{"id":"BILL-QLD-4270","name":"Youth Justice (Electronic Monitoring) Amendment Bill 2025","slug":"youth-justice-electronic-monitoring-amendment-bill-2025","collection":"bill","jurisdiction":"qld","status":"in_force","isInForce":true,"actNumber":null,"makingDate":"2025-01-01","administeringDepartment":null,"currentVersion":{"id":446116,"registerId":"BILL-QLD-4270:current","compilationNumber":null,"startDate":"2025-01-01","status":"in_force","reasons":null,"registeredAt":"2026-05-06T12:45:22.970Z"},"sections":[{"sectionNumber":"retrieval-0001","sectionType":"document_chunk","heading":"Document excerpt 1","content":"# Youth Justice (Electronic Monitoring) Amendment Bill 2025\n\nQueensland\nYouth Justice (Electronic\nMonitoring) Amendment Bill\n2025\n\nQueensland\nYouth Justice (Electronic Monitoring)\nAmendment Bill 2025\nContents\nPage\nPart 1 Preliminary\n1 Short title . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4\n2 Commencement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4\nPart 2 Amendment of Youth Justice Act 1992\n3 Act amended . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4\n4 Amendment of s 52AA (Court may impose monitoring device condition)\n. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4\n5 Omission of s 405 (Effectiveness of monitoring device condition after\ngeographical area stops being prescribed or section 52AA expires) 6\n6 Insertion of new pt 11, div 27 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6\nDivision 27 Transitional provision for Youth Justice (Electronic\nMonitoring) Amendment Act 2025\n443 Application of s 52AA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6\nPart 3 Amendment of Youth Justice Regulation 2016\n7 Regulation amended . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6\n8 Omission of pt 2A (Geographical areas for monitoring device condition)\n. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7\n9 Omission of sch 1AA (Geographical area for child to live in) . . . 7\n\n2025\nA Bill\nfor\nAn Act to amend the Youth Justice Act 1992 and the Youth\nJustice Regulation 2016 for particular purposes\n\n[s 1]\nYouth Justice (Electronic Monitoring) Amendment Bill 2025\nPart 1 Preliminary\nPage 4\nAuthorised by the Parliamentary Counsel\nThe Parliament of Queensland enacts—\nPart 1 Preliminary\n1 Short title\nThis Act may be cited as the Youth Justice (Electronic\nMonitoring) Amendment Act 2025.\n2 Commencement\nThis Act commences on 30 April 2026.\nPart 2 Amendment of Youth Justice\nAct 1992\n3 Act amended\nThis part amends the Youth Justice Act 1992.\n4 Amendment of s 52AA (Court may impose monitoring\ndevice condition)\n(1) Section 52AA(1)—\nomit, insert—\n(1) A court may, under section 52A(2), impose on a\ngrant of bail to a child a condition that the child\nmust wear a monitoring device while released on\nbail (a monitoring device condition) if the court is\nsatisfied, in addition to being satisfied of the\nmatters mentioned in that section, that imposing\nthe monitoring device condition is appropriate\nhaving regard to—\n1\n2\nClause 3\n4\n5\nClause 6\n7\n8\n9\nClause 10\n11\nClause 12\n13\n14\n15\n16\n17\n18\n19\n20\n21\n22\n23\n\n[s 4]\nYouth Justice (Electronic Monitoring) Amendment Bill 2025\nPart 2 Amendment of Youth Justice Act 1992\nPage 5\nAuthorised by the Parliamentary Counsel\n(a) the suitability assessment report given to the\ncourt under subsection (4); and\n(b) any other matter the court considers\nrelevant.\nNote—\nSee the Human Rights Act 2019, sections 19, 22,\nand 25 to 28.\n(1A) However, a court may only impose on a grant of\nbail to a child a monitoring device condition if the\nchief executive advises the court that all of the\nfollowing services are available in the area in\nwhich the child lives—\n(a) services necessary to support the effective\noperation of a monitoring device;\n(b) services suitable to support the child’s\ncompliance with the condition;\n(c) services suitable to support the monitoring\nof the child.\n(2) Section 52AA(3), from ‘having regard’ to ‘subsection\n(1)(f)’—\nomit.\n(3) Section 52AA(5)—\nomit, insert—\n(5) A regulation may prescribe the matters the chief\nexecutive must consider in assessing the child’s\nsuitability for a monitoring device condition.\n(4) Section 52AA(10)—\nomit.\n(5) Section 52AA(11), definition prescribed indictable offence—\nomit.\n1\n2\n3\n4\n5\n6\n7\n8\n9\n10\n11\n12\n13\n14\n15\n16\n17\n18\n19\n20\n21\n22\n23\n24\n25\n26\n27\n28\n29\n30\n\n[s 5]\nYouth Justice (Electronic Monitoring) Amendment Bill 2025\nPart 3 Amendment of Youth Justice Regulation 2016\nPage 6\nAuthorised by the Parliamentary Counsel\n5 Omission of s 405 (Effectiveness of monitoring device\ncondition after geographical area stops being prescribed\nor section 52AA expires)\nSection 405—\nomit.