Queensland’s controversial puberty blocker ban overturned by supreme court | Queensland

Queensland’s controversial ban on puberty blockers for transgender patients has been overturned by the high court.

On Tuesday, Judge Peter Callaghan ruled in favor of the transgender child’s parent’s appeal, ruling that the directive establishing the ban was inappropriate and unlawful.

It ruled that health director David Rosengren did not properly consult with the state’s hospital and health care administrators, as required by state law.

Callaghan determined that none of those interviewed knew the contents of the directive until the meeting. He ruled that the meeting was “functionally irrelevant”, that the decision had already been made and that only minor changes had been made to the “syntax” of the document as a result of the consultation.

“It is inconceivable that such adjustments would in any way affect the decision already made to suspend hormone therapy,” he said.

“The consultation process… [the act] “The issues that should have been followed in making the decision were not followed.”

_{Sign up: AÜ Breaking News email}

The applicant appealed the decision on three grounds, including that Rosengren had been improperly influenced by a cabinet decision, claiming he had been influenced by “political interference”.

In the decision, Callaghan said: “The application will be allowed on the third ground (lack of consultation). It could also have been successful on the first and second grounds, but the questions raised under these heads were more difficult.”

Guardian Australia exclusively revealed that Rosengren consulted executives for less than half an hour in a Microsoft Teams meeting, at the same time health minister Tim Nicholls held a press conference announcing the decision at 10am on January 28.

Callaghan’s decision means the Queensland Child Gender Service, based at the Queensland Children’s Hospital, can take on new patients again.

The ban, which applies only to transgender children, was widely condemned by health authorities. Federal sex discrimination commissioner Anna Cody called the decision “harmful” and “discriminatory.”

An independent review of the state’s gender health system last year found the service provided “effective care from referral to discharge” and recommended doubling its funding. The state government did not do this.

The ban had an immediate impact by preventing admission to 491 children on the ward waiting list. 547 existing patients continued to receive healthcare services despite the directive.

The judge noted that neither the minister nor Rosengren gave evidence in the case and that much of the events surrounding the decision-making process had to be “gathered” from others’ accounts or secondary sources such as emails. Most of the case was covered by cabinet secrecy.

Callaghan said the applicant may have won on other grounds, judging that Rosengren had been influenced by “political interference” and was improperly influenced by a cabinet decision.

“It should probably be taken into account that the directive was issued on the instructions of the minister, who declared that it had come into force ‘on behalf of the government’,” he ruled.

But he said it was difficult to criticize the decision-makers, given the “problematic legal basis”.

The case was a judicial review of the directive; It was an objection to its process, not its essence; This means that no compensation can be awarded by the high court.

A separate appeal against the decision taken on anti-discrimination grounds is in the Queensland civil and administrative court.