How do Australian family courts rate your co-parenting behaviour? From minor red flags to case-ending mistakes, here's what judges actually look for.
In a move that has ignited fierce national debate, the Northern Territory (NT) government passed legislation in October 2024 to lower the age of criminal responsibility from 12 back to 10.
This decision was enacted by the newly elected Country Liberal Party (CLP) administration and it forms part of a broader suite of crime reduction measures. For example, new offences for ram raiding and “posting and boasting” about crimes on social media have been introduced.
On one hand, proponents argue it will hold younger offenders accountable and enhance community safety. However, critics, including the United Nations and human rights organisations, decry it as a regressive step. They say that it contravenes international child rights standards and disproportionately impacts Indigenous.
Australia’s federal system means that youth justice laws and policies are primarily state and territory responsibilities, leading to a variety of approaches. As of July 2025, the MACR in most jurisdictions in Australia remains at 10 years old. This is the lowest among comparable democracies around the world and far below the United Nations’ recommended minimum of 14. However, recent reforms reflect shifting priorities.
The Australian Capital Territory (ACT) has led the way in progressive change This state raised its MACR to 12 in November 2023, and raised it again to 14 in July 2025, becoming the first jurisdiction to align fully with UN guidelines.
In contrast, the Northern Territory went back in time. In October 2024, the NT legislation reversed a 2023 increase to 12, dropping it back to 10 to “ensure younger offenders get the help they need.” South Australia is considering a rise to 12, while New South Wales, Western Australia, and Tasmania maintain the status quo at 10.
Victoria’s trajectory is slightly more tricky. The state announced in April 2023 that it plans to raise the MACR to 12 by the end of 2024 and to 14 by 2027. However, delays and a partial backflip in August 2024, abandoning the 14-year commitment, have drawn criticism. Many believe that this change would undermine community safety through inconsistent policy. The change to 12 is now set to commence on 30 September 2025, with provisions requiring prosecutors to prove intent for children under 14.
Queensland, under its Liberal National Party (LNP) government, has not altered its MACR of 10. However, the state has intensified penalties for youth offenders via “adult crime, adult time”.
The above variations highlight a national divide on this subject: some jurisdictions prioritise rehabilitation and rights, while others emphasise deterrence and punishment.
The NT’s CLP government, led by Chief Minister Lia Finocchiaro, justified lowering the MACR as a response to rising youth crime rates, claiming it would enable early intervention. The legislation, passed swiftly in October 2024, allows children as young as 10 to be charged, detained, and prosecuted. This reverses reforms introduced by the previous Labor government, which Finocchiaro described as defying “do-gooders down south.” Instead, he framed his policy as a localised solution to community safety concerns.
Nationally, this has sparked outrage. The Australian Human Rights Commission and Amnesty International labelled it “deeply shameful,” arguing it will exacerbate cycles of disadvantage. Furthermore, the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child condemned the move as contravening Australia’s treaty obligations. Chair Bragi Gudbrandsson spoke on this subject, highlighting risks to child development. Human Rights Watch called it a “serious regression,” noting Australia’s already low MACR compared to global standards.
Yet, the policy’s ramifications extend beyond the NT. It could embolden other conservative governments to adopt similar measures, potentially stalling national momentum towards raising the age. Public discourse on platforms like X reflects this polarisation, with users decrying the racism inherent in policies that disproportionately affect Indigenous communities. Critics argue it undermines Closing the Gap initiatives, which aim to reduce Indigenous incarceration rates.
Queensland’s approach, under Premier David Crisafulli, exemplifies a punitive shift without altering the MACR. The LNP’s flagship “Making Queensland Safer” laws mandate adult-like sentences for juveniles committing serious offences. In May 2025, the second tranche expanded this to 33 offences, adding 20 more including arson, torture, and kidnapping. Crisafulli defended the reforms as delivering “tough consequences” to deter crime, amid rising youth offending.
However, Amnesty International and the UN have condemned them, with experts warning they are “incompatible with child rights.” These two groups agree that they are violations of children’s rights and ignore evidence that harsher penalties increase the likelihood of children returning to crime.
In Queensland, where youth crime has been a political flashpoint, these laws target repeat offenders, but also risk targeting disadvantaged children. Advocacy groups like Queensland Advocacy for Inclusion have addressed the UN directly, highlighting the laws’ failure to address root causes like poverty and trauma.
