Summary
On April 23, 2026, the Queensland Parliament passed the Liberal National Party’s (LNP) Expanding Adult Crime, Adult Time and Taking a Strong Stance on Drugs and Anti-Social Behaviour Amendment Bill 2026 (Bill No. 4277 of 2026). The legislation, supported by the LNP and Katter’s Australian Party, was opposed by all 33 Labor MPs, the Greens, and independents. The bill expands the list of serious offences for which juveniles can be sentenced as adults, removes the principle of “detention as a last resort,” overhauls drug diversion programs, and grants police new powers in public spaces. The LNP government asserts these measures are necessary to address a youth crime crisis and restore community safety. Labor and a range of advocacy, legal, and health groups have criticized the bill, citing concerns about its effectiveness, impact on vulnerable youth, and compliance with human rights standards. The debate was informed by government-cited reductions in crime rates, though critics questioned the relevance and interpretation of these statistics.
Detailed Report
1. Parliamentary Vote and Party Positions
The Queensland Parliament voted on April 23, 2026, to pass the Expanding Adult Crime, Adult Time and Taking a Strong Stance on Drugs and Anti-Social Behaviour Amendment Bill 2026. The LNP and Katter’s Australian Party supported the bill, while all 33 Labor MPs, the Greens, and independents voted against it. The division reflected a clear partisan split, with the government prevailing due to its majority. The vote followed months of committee scrutiny and public debate, highlighting deep divisions over youth justice policy.
2. Key Provisions of the Bill
The legislation introduces several major changes to Queensland’s youth justice system:
· Expands the “adult crime, adult time” regime by increasing the number of offences for which juveniles can be sentenced as adults from 33 to 45, including serious crimes such as riot, aiding suicide, and aggravated assault.
· Removes the principle that detention should be a last resort for children, allowing courts to impose custodial sentences without first considering alternatives.
· Repeals the Police Drug Diversion Program, replacing it with a narrower Illicit Drug Enforcement and Diversion Framework that limits diversion to first-time and low-risk offenders.
· Grants police expanded move-on powers in Designated Business and Community Precincts, enabling officers to order individuals to leave public spaces for up to 24 hours for perceived anti-social behaviour.
· Makes electronic monitoring as a bail condition for youth permanent and expands its application state-wide.
· Implements victim-centric reforms, including greater court transparency and automatic updates for victims regarding case progress.
3. LNP Government’s Rationale and Statements
The LNP government, led by Premier David Crisafulli, has framed the bill as a response to what it describes as an “exceptional crisis situation” in youth crime. Premier Crisafulli stated that the legislation “delivers on our promise and gives our police and courts the tools they need to keep our communities safe.” Youth Justice Minister Laura Gerber emphasized that “adult crime, adult time is the stronger laws police need to restore consequences for actions and make our community safer.” Attorney-General Deb Frecklington argued that the reforms reflect community expectations and fulfill the government’s electoral mandate.
4. Labor’s Opposition Arguments
Labor, led by Shadow spokesperson Di Farmer and former Premier Steven Miles, opposed the bill on several grounds. The party argued that the legislation is not supported by evidence and will not improve community safety. Labor criticized the repeal of the drug diversion program, warning it would worsen health outcomes and increase pressure on police and courts. Concerns were also raised about the risk of criminalizing vulnerable groups, including Indigenous and homeless youth, and the bill’s compliance with human rights standards. Labor called for a more evidence-based, consultative, and health-focused approach to youth justice.
5. Reactions from Third Parties
The Australian Medical Association Queensland condemned the repeal of the drug diversion program as contrary to evidence and likely to harm youth health outcomes. The Youth Advocacy Centre and Q Shelter warned that the expanded police powers could disproportionately impact disadvantaged and Indigenous youth. The Bar Association of Queensland and Queensland Law Society criticized the expansion of adult penalties to children as inconsistent with juvenile justice principles. The Queensland Human Rights Commission described the changes as alarming and unlikely to deter youth crime. In contrast, the Queensland Police Union and the Shopping Centre Council of Australia expressed support for the bill’s tougher stance and expanded police powers.
6. Crime Reduction Data Cited in Parliamentary Debate
Government members cited a 7.2% reduction in victims of crime, a 27% drop in adult crime, adult time offences, and a 16.7% reduction in juvenile offences as evidence of the effectiveness of their approach. However, opposition and advocacy groups noted that for many of the newly added offences, very few children had been charged in recent years, suggesting the bill’s impact may be limited in practice.
Conclusion
The passage of the LNP’s youth crime bill marks a significant shift in Queensland’s approach to juvenile justice, prioritizing punitive measures and expanded police powers. While the government asserts these reforms are necessary to address community concerns and reduce crime, Labor and a broad coalition of experts and advocates have raised substantial doubts about their effectiveness and potential social consequences. The practical impact of these changes will be closely monitored in the coming months.