Once upon a time, I was a regular listener of local ABC radio. At this point, you might stop reading, concluding that I have clearly lost the plot. But here’s the important point: I was tuning in to listen to Red Symons, ex-Skyhooks guitarist, who did an early morning stint for many years.

It was always apparent that preparation was not his thing. He would simply rock up to the studio – it started at 5.30 am, so that was a burden in itself – and start to natter on about any issue that took his fancy. It might be a popular current topic, but often it was something very obscure. (Symons has a degree in mathematics.)

He had some regular callers whom listeners got to know; firm relationships developed between Red and them. Sure, many of them were complete cranks but at least they were entertaining.

The reason I was thinking about this was my recollection of Symons’s bizarre decision to change his preferred Aussie Rules team every season. One year he might barrack for the Geelong Cats, the next year it would be the Essendon Bombers and so on. Given the tribal loyalties many Melburnians feel for their chosen team, this strategy enraged many listeners and others.

(Even though my family members are very keen football followers – Carlton is our club – I have found it increasingly difficult to fathom the passion that the code produces in people. How 90,000 folk ranging from tots to oldies could flock to the MCG on a cold Friday night puzzles me greatly.)

Unsurprisingly, Red finally got the boot from the ABC. There was some minor kerfuffle the details of which I can’t recall. I did love his parting shot though. He informed his devoted listeners that he would like to thank the ABC for providing the funds that enabled him to send his sons to one of the most prestigious private boys’ schools in Melbourne. This did not go down well in the parts of Melbourne painted green and teal.

Now that Red has departed the ABC, rest assured I don’t listen anymore. He was replaced by a ‘comedian’ – OK, not funny – selected on the basis of DEI criteria. The ratings collapsed as Red’s fans sought solace elsewhere.

But the reason I am prattling on about this now is the similarity with the recent donnybrook about the Census, yet another issue that our dearest PM, Albo, has completely stuffed up. During the last election campaign, when he was leader of the opposition, he made a solemn pledge to include questions about sexuality and gender in the next Census due in 2026. It went down a treat with the progressive crowd.

Needless to say, Labor didn’t bother to think through the implications of this promise, that they were standing on a hornet’s nest without realising it. Having handed control of this issue to the LGBTIQA+ crowd – there are massive tensions within this group – there was no knowing what problems would be thrown up.

What has this got to do with Red Symons, you ask. Well, I came across a new term for me: abrosexual. Evidently, this describes a person who regularly changes their sexual preferences, a bit like Symons changing his favourite football team. When it comes to sexual preferences, the potential list is as long as your arm, which is itself a problem for any Census question.

If anything, the questions on gender are even more fraught.

Evidently, the draft questions being proposed by the Australian Bureau of Statistics on gender and sexuality had been sent to the Prime Minister’s office. The ABS officials are absolutely hopeless at policy, but they can sniff a potential political problem from a fair distance. The questions on gender, in particular, were adorned with red flags.

Without us ever seeing any details, the boss made a quick decision and declared that there would be a question on sexuality but not gender. It was left to the hapless and pointless assistant assistant treasurer, Andrew Leigh, to release this information – to Sky News no less, on a Sunday.

This went down like a ton of bricks, with the LGB etc lot, with one representative declaring that ‘we are being treated as flora and fauna’, harking back to the completely incorrect assertion that indigenous people were once treated as plants and animals and not counted in the Census. (The reality was that it was simply voluntary for indigenous people to participate in the Census while it was compulsory for everyone else.)

The government has now relented and will include questions on both sexuality and gender in the 2026 Census, although they will be voluntary and only those aged 16 or over will answer. But you shouldn’t think the arguments are over.

How long should the list be on gender? Examples from overseas include male, female, cisgender, non-binary, trans-male, trans-female, gender fluid and so on and so on. There is an argument that there are at least 23 different genders.

In Canada, there is even something called two spirit for indigenous residents. I would be ticking two spirit for sure. And what about the people who identify as furry animals – furries? Will they have a box to tick. Woof, woof. My guess is that male, female and other will simply not cut it with the lobby groups.

The same problems apply to questions about sexual preference. My personal view is that it is not the government’s business – indeed, no one’s business – to ask about my sexuality. I am not completely sure what hangs on the answer. But if the ABS is to proceed with this question – and note here Albo’s initial reaction was to favour including a question on sexuality but not gender – it will be another minefield.  Clearly heterosexual and homosexual and possibly asexual won’t be regarded as sufficient categories.

It is certainly true that several countries around the world now include gender and/or sexuality in their censuses. I love the fact that in the UK, there are different questions in Wales, Scotland and England because no agreement could be reached. Unsurprisingly, a left-leaning leader leads to the inclusion of these questions – Trudeau and Ardern being the prime examples.

There are two possible consequences that could emerge from the government’s decision on this vexed topic. The first is that the actual questions will not please the LGBTQIA+ crowd while appalling very many other folk just trying to make a living and stay afloat. Albo knows this. We could also discover how small some of these groupings really are – transpeople, for instance.

(The ABS has already ruled out the inclusion of intersex, declaring that any answers would be unreliable. The biological prevalence of true intersex status, chromosomes XXY, is known to be extremely low – less than 1 per cent.)

The second more serious outcome would be a discrediting of the Census itself as people begin to take the piss rather than truthfully answer the questions. Bear in mind here that our Census is already too long and adding even more questions is a seriously bad idea unless others are dropped. But there is no intention to do this.

We know that around 70,000 people declared Jedi Knights as their religion in the last Census. My guess is that this trend will only accelerate, although a new ‘religion’ may become more popular – perhaps something out of a superheroes movie. I’ll be nominating that one.