Court to rule on Qld’s controversial puberty blocker ban
The state’s top court has heard the government’s controversial puberty blocker ban was rushed through without expert advice on how it would affect children, but David Crisafulli says it was lawful.
Queensland’s controversial puberty blocker ban for gender dysphoric children was made without expert advice, a Supreme Court has heard.
But the state government, defending itself in a precedent-setting case in the Supreme Court, is adamant the decision was made by the rules and with enough consultation.
The legality of the puberty block ban will now be determined by Justice Peter Callaghan as soon as next week, after a one-day hearing in the case brought on by the LGBTI Legal Service on behalf of a transgender child.
Health Minister Tim Nicholls announced in January that a pause in administering the medication would be in place until an investigation into the use of the hormones across the health system was complete.
In court on Wednesday lawyers for the child argued the Health Services Directive was unlawful because it had come from the minister rather than director-general David Rosengren.
Premier David Crisafulli has defended the government’s decision to ban puberty blockers, insisting the move was lawful.
“There were some horrible allegations that were raised and our first responsibility is to keep kids safe and the Minister conducted himself in a very respectful way and he made a decision based on keeping children safe,” he said.
LGBTI Legal Service representative Mark Steele KC said there had also been no serious consultation held on the decision.
Stepping through the timing of the decision, Mr Steele accused Dr Rosengren of acting at the direction of the minister, without proper consultation.
Neither Mr Nicholls nor Dr Rosengren gave evidence.
The ban was timed to be announced at 10:30am on January 28, just minutes after Dr Rosengren had wrapped up a 22-minute video call with the state’s 18 chief health executives informing them what was to come.
Dr Rosengren had approved the directive before that meeting, the court heard.
Mr Nicholls at the press conference on the day said “his government” had made the decision, the court was told.
But Jonathan Horton KC, acting for Queensland Health, said there was nothing improper about the timing, co-ordination, or the minister’s expressed desire for the policy.
He said the decision was made on January 20 at a cabinet meeting, where ministers were presented a submission by Dr Rosengren’s team and signed off by Mr Nicholls.
Mr Horton argued while cabinet accepted one of the three options presented, Dr Rosengren was the effective decision maker as the proposer of those choices.
He acknowledged the consultation on the ban was not thorough, but said it had occurred and changes were made to the directive and memorandum after the meeting.
Justice Callaghan noted the changes were mostly related to grammar.
“You can’t bypass a statutory obligation on the basis you don’t think it matters,” he said.
Queensland Health deputy director-general (strategy, policy and reform) Peta Bryant, who assisted with the cabinet submission, said the goal was to ensure treatment for gender dysphoria was safe and effective.
But in cross-examination, she revealed she was not aware of any consultation with experts on the impact a ban would have on teens yet to receive treatment.
Justice Callaghan is expected to hand down his decision in the middle of next week.
Outside court, pro-trans activists rallied in support of the family pursuing the case, saying they hoped the court would recognise how “absurd, unsystematic and unsubstantiated” the ban was.
The child’s mother said she was frustrated Dr Rosengren was not called to explain the decision.
“There was a change made at the request of the minister as to who was caught by the ban,” she said.
“Because of the change the minister had asked for, my child was caught.
“Not a single person who worked on the cabinet submission or the health service directive had any expertise on dealing with kids that are trans.”
