Balancing justice and maturity: the contradiction in Australia’s youth crime and social media policies
According to current Australian political discourse, a 10-year-old is too young for social media, yet old enough to be imprisoned. This inconsistency should be a sign to policymakers that significant changes must be made to our youth justice system.
Australia is taking a prominent role internationally in the conversation about restricting social media use for children, particularly those under 16. It became a political issue in June 2024, when federal opposition leader Peter Dutton announced it as a key election commitment. Since then, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has championed the idea of setting a minimum age for platforms like TikTok and Instagram, citing concerns over social media’s impact on young people’s mental health and development.
When discussing social media, we appreciate the vulnerability of young people. Yet our northern jurisdictional debates on criminality and youth detention are very different: in Western Australia the age of criminal responsibility is only 10 years old, and currently the Northern Territory’s Country Liberal Party is proposing lowering the age of criminal responsibility to 10. Similarly in Queensland, the Liberal National Party opposition is advocating for ‘adult crime, adult time’, pushing for tougher penalties for youth offenders.
While these approaches tap into public frustrations about crime, they overlook the importance of addressing the root causes of youth offending. Early intervention, not harsher penalties, is the key to real change.
This is not to say that NT Chief Minister Lia Finocchiaro or Queensland opposition leader David Crisafulli intend to abandon early intervention strategies or aim to imprison young children. Both leaders have emphasised their commitment to implementing programs that address the root causes of youth crime. Nevertheless, their prioritisation of punitive measures will mean that youth detention becomes a default solution. Despite best intentions, children could end up funnelled into the criminal justice system, potentially leading to harsher outcomes rather than focusing on rehabilitative support.
The inconsistencies between the social media and criminal responsibility debates raise questions about how we view childhood maturity across policy areas; 13 to 15-year-olds are too immature for social media, but 10-year-olds can be fully accountable for criminal actions?
Studies show that children under 14 often lack the cognitive development to grasp the consequences of their actions and involving them in the criminal justice system can worsen recidivism. Youth crime is often a symptom of deeper social issues such as poverty, family instability and limited access to education or healthcare. First Nations children, who are disproportionately represented in the criminal justice system, face additional layers of disadvantage, including intergenerational trauma. Addressing these underlying issues demands a coordinated approach involving early intervention, community-driven solutions and sustained investment in social services.
Queensland has introduced programs aimed at keeping young people out of the justice system, but these have had mixed results, partly due to disruptions caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. Many critical services, including foster care and mental health support, were paused, leading to gaps that exacerbated youth crime issues. While the state’s Community Safety Strategy seeks to rebuild these services, punitive measures such as tougher sentencing are gaining traction, risking a reliance on the criminal justice system.
Examples of successful community-driven programs, such as Youth Justice Conferencing in Queensland and justice reinvestment models from the Northern Territory, show the value of restorative approaches. However, without addressing broader social issues like housing instability and education, these gains will be short-lived.
The failures of youth justice policies can be traced to poor coordination and a lack of resourcing. While early intervention programs have demonstrated their effectiveness, they are often underfunded, especially in regional and remote areas. The availability of critical services, such as mental health care, housing, and education, is limited in these areas, undermining the potential impact of well-designed policies. Without adequate, long-term funding, many of these initiatives cannot deliver the sustainable change they promise.
What is needed is a whole-of-government approach that integrates health, education, housing and welfare services into a cohesive safety net for at-risk youth. In the Northern Territory, a region with complex and unique challenges, a one-size-fits-all solution is unlikely to work. Programs must be tailored to the local context, particularly for First Nations communities, and must involve sustained investment over the long term.
Crucially, raising the age of criminal responsibility to at least 14—as recommended by the United Nations—will ensure that young offenders are treated in ways that prioritise rehabilitation.
Governments at both the federal and state levels must ensure that resources are directed where they are needed most. Empowering local communities, particularly Indigenous leaders, to take control of youth justice in their regions will be key to success. By prioritising prevention, raising the age of criminal responsibility and investing in community-driven solutions, Australia can begin to build a justice system that supports young people rather than punishing them for life’s early missteps.
No comments:
Post a Comment