Queensland's 'adult crime' laws: a data-driven farce?

Queensland’s government is pushing forward with an expansion of its controversial “adult crime, adult time” laws, despite stark data revealing a complete absence of charges for two of the newly targeted offenses over the past decade. The move, framed as a response to a purported youth crime crisis, is drawing sharp criticism as a politically motivated overreach, particularly given the state’s own concessions that the legislation infringes upon fundamental human rights.

The numbers don't lie: a decade of zero charges

According to statistics presented to a Queensland parliamentary committee in March, no individuals under 18 have been charged with either aiding suicide or stupefying – drugging – to commit an indictable offense since 2015. This fact alone should raise serious questions about the rationale behind including these offenses in the legislation, which will add 12 new crimes to the existing 33 subject to the stringent adult sentencing guidelines. The data paints a similarly sparse picture for other proposed additions: just nine young people charged with disabling to commit an indictable offense, conspiring to murder, administer poison with intent, and abuse of persons with an impairment of the mind. A mere 21 faced charges related to rioting.

But the most striking detail is this: Queensland police data indicates youth crime rates are currently near record lows. This begs the obvious question: why the sudden emphasis on a “tough on crime” agenda in the lead-up to an election?

Human rights concerns and secret panels

The government has repeatedly acknowledged that the “adult crime, adult time” laws contradict international human rights standards, including the right to protection from cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment, and are inherently discriminatory towards children. The legislation necessitates an override of the state’s Human Rights Act, justified by the assertion of an “exceptional crisis situation” regarding youth crime. This justification rings hollow when considered alongside the aforementioned data and the fact that the specific offenses targeted were apparently selected by a secret panel whose deliberations remain shrouded in mystery.

Katherine Hayes, CEO of the Youth Advocacy Centre, has been particularly vocal in her criticism. “The claim that crimes which have not been committed by young people constitute a crisis makes no sense and is simply untrue,” she stated, highlighting the stark disparity between adult and youth offending rates. For instance, there have been over 300 sentenced cases of stalking, intimidation, harassment, or abuse perpetrated by adults, compared to just a handful involving young people.

The previous tranche of legislation similarly included offenses rarely committed by youth, a pattern that underscores a concerning trend: the expansion of adult sentencing laws appears to be driven by political expediency rather than evidence-based policy.

The most prevalent offense, accounting for 3,022 charges between 2015 and 2025, involves a form of assault occasioning bodily harm, often committed while armed or in company, or publicized on social media.

Ministerial spin vs. reality

Youth Justice Minister Laura Gerber, in defending the bill, pointed to a 7.2% decrease in victim numbers, attributing this to the existing laws and blaming the former Labor government for creating a “youth crime crisis” that saw victim numbers rise by a staggering 193%. But this narrative ignores the broader context of declining youth crime rates and the questionable targeting of offenses rarely committed by young people. Gerber's claim that the 12 new offenses are