🔗 Share this article

The Queensland government disclosed confidential information about the parent of a transgender teenager – data she claims potentially exposed her teen – to a stranger.

Accusations of “Bullying” and “Privacy Violation”

The revelation came as the state government was accused of “intimidation” and “an invasion of privacy” after demanding private health records from guardians of trans youth who are considering a further court case to its controversial prohibition on puberty blockers.

Latest Official Directive on Hormone Treatments

Last month, the Queensland health minister, Tim Nicholls, enacted a new order prohibiting the prescription of hormone blockers for transgender patients, shortly after the state’s supreme court determined the government’s first attempt was unlawful.

Guardian Australia has interviewed four mothers who have contacted Nicholls for a legal document called a explanation of decision – a formal explanation of why the government decided to ban puberty blockers in the state. By law, the document must be supplied under the state’s Judicial Review Act.

Requested Health Information

All four were asked by the Queensland health department for particulars of their teen’s health background, including the minor’s identity, their birthdate and any supporting documents which confirms your child having a clinical diagnosis of gender identity disorder”.

The information were sought before the explanation would be released.

The message, which has been reviewed by the Guardian, also instructed them to “please also confirm if your child is a patient of the Queensland Children’s Gender Clinic so that we can verify the data submitted with Children’s Health Queensland,” states the email, which was sent recently.

Parents Describe Request as Invasion of Privacy

Each parent described the demand as an violation of confidentiality.

A mother said she was hesitant to share the information because the state government had accidentally sent her information to a another individual.

“It seems like having to reveal your child to obtain a response; like, it’s frightening,” she said.

Situation of the Mother

Louise*, who cannot be legally identified because it would also identify or “out” her child, was among those who asked for a statement of reasons both times.

Earlier, the agency emailed a reply intended for her to another parent, disclosing her identity and address – and the fact that she had a transgender child – to a third party. She said a department official later said sorry over the phone; the Guardian has seen an message from the department confirming the error.

She said she felt “ill and vulnerable” as a result of the error.

“My daughter is incredibly private. She is immensely fearful of being exposed in any public space. She doesn’t like people to be aware that she’s transgender,” the mother said.

“I respect that to my core as much as possible. The only time I ever disclose is out of necessity for obtaining entry to services and exclusively to individuals I deem trustworthy and I know well.”

The parent was particularly concerned about the implication it would be “verified” by the medical facility.

She said the request was “intimidating” and “seems coercive”.

Additional Mother Voices Worries

Sally* said she was unwilling disclosing the health background of her young non-binary child.

“It’s not my information, it’s a seven-year-old’s information,” she said.

“To think that that data could inadvertently be disclosed one day, in any way, you know, even if that was unintentional, could be extremely upsetting to them.”

She wrote back saying the agency had asked for an “excessive level of detail”.

“I wouldn’t provide that data to any other organisation that requested it, especially in the context of the present environment,” she said.

“It’s such highly confidential information. You would not reveal, for instance, your medical condition to the government office, you know. You’d be hesitant and very cautious to provide any of that information to a bunch of bureaucrats, essentially.”

Advocacy Group Weighing Second Lawsuit

The advocacy organization, which represented the parent in her case, was considering a new legal action, it said recently.

The head, Ren Shike, said the decision had affected about 500 Queensland children and their relatives and it was “important to efficiently facilitate the provision of reasons so that children and their parents can understand the logic behind this decision, which has had such a severe effect on their medical care”.

Government Position on Prohibition

The government has consistently said the prohibition would remain in place until a review into gender-affirming care had been completed.