Victoria stands in contrast, pursuing reforms to raise the MACR despite political pressures. The Youth Justice Bill aims to increase it to 12 by late 2025, with safeguards for children aged 10-14. This follows a mammoth legislative package unveiled in June 2024, though a backflip on the 2027 target to 14 has been criticised as a “step backwards.”
The Victorian government argues raising the age promotes welfare over criminalisation, supported by evidence that early justice involvement harms long-term outcomes. Greens amendments pushed for 14 immediately, reflecting broader calls from legal aid bodies. Amid national trends, Victoria’s approach could influence other states, though bail law reversals in 2025 highlight tensions between reform and public perception of crime.
A core concern in this debate is the disproportionate impact on Indigenous youth. Recent Australian Institute of Criminology (AIC) research underscores that Indigenous young people are significantly over-represented in the youth justice system. In fact, they make up over half of detainees despite being just 5% of the youth population. The Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (AIHW) reports similar findings, linking this to systemic factors like socioeconomic disadvantage, intergenerational trauma, and discriminatory policing.
AIC’s 2025 Crime & Justice Research highlights that lowering the MACR exacerbates this, as Indigenous children in remote areas like the NT are more likely to be affected. Closing the Gap data from February 2025 stresses preventive measures to reduce First Nations engagement with justice systems. They warn that punitive policies hinder progress. Studies also note intersections with environmental disasters and cultural disconnection, further entrenching over-representation.
Supporters of lowering the MACR, like in the NT and Queensland, claim it enables early accountability and intervention. Supporters say it potentially steers children away from a life of crime. Furthermore, they argue that community safety demands consequences for serious acts, citing public frustration with youth crime.
On the other hand, opponents debate that children under 14 lack the maturity for criminal intent, and incarceration in fact increases recidivism by 30-50%. It violates UN conventions, ignores brain development science, and perpetuates racial inequities. Evidence shows raising the age reduces crime long-term by focusing on support.
Rather than lowering the age, experts advocate diversion and rehabilitation. Programs like Victoria’s Youth Crime Prevention Grants target at-risk youth aged 10-24 with community-based support. Multi-Systemic Therapy (MST), a family-focused intervention, has reduced reoffending by up to 70% in trials.
Queensland’s own diversion models, if expanded, could complement rather than contradict rights-based approaches. Justice reinvestment, redirecting funds from prisons to community programs, emphasises Indigenous self-determination and culture to break cycles. AIC research from 2002, updated in recent reports, confirms recreation, education, and early intervention as effective in reducing involvement in crime.
Global examples, such as Scandinavia’s focus on welfare over punishment, demonstrate lower recidivism through rehabilitation. In Australia, raising the MACR nationally to 14, combined with unified diversion, could address root causes of youth offending.
The NT’s decision to lower the MACR to 10 has exposed a deep divide s in Australia’s youth justice landscape. There’s a significant contrast between Queensland’s punitive expansions and Victoria’s tentative reforms. While intended to curb crime, such policies risk perpetuating Indigenous over-representation and ignoring evidence favouring rehabilitation.
As debates rage, from UN condemnations to social media outcry, a national, rights-based approach is essential. Raising the age to 14, investing in alternatives, and prioritising prevention could foster safer communities and uphold Australia’s international obligations. Without change, the cycle of disadvantage will persist, failing both victims and young offenders alike.
When your child’s future is at stake, our experienced youth criminal defence lawyers are available 24/7 to be your legal ally. We provide urgent, practical advice to protect their rights and navigate the justice system.
We are available in-person to assist with police interviews, bail and court representation in the Gold Coast, Northern NSW, Brisbane and Melbourne regions. Contact Kingsford Lawyers on 1300 244 342 for immediate help.
How do Australian family courts rate your co-parenting behaviour? From minor red flags to case-ending mistakes, here's what judges actually look for.
Five custody mistakes most parents don't take seriously, until a family court judge uses their behaviour against them. Learn about what the court actually looks for.
A mum gets the career opportunity of a lifetime. A dad refuses to let his children leave the country. A court has …
WE SPEAK – ENGLISH, ITALIAN, MANDARIN, FINNISH, PORTUGUESE, RUSSIAN, BENGALI, HINDI, URDU, GREEK, AFRIKAANS AND PUNJABI
English (Australia) English (Australia) 
简体中文
Italiano
Português do Brasil
Suomi
Русский
Afrikaans
বাংলা
Ελληνικά
Reach out to us, and let’s work together towards a solution that brings you peace of mind and a positive step forward.