LAG (Lesbian Action Group)

UPDATE

15 April 2026

UPDATE ON LAG CASE — AT LAST! A WIN FOR LAG!

*****

Media reports:

Fraser Anderson 2026, ‘The Citizen’s Guide To The Machine,’ Substack, 19 April.

Rachel Baxendale 2026, ‘Federal Court upholds appeal by lesbian group seeking single-sex event exemption’, The Australian, 15 April.

Caitlin Casssidy 2026, ‘Australian Lesbian Group’s fight to bar transwomen to return to tribunal after federal xourt win,’ The Guardian, 15 April.

Paige Cockburn 2026, ‘Lesbian Action Group wins Federal Court appeal in bid to exclude transgender women’, ABC, 15 April.

Jenny Nabben 2026,’T’he Lesbian Action Group goes to Federal Court‘, 23 March, Substack.

Zoe Phillips 2026, ‘Lesbian advocacy group’s ‘huge relief as federal court upholds appeal over plans to bar transgender women from events,’ Sky News, ‘ 17 April.

*****

On Wednesday 15 April, 2026, Justice Mark Moshinsky published his judgment on Lesbian Action Group and Australian Human Rights Commission. He allowed the appeal lodged by LAG and set aside the decisions of the Administrative Review Tribunal (ART) (and the Australian Human Rights Commission (AHRC)) to disallow LAG’s application for exemption from the Sex Discrimination Act 1984.

He stated that:

  • Both the ART and the AHRC had not fully complied with the SDA legislation;
  • the AHRC is expected to revise its guidelines (“Temporary Exemptions under the Sex Discrimination Act”) to comply fully with the SDA legislation;
  • LAG was free to resubmit an application for SDA exemption to a re-constituted ART, and
  • The AHRC was ordered to pay for all costs.

In particular, J Mochinsky drew attention to how:

  1. the ART was incorrect in its understanding of the “exemption power in s. 44 of the SDA; the ART had concluded incorrrectly that it is not subject to the duty in s 10A(1) of the AHRC Act; the ART had incorrectly understood that “properly construed, the word “sex” in the SDA means biological sex. Accordingly, and in any event, the SDA gives priority to members of the female sex (including lesbians); and the ART decision was also “legally unreasonable.’

J Mochinsky drew parallels between SDA exemptions and the positive discrimination provisions of the  Equal Opportunity Act.

2.  the ART had not fully complied with human rights laws.

J Mochinsky declared that the AHRC guicelines are “deficient” and need to be rewritten using correct interpretations of the SDA with regard to the:

“(i) indivisibility and universality of human rights; and

(ii)    the principle that every person is free and equal in dignity and rights”

(ie, gender identity is not a more important characteristic deserving protection of human rights than that of a woman.)

We now wait for the Giggle v Tickle High Court appeal, and hope that J Mochinsky’s acceptance of a sex-based definition of a lesbian will hold and that women’s rights are not subservient to those of people who hold a gender identity of ‘woman’.

July 2025

Listen to Carole Ann giving a history of LAG’s fight for lesbian space in a 2025 recording of Episode 4 ‘Lesbians’ in the Desexing Society podcast.

20 January 2025: 

Dr Stewart Fenwick, a General Member of the Administrative Review Tribunal, handed down his decision to uphold the earlier decision that LAG not be granted an exemption  under the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 (Cth) (the SDA). He noted that:

