今日吃瓜

The Queensland Supreme Court has heard arguments that the state government鈥檚 temporary ban on gender affirming healthcare for trans youth may be unlawful.

It follows claims of 鈥減olitical interference鈥� and a failure to properly consult health executives before the decision was made.

The arguments were heard during a case, launched by the mother of a transgender child earlier this year, that challenges the January directive issued by Queensland Health Director General Dr David Rosengren, which prohibited access to puberty blockers and hormone therapies for new patients under 18 in Queensland.

Her legal team argued that the directive was invalid because it was made under improper political direction from Health Minister Tim Nicholls and without the legally required consultation with affected health services.

Allegations of rushed, politically driven decision making for trans youth

The court heard that Dr Rosengren was required by law to consult with service executives 鈥渋n developing a health service directive鈥� before issuing the order on January 28. Lawyers said that consultation had not properly occurred, and instead, the process was rushed to coincide with the Minister鈥檚 announcement.

Mark Steele KC, representing the mother, told the court that the consultation amounted to little more than a formality, with Queensland Health executives called to a Microsoft Teams meeting that lasted just 22 minutes, the meeting was held at the same time Nicholls was announcing the ban publicly.

Steele told the court that Rosengren had already signed off on the directive before the meeting began and had 鈥渞epeatedly urged staff to ensure it was published at 10.30am.鈥�

鈥淭hat can鈥檛 be genuine consultation if it鈥檚 just a fait accompli,鈥� Steele said.

He argued that under the relevant legislation, the director-general 鈥渕ust act independently, impartially and fairly, and is not subject to the direction of minister,鈥� but said Nicholls had 鈥渋nterfered with the process by directing Rosengren to make the decision.鈥�

Jonathan Horton KC, acting for Queensland Health, denied the claims, saying there had been valid consultation and that the directive reflected both 鈥減olitical participation and executive participation.鈥�

鈥淚t was a decision-making process in which there was both political participation and executive participation. Now that is appropriate,鈥� Horton told the court.

He described the decision as one made 鈥渂y much higher levels and with much wider considerations.鈥�

鈥淭hese decisions were being made by the head of the department and by the chief policymaking body of the state, and that colours the consultation.鈥�

The court also heard that few within Queensland Health knew about the directive before it was issued, and that the meeting invitation to health service executives sent the day before did not mention the nature of the decision.

Children鈥檚 Health Queensland chief executive Frank Tracey, who oversees the state鈥檚 gender service, told the court he was only informed that a directive was coming the day before it was made and that he learned it was a full ban during the meeting itself.

鈥淪o that required me to immediately engage my senior clinicians, our executive director of medical service and the clinicians responsible for the gender service, and work our way through how we would respond and reorientate our service to meet the requirements of the health service directive,鈥� he said.

Judge Peter Callaghan has now adjourned the hearing to consider his judgment.

Community rallies behind mother challenging the ban

The case has drawn widespread attention and support from the LGBTQIA+ community, with a rally held outside the Supreme and District Courts in Brisbane earlier this week.

Crowds gathered on the court lawns to stand in solidarity with the mother and her transgender child, calling for the reinstatement of gender affirming healthcare for young people in Queensland.

Organised by Magandjin People鈥檚 Pride, alongside Trans Justice and other community groups the protest drew parents, allies, and healthcare workers demanding the government reverse the directive.

鈥淗ealth minister, Tim Nicholls, is playing with kids鈥� lives,鈥� said spokesperson Piper Valkyrie. 鈥淲hen he announced this ban, he did it without any consultation, without any scientific or evidence based backing, on a claim that still hasn鈥檛 been authenticated at all.

鈥�491 kids who have been waiting for treatment for months, or even years, suddenly [lost] access to that, and for trans youth, that can be so devastating, when rates of self harm and suicide are high.鈥�

Trans Justice Australia campaigner Jodie Hall told the rally: 鈥淚t鈥檚 appalling that a mum has needed to sue the government just to get healthcare for her child. This is an important case for the entire trans community.鈥�

鈥淥ver the last nine months the Queensland government has refused to engage with the clinicians, young people, and parents that have been impacted by this directive.

鈥淎ll young people deserve a health system that supports them to grow up healthy, happy and with the freedom to be themselves.鈥�

The government has maintained that the suspension of youth gender affirming care was triggered by an investigation into 鈥渦nauthorised provision of paediatric gender services鈥� at the Cairns Sexual Health Service, where 17 young patients reportedly received hormone therapy outside approved frameworks.

Two separate reviews remain ongoing, and the ban continues while those investigations are assessed with a decision expected in November.

However, an independent review released last year the Queensland Children鈥檚 Gender Service was delivering safe, evidence based care consistent with national and international standards. At the time of the ban, around 450鈥�500 young people were on the service鈥檚 waitlist.

Solicitor Matilda Alexander, representing the mother, has previously said the government鈥檚 move 鈥渦ndermines the rights and responsibilities of parents, and denies children safe and effective medical care which is accessible in every other state and territory.鈥�

The mother herself has described the ordeal as 鈥渟hattering鈥� for her family.

鈥淭his is the most intimate and private matter for my family and yet these politicians, who have never even seen or spoken to my child, are telling me how to be her mum,鈥� she said.

鈥淗ow can they possibly make such a personal decision about the private medical care of a child they have never met and whose experience of growing up is so different to their own?鈥