\n6 Insertion of new pt 11, div 27\nPart 11—\ninsert—\nDivision 27 Transitional provision for\nYouth Justice (Electronic\nMonitoring) Amendment\nAct 2025\n443 Application of s 52AA\nSection 52AA, as amended by the Youth Justice\n(Electronic Monitoring) Amendment Act 2025,\napplies in relation to a child in connection with a\ncharge of an offence whether the offence was\nallegedly committed, or the child was charged, or\nany step in the proceeding was taken, before or\nafter the commencement.\nPart 3 Amendment of Youth Justice\nRegulation 2016\n7 Regulation amended\nThis part amends the Youth Justice Regulation 2016.\nClause 1\n2\n3\n4\n5\nClause 6\n7\n8\n9\n10\n11\n12\n13\n14\n15\n16\n17\n18\n19\n20\n21\n22\nClause 23\n24\n\nPage 7\nAuthorised by the Parliamentary Counsel\n[s 8]\nYouth Justice (Electronic Monitoring) Amendment Bill 2025\nPart 3 Amendment of Youth Justice Regulation 2016\n8 Omission of pt 2A (Geographical areas for monitoring\ndevice condition)\nPart 2A—\nomit.\n9 Omission of sch 1AA (Geographical area for child to live\nin)\nSchedule 1AA—\nomit.\n© State of Queensland 2025\nClause 1\n2\n3\n4\nClause 5\n6\n7\n8","sortOrder":0}],"analysis":{"summary":{"status_summary":"The Youth Justice (Electronic Monitoring) Amendment Bill 2025 received royal assent in Queensland and will commence on 30 April 2026.","complexity_score":4,"likely_questions":["What specific services must be available in a child's area for the court to impose an electronic monitoring condition?","How will the chief executive assess and advise on the availability of services, and will that advice be publicly available?","What happens to children who are currently on bail with an electronic monitoring condition when the Bill commences?","What is a suitability assessment report and who prepares it?","Does the removal of prescribed geographical areas mean electronic monitoring can now be ordered anywhere, provided services are available?"],"complexity_factors":["Changes the statutory criteria for imposing electronic monitoring conditions from a factor-based list to a suitability assessment and service availability precondition","Removes the previous system of prescribed geographical areas and the expiry mechanism for those areas","Introduces a new role for the chief executive to advise on service availability, with no detail in the Bill on how that advice is determined","Transitional provision applies the new rules to charges and proceedings regardless of when they arose"],"plain_english_summary":"The Bill reshapes how Queensland courts can impose electronic monitoring as a bail condition for children: instead of relying on prescribed geographical zones, courts may order monitoring only if a suitability assessment supports it and the chief executive advises that local support, compliance and monitoring services are available. The change, effective 30 April 2026 and applying to existing and new matters, makes monitoring contingent on service availability, likely increasing departmental assessment duties and potential delays; costs for required services fall to the State."},"flash_summary":{"complexity_score":5,"scope_assessment":{"changed":true,"description":"Yes. The Bill moves the limiting mechanism for youth electronic monitoring from a fixed, regulation‑prescribed list of geographic areas to an administrative gatekeeper test based on the chief executive’s certification that local services exist (see amended s 52AA(1A) and omission of regulation Pt 2A/Sch 1AA). Functionally, this expands the potential spatial scope where monitoring can be used (no static list prevents use) while replacing that limit with an availability requirement enforced by the executive. The Bill also removes section 405 (which previously addressed what happens when a geographic prescription ceases to apply) and adds a transitional clause applying the new rule to existing and future proceedings (new s 443). These changes broaden the instrument’s operational reach beyond the earlier geographically constrained design and shift the operative constraint from statute/regulation to administrative capacity and discretion."