Punitive populism and the politicisation of youth crime in Queensland: A human rights critique of the Making Queensland Safer Act 2024

A regressive and reprehensible shift

Australia is failing its children. These reforms disproportionately target some of the most marginalised and vulnerable members of our society. ⁴⁵ The deliberate erosion of legal protections for children and young people – under the guise of public reassurance – is neither benign nor accidental; it constitutes a systemic moral and legal failure. In doing so, the Queensland government sends a troubling message: that it is willing to abandon the most fundamental human rights protections for the children and young people in its care when politically expedient to do so.

In a democratic society governed by the rule of law and committed to the dignity of all persons, the Making Queensland Safer Act represents a profound regression. Queensland youth justice policy must be urgently reformed to adopt evidence-informed approaches that uphold the rights, address the needs, and safeguard the futures of children and young people.

Youth crime as a ‘wicked policy’ challenge

Youth crime exhibits the attributes of a ‘wicked’ problem: it is complex, intractable, unpredictable and resistant to straightforward solutions. ⁴⁷ However, issues arise when the wicked problem framework is applied in binary terms by labelling a problem as either ‘wicked’ or ‘not wicked’. This reductive approach encourages totalising narratives that frame wicked problems as requiring a single, dramatic intervention to ‘fix’ them, once and for all. ⁴⁸ Such narratives tend to obscure the need for long-term, evidence-based strategies aimed at managing complexity and achieving incremental progress. ⁴⁹

To that end, a more constructive approach is to recognise that wickedness can manifest in varying degrees and forms. ⁵⁰ Drawing on Alford and Head’s typology (see Figure 1), ⁵¹ youth crime is better understood as a ‘politically turbulent problem’ – one shaped less by the nature of the problem itself and more by the contested positions of the actors involved. The value of this framing lies not in offering a definitive solution, but in identifying which aspects of youth crime merit further investigation.OPEN IN VIEWER

The vertical axis reflects the extent to which a problem is intractable. On the surface, the problem of youth crime appears relatively clear: high rates of offending, recidivism, and public safety concerns are all observable phenomena. Yet, policy responses aimed at ‘solving’ the issue are fragmented, contested and inconsistent. Governments have long oscillated between punitive, justice-based models and periodic inclinations toward more therapeutic, welfare-oriented approaches, with no enduring consensus or sustained commitment to reform.

The horizontal axis reflects diversity of actors shaping the problem’s tractability. A wide range of stakeholders – including politicians, law enforcement, victims, advocates, academics, and children and young people themselves – hold divergent, often competing, views on the causes of youth crime and appropriate responses. This divergence is amplified by political discourse, which frequently constructs youth crime as a false dichotomy between protecting community safety and supporting criminalised children, ⁵² implying that one set of interests must be prioritised at the expense of the other. These competing priorities, reinforced by power asymmetries, intensify the contestability of the youth justice space.

Manufactured crisis and avoidance of solutions

Within this context, Queensland’s recent legislative actions must be critically examined. Successive governments have not only failed to confront the complexities of youth offending, but they have also actively contributed to constructing and perpetuating the very ‘crisis’ they now invoke. The spectre of youth crime is cyclically ‘rediscovered’ as an emergency, particularly during election periods.

Perhaps, then, youth crime itself is not as complex a problem as it is purported to be. The real impediment is not a lack of viable solutions, but a sustained political unwillingness to implement them. ⁵³ Despite decades of research endorsing early intervention, diversion and community-based alternatives, governments have consistently invested millions into punitive measures. ⁵⁴ Tough-on-crime policies endure – not because they deliver results, but because they deliver votes. No such strategy has produced a lasting reduction in youth crime. Rather, Queensland continues to record the highest rates of youth incarceration and recidivism in the country, inflicting profound and lasting harm on children caught in the system – clear evidence of a YJS entrenched in failure. ⁵⁵

