Raising the Age of Criminal Responsibility: Rehabilitation, Accountability and Youth Justice

What changed in the ACT

The Australian Capital Territory raised its minimum age of criminal responsibility in two stages: to 12 in November 2023 and generally to 14 on 1 July 2025. The ACT Government explains that children aged 13 and under will ordinarily not be held criminally responsible for harmful behaviour, with limited exceptions for certain serious and intentionally violent offences committed by 12- and 13-year-olds.

The reform applies to ACT offences. Commonwealth offences remain subject to Commonwealth law, and other Australian jurisdictions have their own positions. That distinction is important whenever a national debate is illustrated by one territory's model.

Rehabilitation is not the absence of accountability

In his SBS Arabic commentary, Farris Faris described the reform's objective as treatment rather than punishment. A therapeutic response still recognises that harm occurred. It asks which intervention is most likely to stop the behaviour, repair safety and reduce the prospect of further harm.

Children who enter the justice system often present with overlapping needs involving trauma, family instability, disability, mental health, education or substance use. A criminal label by itself does not resolve those drivers. An effective alternative response must be timely, structured and capable of working with the child, family, victim and relevant services.

Community safety still requires an immediate response

Raising the age does not prevent police from responding when a child is involved in a dangerous incident. Immediate safety, investigation, victim support and lawful intervention remain necessary. The change concerns the pathway that follows and the circumstances in which criminal responsibility can be imposed.

The ACT model includes services and a therapeutic support panel intended to coordinate individual responses. The credibility of reform depends on those alternatives being available in practice. Diversion without properly resourced support would transfer risk rather than manage it.

What the national debate should examine

Debate should look beyond the headline age. Legislators need to examine the offences covered, exceptions, police powers, victim participation, the quality of therapeutic services, regional access and how outcomes will be measured over time.

Reasonable people may disagree about the design. That disagreement is more productive when it focuses on evidence, safeguards and implementation rather than assuming that rehabilitation means permissiveness or that punishment by itself produces safety. Current local law should always be checked before drawing a conclusion about an individual matter.