},"complexity_factors":["Primary amendment focuses on a single substantive provision (s 52AA) but introduces a new gatekeeping subsection (1A) creating a dependency between court power and executive advice.","Removal of cross-referencing statutory pieces: omission of s 405 and omission of regulation Part 2A and Schedule 1AA—creates cross-part implications for how geographic limits are applied.","Insertion of a transitional provision (new s 443) that applies amended s 52AA to past and future proceedings, adding retrospective application complexity.","Delegated rulemaking left open: new s 52AA(5) allows regulations to prescribe suitability-assessment matters, increasing off-page complexity dependent on future regulations.","Human Rights Act cross-reference in the amended provision raises interpretive obligations under a different statute (inter-act statutory linkage).","Removal of a defined term ('prescribed indictable offence') from s 52AA(11) changes interpretation dynamics and may require re-reading of related sections.","Conditional logic introduced: court may only impose device if chief executive advises services are available — creates procedural sequencing complexity between agencies and courts.","Relatively short Bill text but with multiple deletions and insertions across Act and Regulation, requiring careful cross-checking of remaining provisions."],"plain_english_summary":"**What this Bill changes (mechanics)\n\n- The Bill changes how and where courts can order electronic monitoring (ankle bracelets or similar devices) for children on bail. It mainly amends section 52AA of the Youth Justice Act 1992 (see s 4 of the Bill).\n\n- A court can still impose a condition that a child wear a monitoring device while on bail, but only after it is satisfied the usual bail factors and a suitability assessment report (new s 52AA(1)).\n\n- New gatekeeping by the chief executive: a court may impose the monitoring condition only if the chief executive tells the court that supporting services are available in the child’s area. Those services are explicitly: services to make the device work, services to help the child comply, and services to monitor the child (new s 52AA(1A)).\n\n- The Bill removes some previous geographic limits and related regulatory listings: it deletes the regulation parts and schedule that previously prescribed geographic areas where monitoring-device conditions could apply (omission of Pt 2A and Sch 1AA — see ss 8–9 of the Bill) and removes section 405 that dealt with how those geographic prescriptions affected ongoing orders (s 5).\n\n- The Bill allows regulations to set what the chief executive must consider when judging a child’s suitability for monitoring (new s 52AA(5)).\n\n- A transitional provision makes the amended s 52AA apply to charges or proceedings whether they started before or after the amendment commences (new s 443).\n\n- The Human Rights Act is referenced as a note in the amended s 52AA (see s 4(1) note).\n\nWho it affects\n\n- Children charged with offences who may be granted bail; their families and carers.\n- Courts that grant bail — magistrates and other courts must ask for and rely on the suitability report and the chief executive’s advice about local services before imposing monitoring.\n- The Department or agency led by the ‘chief executive’ (the youth justice executive) — that office now decides whether supporting services exist in a child’s area and must supply that advice to courts.\n- Service providers and contractors who supply monitoring devices, device-operations support, compliance supports (eg, rehabilitative or social supports), and monitoring services — demand and contracting decisions may change.\n\nWhy it matters (purpose claims and practical tests)\n\n- Stated purpose (as expressed in the Bill): to ensure electronic monitoring is used only where it is appropriate and where local services exist to make monitoring effective (see new s 52AA(1A) and the note referring to Human Rights Act protections).\n\n- Practical effect: the power to use electronic monitoring shifts from being limited by listed geographic areas (a regulation list) to being conditioned on an active administrative assessment of service availability by the chief executive. Mechanically, that enlarges the potential geographic scope (because no fixed list remains) but replaces it with a gatekeeper check about services.\n\nCosts, incentives, trade-offs, and implementation considerations\n\n- Who pays: the Bill does not specify who pays for devices, installation, ongoing monitoring, or compliance services. The state agency that must advise on service availability will bear administrative costs of assessment and coordination. If governments contract monitoring and monitoring-support services, public expenditure or contract budgets will be involved; if costs are charged to families, that is not addressed in this Bill (no provision on funding or cost recovery in the text).\n\n- Incentives and discretion: the chief executive becomes a crucial decision-maker — courts cannot impose monitoring unless the chief executive confirms services exist (new s 52AA(1A)). That concentrates discretion in the executive branch about where monitoring can happen in practice. The Bill does not prescribe how that advice is to be provided, or timelines for it.