The role of media-driven moral panics

As Renee Zahnow observed, young people have long been central to recurring moral panics in Australian media. ⁵⁷ Professor Stanley Cohen theorised that moral panic involves the portrayal of a group – here, children – as a threat to societal interests and values. ⁵⁸ Their behaviours are stylised, exaggerated, and stereotyped through mass media narratives, transforming them into ‘folk devils’, symbolic targets of public condemnation. ⁵⁹ In the youth justice context, this framing constructs ‘wayward’ children as deviant and irredeemable outsiders, further entrenching their alienation and disenfranchisement from the community. ⁶⁰ These narratives are compounded by racialised stereotyping, with moral panics historically directed disproportionately at First Nations, Vietnamese-Australian, Lebanese-Australian, and Sudanese-Australian young people. ⁶¹

Despite youth offending representing a small proportion of total crime in Queensland, it receives disproportionate media coverage. ⁶² Cultivation theory offers a useful lens: repeated exposure to sensationalist crime reporting cultivates a distorted perception of its prevalence and severity. ⁶³ Lacking political voice or media influence, children and young people are acutely vulnerable to this distortion. Notably absent from public discourse are the voices of those with lived experienced or any meaningful engagement with the complex drivers of youth offending. ⁶⁴

While Queensland law rightly prohibits the publication of identifying information about children and young people to protect their safety and privacy, ⁶⁵ anonymised reporting of lived experiences remains essential. The work of Guardian journalist Ben Smee, for example, demonstrates how such storytelling can challenge sensationalist media narratives, humanise criminalised children, and expose the structural disadvantage and systemic failures that both precede and sustain their involvement in the YJS. ⁶⁶ Yet this form of journalism remains rare, as sensationalism continues to dominate media coverage.

A recent media analysis confirmed that coverage of youth crime routinely prioritises exceptional, violent or high-profile incidents. ⁶⁷ While news outlets are expected to provide impartial reporting, sensationalism designed to increase readership often takes precedence over factual accuracy. ⁶⁸ The editorial logic remains: ‘If it bleeds, it leads’. ⁶⁹ Even when rehabilitative alternatives are mentioned, they are often framed as secondary to, or less credible than, punitive measures. ⁷⁰ This has significant consequences. Once criminality is linked to youth identity in the public imagination, support for rehabilitative responses rapidly declines, while punitive measures gain legitimacy.

The politicisation of youth justice

This distorted narrative directly influences political decision-making. In Queensland, news media – particularly crime reporting – has been shown to exert considerable influence over governmental authorities. ⁷¹ The media often frames youth crime as primarily a political problem rather than a social issue, ⁷² directing political attention and creating pressure to respond to media demands. As a result, policy decisions are increasingly driven by media cycles rather than expert advice or long-term planning, resulting in reactive interventions that fail to address the complexities of youth offending. ⁷³

Youth justice experts have long lamented the politicisation of youth justice. As Andrew Hughes, a lecturer at the Australian National University with a special interest in political marketing notes, youth crime is ‘an easy one for politicians to go after’: it attracts headlines but rarely invites scrutiny. ⁷⁴ This is the very appeal of punitive populism – it enables elected officials to appear responsive and decisive, even when their policies are ineffective or actively harmful.

This entanglement between media, politics and public opinion must be disrupted. Youth justice policy demands rational, evidence-informed deliberation – free from the distorting influence of sensationalist journalism and electoral imperatives. The continued exploitation of youth crime for political and media gain at the expense of children and young people’s rights, dignity and futures is not only intellectually negligent but morally indefensible.

Constructing – and reconstructing – public understandings

Public perceptions of crime play a central role in shaping legislative responses. Reforms are often justified as necessary to ‘meet community expectations’, a rationale relied upon during the passage of the Making Queensland Safer Bill. ⁷⁷ The government’s decision to override human rights protections was defended on the basis of strong public support and growing concern for community safety.

Yet public opinion is neither organic nor spontaneously formed – it is actively constructed. ⁷⁸ Most Australians have limited direct interaction with the criminal justice system. Consequently, their views are primarily mediated by secondary sources – namely, political messaging and media narratives.

