Qld Health Minister reissues ban on puberty blocker treatment after humiliating Supreme Court defeat
Queensland’s Health Minister has sensationally reissued a direction banning puberty blockers for transgender children – moments after suffering a humiliating court defeat.
The Supreme Court on Tuesday set aside the original direction made by the LNP state government after the mother of a transgender teenager mounted a legal challenge.
Opponents of the ban – the first in Australia – celebrated the decision after the verdict.
But in an astonishing move, Health Minister Tim Nicholls, just hours after the verdict, reissued the direction ordering the ban on the gender-affirming care.
Protesters demonstrated outside the Supreme Court ahead of the decision on a legal challenge concerning Queensland’s temporary ban on puberty blockers. Picture: NewsWire / John Gass
“In accordance with s44(1) of the Hospital and Health Boards Act 2011 (Qld), I am satisfied it is necessary in the public interest that I give this written direction to the Hospital and Health Services with immediate effect,” Mr Nicholls’ ministerial direction, issued on Tuesday, states.
“This direction implements a restriction on the provision of stage 1 treatment and stage 2 treatment to children and adolescents under 18 years of age with gender dysphoria.
“This direction applies to all Hospital and Health Services.”
Current patients are still able to receive the treatment as clinically indicated, but the direction excludes any new patients.
Just hours after the verdict, Queensland Health Minister Tim Nicholls reissued the ban on children accessing puberty blockers. Picture: NewsWire / Glenn Campbell
Mr Nicholls’ announcement of the pause in January this year followed revelations a 12-year-old was prescribed a puberty blocker by the Cairns Sexual Health Service in May 2024.
Mr Nicholls claimed there were concerns with clinical decision making.
On Tuesday, Supreme Court Justice Peter Callaghan allowed the appeal by the teenager’s legal representatives, setting aside the minister’s decision.
A protest took place outside the Supreme Court ahead of the decision being handed down.
The challenge was mounted by the mother of a young trans girl who had been recommended to use puberty blockers before the ban came into action. Picture: NewsWire / John Gass
Outside court after the verdict, the group of supporters addressed the media and a statement from the mother of the teenager at the centre of the challenge was read.
“This has been a harrowing and traumatising ordeal,” LGBTI Legal Service president Matilda Alexander read from the mother’s statement.
“I’m incredibly relieved it is over and that justice has been achieved for my child and the other young people affected by this government ban on gender-affirming care.
“No teenager should ever have to go through something like this just to get the health care they need.”
‘Act with caution’
In a statement following the decision, Mr Nicholls said he was “considering the options available to the government” – including whether he issued a ministerial direction to Hospital and Health Services across the state.
“The government’s position on this matter remains unchanged,” he said.
“This proposed direction would implement a restriction on the provision of stage 1 treatment and stage 2 treatment to children and adolescents under 18 years of age with gender dysphoria. Patients who are already on a treatment plan would remain exempt from this directive.
“As parents, as communities and as a state, we owe it to children to ensure care is grounded on solid evidence and we act with caution. It is with these principles clearly in mind that I will come to a decision.”
Jodie Hall, from the Trans Justice Project, said Mr Nicholls’ policy had been ‘rejected’ by the court. Picture: NewsWire / John Gass
The initial restriction would have remained in place until the outcome of the independent reviews of both hormone treatment therapies.
A report will be delivered to the director-general of Queensland Health by November 30.
Jodie Hall, from the Trans Justice Project, said Mr Nicholls’ policy had been “rejected” by the court.
“The government has lost … they are humiliated and they’re on the ropes,” they said outside court.
LGBTI Legal Service president Matilda Alexander said they would be watching the government’s next move. Picture: NewsWire / John Gass
Supporters have hailed the court’s decision as a victory for gender-affirming care in the state. Picture: NewsWire / John Gass
“We expect the government to use their sham review for political purposes. We know there’s nobody on the so-called expert team who has any experience with treating trans young people, or are trans themselves.”
Ms Alexander said the LGBTI Legal Service would be keeping a close eye on any further actions from the government and consider future challenges.
“I think the ban on gender-affirming care has caused so much pain and so much suffering for children in Queensland,” she said.
The teenager at the centre of the legal action, who is now 14, was diagnosed with gender dysphoria in 2020 and had been recommended to commence stage 1 hormone therapy (puberty blockers).
The legal action challenged the order put in place by Queensland Health director-general David Rosengren, who issued the directive.
In his published reasons, Justice Callaghan said a draft of the directive issued by Dr Rosengren existed on January 24 this year.
“At some point between then and 1.42pm on January 26, the minister (Mr Nicholls) spoke to the respondent … as a direct result of that, the draft was amended on the instruction from the respondent,” his judgment states.
The decision put in place by Queensland Health was set aside on Tuesday morning. Picture: NewsWire / John Gass
An email was sent to Queensland Health staff stating the prescribing would apply to all patients who had not yet commenced hormonal therapy – even if already in the assessment pathway.
Justice Callaghan reiterated the proceedings did not involve a review of the directive’s merits.
Rather, they were solely concerned with the “legal requirements that attend any decision of this nature, irrespective of the subject matter”.
Justice Callaghan said evidence pointed to the directive as “giving effect to a decision made by the minister” when the preparation of the directive was occurring.
He said the inference was the directive was issued not as a result of an “independently exercised statutory discretion” but “because the minister wanted it”.
“It should also be acknowledged both the minister and the respondent were operating in a problematic legal terrain that has, as Mr Horton KC (for the respondent) put it, seen ‘all the great minds of the High Court over the years … at odds …’,” Justice Callaghan said.
“When in that sort of territory, it is hard to be critical when a finding is made, under this heading, that relevant actions fell on the wrong side of a fine line.”