\n\n- Compliance and operational burden: courts must receive and consider a suitability assessment report (s 52AA(1) as amended) and the chief executive’s service-availability advice before imposing monitoring. Agencies must develop procedures and data to judge service availability. Private providers may face opportunities (contracts for equipment and monitoring) but also uncertainty until procurement and service arrangements are settled.\n\n- Implementation risk and geographic inequality: because the test is service-availability in the child’s area, children in different localities may face materially different likelihoods of being subject to monitoring depending on where services have been implemented. That creates a reliance on administrative rollout rather than a uniform statutory rule.\n\n- Regulatory detail deferred: the Bill explicitly allows regulations to set what the chief executive must consider in suitability assessments (new s 52AA(5)). That delegated rulemaking step will determine many operational details and adds rulemaking risk (if regulations are slow or limited, practical use will be restricted).\n\n- Effect on private sector competition and markets: expanding potential use (by removing prescribed-area lists) likely increases market opportunities for electronic monitoring technology and monitoring services, but government procurement and contracting choices will shape which firms benefit. No procurement or contracting rules are set in the Bill.\n\n- Effects on individual choice and liberty: the Bill keeps the court’s role in authorising monitoring but adds an executive filter tied to service availability. The Human Rights Act note (cited in the amended s 52AA) signals that human-rights issues (privacy, liberty, fair trial, humane treatment) should be considered, but the Bill itself does not set additional substantive human-rights safeguards beyond leaving them to existing law.\n\nTrade-offs and opportunity costs\n\n- Removing fixed geographic prescriptions shifts the choice from a simple map-based limit to an administrative-capacity-based limit. That can allow tailored, demand-driven rollout, but it trades the clarity of a statutory map for the risks of uneven implementation and administrative discretion.\n\n- The Bill creates flexibility to expand monitoring where services exist, at the cost of placing responsibility on the chief executive and dependent agencies to resource and certify those services. If funding or procurement lags, rollout may be slow and produce uneven access.\n\nNet procedural changes (who decides, who acts, what changes)\n\n- Courts: retain the decision to impose monitoring but must consider a suitability report and have the chief executive’s confirmation that services exist (amended s 52AA(1) and new s 52AA(1A)).\n- Chief executive: must advise courts whether required services are available in the child’s area (new s 52AA(1A)) and will be guided by regulations about what to consider when assessing suitability (new s 52AA(5)).\n- Agencies and contractors: must provide device support, compliance support and monitoring services where the chief executive has certified availability (new s 52AA(1A)).\n\nKey sections to look at in the Bill: s 4 (amendment of s 52AA), s 5 (removal of s 405), ss 8–9 (removal of regulatory geographic lists), and new transitional s 443 (application to existing and future proceedings).\n\nBottom line (mechanics then rationale): Mechanically, the Bill removes a prior system that limited electronic monitoring by named geographic areas and replaces it with a system that requires chief-executive confirmation that certain services exist before a court can impose electronic monitoring on a child on bail. The Bill’s stated rationale is to ensure monitoring is only used where appropriate and supported by local services; practically, that reassigns the limiting choice from a statutory map to an administrative gatekeeper and to forthcoming regulations that will specify suitability criteria."}},"importantCases":[],"_links":{"self":"/api/acts/youth-justice-electronic-monitoring-amendment-bill-2025","history":"/api/acts/youth-justice-electronic-monitoring-amendment-bill-2025/history","analysis":"/api/acts/youth-justice-electronic-monitoring-amendment-bill-2025/analysis","conflicts":"/api/acts/youth-justice-electronic-monitoring-amendment-bill-2025/conflicts","importantCases":"/api/acts/youth-justice-electronic-monitoring-amendment-bill-2025/important-cases","documents":"/api/acts/youth-justice-electronic-monitoring-amendment-bill-2025/documents"}}