25.2%) and religious groups (24.8%).
The majority of respondents supported inclusion of these organisations with the most highly nominated conditions for inclusion being support for an LGBTIQA+ staff network for businesses, and affirmation of LGBTIQA+ people and relationships for religious groups.
Government agencies returned the highest level of inclusion without conditions (34.4%). For those who chose inclusion of government agencies with conditions, the preferred condition was regular reviews of policy and operations to ensure LGBTIQA+ inclusion.
Other notable results include women supporting exclusion at a higher rate than men, WA being the only state split evenly between excluding and including police and Queensland being the only state to return more support for excluding religious groups than police.
Two-thirds of participants (65.9%) lived in a capital city, with most living in New South Wales (30.8%) followed by Victoria (28.5%) and Queensland (17.1%). Smaller numbers resided in Western Australia (6.1%), South Australia (3.2%), Australian Capital Territory (1.8%) and the Northern Territory (< 0.5%). Tasmania was overrepresented, with 12.3% of participants residing in that state.
