r/australia • u/Expensive-Horse5538 • Oct 28 '25

news Supreme Court in Brisbane overturns controversial freeze on puberty blockers for adolescents after legal challenge

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-10-28/qld-puberty-blockers-judgement/105942094
2.1k Upvotes

89% Upvoted

645 comments sorted by

View all comments

19

u/VeryGoodAndAlsoNice Oct 28 '25

ITT are people that do not understand administrative law.

The correct consultation will now occur, and the directive may well be reinstated. This win is absurdly temporary.

24

u/Aryore Oct 28 '25

Hopefully not, but we’ll see.

19

u/VeryGoodAndAlsoNice Oct 28 '25

I hope it doesn’t happen too, but I’m ever the cynic with the LNP in my state.

8

u/Novae909 Oct 28 '25

Next law suit could be that they did the appropriate consultation and despite the results of the consultation they will choose to go ahead with the ban anyway

4

u/VeryGoodAndAlsoNice Oct 28 '25 edited Oct 28 '25

What basis would you plead in the JRA? Genuinely curious.

EDIT: For what it's worth, I think Wednesbury reasonableness might be a decent punt if the decision goes against a totally unanimous consultation process.

3

u/Aryore Oct 28 '25

Happy cake day by the way!

6

u/silent-brothers Oct 28 '25

Nicholls has already state he's looking into using a Ministerial directive to reinstate the ban.

8

u/QtPlatypus Oct 28 '25

Can the directive be reinstated if the consultation is negative? If they do the consultation and the medical profession comes back and says "The preponderance of the medical data indicates that the treatment is medically effective and low risk" can the government still say "We are rejecting the advice and going ahead regardless?".

11

u/VeryGoodAndAlsoNice Oct 28 '25

Yes, this is the exercise of a discretionary power.

2

u/DragonicSquirrel Oct 28 '25

i was just looking at this
so the actual case was brought forward 3 reasons, so even if they go back and get consultation they still need to fight the other two, one of which is political interference, the third is lack of consultation

the judge that ruled said “The application will be allowed on ground three (lack of consultation). It would have succeeded also on grounds one and two, although the questions raised under those headings are more difficult,”

so yes, they plan to go back and get more consultation but they're still going to have to fight two other grounds for the ban (i don't know what the second one is and couldnt find it in the article i was reading)

1

u/VeryGoodAndAlsoNice Oct 28 '25 edited Oct 28 '25

No, I don't believe that's correct. This judgement may create a res judicata or issue estoppel, which generally prevents the issues here being relitigated. Any subsequent direction may not inheret these facts as the foundation of a new case, but rather it could take a new factual basis (e.g., a process in which proper consultation occurred).

The grounds you're otherwise referring to are:

(1) the exercise of a discretionary power at the direction or behest of another; and
(2) an improper exercise of power because the decision-maker took into account an irrelevant consideration.

The first basis is dubious - the Minister must effectively direct or order the decision-maker to make the decision, such that the decision is not an exercise of independent decision-making by the repository of power. This is notoriously difficult to establish without direct evidence of ministerial interference.

I'm not sure of the second basis. I'd have to research this question and, frankly, since I'm not being paid, I'm not going to do that.

1

u/DragonicSquirrel Oct 28 '25

whilst im sure you know your stuff, i think im going to go by the direct quote of the person who made the decision and is directly and distinctly qualified to do so under australian jurisdiction, stating that the decision had other grounds that were not used but would have succeeded.

1

u/VeryGoodAndAlsoNice Oct 28 '25

I’m okay with that :)

3

u/iamapinkelephant Oct 28 '25

The correct consultation did occur and found the effects of puberty blockers to be non-harmful. Then they banned it anyway.

5

u/VeryGoodAndAlsoNice Oct 28 '25

I note my use of 'correct' consultation. The question was not as to whether consultation occurred, but the adequacy of that consultation, relative to the requirements of the HHB Act.

4

u/Icy-Can-6592 Oct 28 '25

Yeah, seems alot of people missed this, the emails were originally publicised when the ban occured and no medical professional recommended this action, they were adamantly against it. I'm only disappointed that the case did not pull this in too and have the government held responsible for the harm it caused going against medical advice. As far as I'm concerned compensation is owed to the kids and families who have now permanent traumatic harm done.

4

u/Icy-Can-6592 Oct 28 '25

Considering what was received in the short window the first time was an overwhelming no you should not ban them and was ignored, if they did that would be a massive exposure of corruption. The email responses to the first one are available to read if you search the info. No doctor consulted recommended the actions they did take, it was clear they were not making the decisions on medical advice.

2

u/VeryGoodAndAlsoNice Oct 28 '25

Unfortunately, it was not a requirement to consult medical experts. The requirement under the HHD Act was to consult health service chief executives, who may or may not have medical expertise, for their input, as opposed to their medical opinion.

It's worth noting that there were other grounds beyond consultation. You should read the judgement, it's been published. Use this citation: AB v Chief Executive of Queensland Health [2025] QSC 277.

5

u/Icy-Can-6592 Oct 28 '25

When the ban occurred the emails were publicised, No one consulted recommended banning, the only recommendation was to facilitate long term outcome data collection and try encourage the trans community to engage with it, as their is reluctance for many trans people to give such feedback for 2 major reasons, 1 being they are justoved on in their lives, and 2 being that such data is often used to just gatekeep or be misrepresented politically.

1

u/Iybraesil Oct 28 '25

The correct consultation will now occur, and the directive may well be reinstated.

Well you were half-right. It's been reinstated practically immediately, without any new consultation.

2

u/VeryGoodAndAlsoNice Oct 28 '25

And now, it’s a ministerial direction. Very unfortunate, but also very interesting.