While public support for punitive reforms may appear strong, it is often built on misinformed understandings of youth crime’s prevalence, causes and consequences. A recent discourse analysis of Queensland media and public commentary identified a striking alignment between sensationalist reporting, public sentiment and the dominant punitive policy narrative. ⁷⁹ This alignment renders public opinion highly susceptible to manipulation, yet it also holds transformative power.

Debunking common misconceptions

Reframing public understanding is essential to fostering support for rights-based, long-term reform. This requires a fundamental shift in the mental models that underpin how youth offending is understood and discussed. The following section addresses and corrects four persistent misconceptions shaping Queensland’s youth justice discourse.

Myth 1: Youth crime reflects individual moral failing

Mainstream reporting often perpetuates a reductive moral binary where ‘bad’ children make bad choices and must be punished to protect ‘good’ citizens. ⁸⁰ This narrative detaches offending from its broader social context and ignores the overwhelming evidence that most children and young people in the YJS are among the most disadvantaged in society. ⁸¹

Youth offending is strongly correlated with social disadvantage – poverty, family breakdown, poor mental and physical health, cognitive impairment, low educational attainment, and histories of trauma and child protection involvement. ⁸² Most affected children and young people face multiple, intersecting vulnerabilities. ⁸³ Systemic failure is evident in racialised policing, with First Nations children disproportionately arrested, charged, and detained – not for committing more crime, but because of over-policing and racial profiling. ⁸⁴ These structural and systemic factors are not offered as excuses but as critical context. Offending rarely stems from moral failing; more often, it results from a confluence of circumstances and systemic failures largely beyond a child’s control.

Myth 2: Harsher punishment equals greater public safety

The Making Queensland Safer Act was introduced on the pretext of enhancing community protection, with then Attorney-General Frecklington declaring it ‘the first step in restoring safety to our community’. ⁸⁵ Punitive policies remain politically attractive because they provide visible demonstrations of ‘strong leadership’, a quality which is prized in Queensland’s political culture. ⁸⁶

Yet criminological research consistently finds that punitive measures, especially incarceration, are ineffective and in many cases, counterproductive. Incarceration increases the risk of recidivism and drives disproportionately high imprisonment rates. For children and young people in particular, detention is well recognised as criminogenic – it fosters, rather than deters, further criminality. ⁸⁷

Punitive measures undermine, rather than enhance, community safety. As Queensland Human Rights Commissioner Scott McDougall noted, ‘debate about youth crime often makes it seem like we have to choose between keeping communities safe and protecting children’s rights’ but this is ‘a false dichotomy’ that ‘demonises and dehumanises children’. ⁸⁸ Serious offending must be addressed, but the focus should be on approaches that are genuinely effective in reducing such behaviour, prioritising evidence-based interventions that target its root causes.

Myth 3: There is a youth crime ‘crisis’

The so-called youth crime ‘crisis’ in Queensland is better understood as a crisis of perception. ⁸⁹ Political actors, particularly the LNP, have exaggerated the crisis narrative, positioning themselves as the hardline solution. ⁹⁰ While public concern is real and often grounded in genuine fear, the data tells a different story.

In reality, youth crime has declined significantly over the past decade (see Graph 1). ⁹¹ In the 2021–22 financial year, it reached its lowest recorded level in Queensland’s history, ⁹² with Queensland Police Service data showing a further 6.7 per cent decrease between the 2022–23 and 2023–24 financial years. ⁹³ The majority of offences are non-violent and property-related; ⁹⁴ violent crime accounts for only 7 per cent of proven youth offences. ⁹⁵ Almost half of all offences before the Childrens Court of Queensland are committed by just 10 per cent of child defendants. ⁹⁶ OPEN IN VIEWER

Myth 4: The justice system is the sole solution

Believing youth offending can be solved solely through the justice system is not only misguided, but dangerously narrow. It reflects a reactive approach – intervening only after a crime occurs and relying on punishment as the primary response. ⁹⁸ This limitation has been acknowledged by the judiciary. In a recent decision, a Queensland Childrens Court judge candidly remarked to a young defendant:

Your needs are complex, and there is really not a lot I can do sitting here in a criminal court to make sure that you get the treatment and the support that you need to stop committing offences. ⁹⁹