  1. ‘… the Applicants did not mount a substantive argument that their proposed actions should be considered a special measure 143. …’I do not disagree with either party that, at a general level, it might be said that lesbian women suffer disadvantage because of their gender and sexual orientation. I am not certain that this rises to the level that demands restrictions upon public activity, particularly given the
    span of time over which an exemption could run. However, I consider it  reasonable to assume that the proposed actions can amount to a special measure for the purposes of achieving substantive equality between men and women, and between lesbian and heterosexual women. 
  2. Finally, I do not consider the evidence and arguments raised to have made a substantive case that lesbians born female in particular experience substantive inequality compared to lesbian trans women. I must therefore proceed with the further application of the SDA. …
  3. With respect to the matter of the underlying policy behind the SDA, I consider it would be a perverse outcome to grant an exemption on the basis that the Applicants consider the law to be inappropriate, or based on unsubstantiated science, or on other policy grounds that are no longer considered sustainable. That is, on this particular ground, the grant of an exemption would potentially demonstrate the redundancy of the protected gender characteristic. This cannot be understood as consistent with the scope and purpose of the SDA. …
  4. As noted above, I have accepted as a general proposition that the lesbian community experience matter. On balance, I do not consider there to be sufficiently persuasive evidence that any
    continuing social marginalisation of the lesbian community in public can contribute to justification of the exercise of the discretion in this case. …
  5. Refusal of an exemption does not, in my view, unduly fetter the current or future activities
    of the Applicants in pursuit of their stated political or policy aims. Refusal also does not
    prevent them from discriminating in the limited way permitted under the SDA as a small association. …

168 … I have pointed to provisions of the SDA that are likely to have the effect of limiting the capacity of the Applicants to enjoy the privilege arising from an exemption. This is because of the likelihood that other entities contributing to an event or events may not be subject to the protection arising from an exemption.

LAG has indicated they intend to appeal to a higher court. This would be expensive! Stay tuned.

8 November 2023: 

LAG applied to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal for a review of the Decision. Reasons submitted for LAG’s application shown here. Link to Statement of Facts and Issues and Contentions.

12 October 2023:

AHRC handed down its final decision.  Link to a summary decision is here. Link to the full decision is  here. 

25 September 2023:

AHRC announced its preliminary view that rejected LAG’s application, and concluded ‘it is not persuaded that it is appropriate and reasonable to grant the exemption to the Lesbian Action Group’. Link to AHRC preliminary decision here.

The AHRC invited additional submissions.

17 September 2023:

LAG held a Speak Out at Victorian Parliament House. Link is here.

The timeline of events in the subsequent legal actions and challenges.

September 2023:

LAG applied to the AHRC (Australian Human Rights Commision) for exemption from the SDA (Sex DIscrimination Act). in order to hold a lesbian only event at the Pride Centre.  Link to their (undated) application is here.

Submissions were made to the AHRC for and against LAG’s application of exemption. There were  14 separate applications from organisations in support. Regrettably, CoAL was unable to submit due to our limited resources at the time. (We did make a submission later). Those against comprised highly organised LGBTQI+ proponents:  a joint submission on behalf of 15 LGBTQI+ organisations, Victorian Commissioner for LGBTIQ+ Communities, Anti-Discrimination Commissioner, Tasmania, Q+Law, Melbourne Bisexual Network, Mamma Chen’s–a live music venue in Footscray,Triple Bi Pass-– an LGBTQI+  radio program, Antypical Hair & Gallery, Aleph Melbourne, Renters and Housing Union trade unions, and a prostitute organisation.

August 2023

Lesbian Action Group (LAG)  initiated a coordinated campaign to claim lesbian space.

LAG applied to the Victorian Pride Centre to hold a lesbian only event on International Lesbian Day in October 2023. Their application was rejected by the Pride Centre. Note that, previously, the Pride Centre had permitted ‘Trans only’ events.

Media reports:

  • The Age: Chip Le Grande, ‘Lesbian group seeks human rights exemption to exclude trans women from Melbourne event,’ 21.8.23. Link is here.
  • LOTL: ‘The Lesbian Action Group’s Exemption Request: Balancing Rights And Inclusion,’ 7.9.23. Link is here. This publication believes that a woman can have a penis, stating ‘The purpose of this exemption is to host an event for lesbians that would exclude certain groups of women.’ This is an incorrect interpretation of LAG’s intention, which was to host an event for lesbians only (ie, to exclude men who say they are lesbians).
  • Sydney Morning Herald: Chip Le Grande, ‘Bid to exclude trans women from lesbian event sparks stand-off,’ 14.9.23. Link is here.
  • WDI (Women’s Declaration International): ‘Nicole Mowbray – Australia – Lesbian Action Group, 21.9.23. Link is here. 
  • interview by LOTL of Nicole about LAG (27.9.23). Link is here.
  •