Will Federal Policies Tackle Rising NT Crime Rates or Just Fund More Excuses?

There is a growing chasm between the rhetoric of federal policymakers and the realities lived daily by residents in the NT. Crime is no longer a distant statistic, it’s a front-yard phenomenon. Yet in the air-conditioned corridors of Canberra, responses are mired in virtue-signalling, bureaucratic paralysis, and legal gymnastics masquerading as justice. The question isn’t whether federal policies can reduce crime in the NT, but whether those in power want to. Urban crime in the NT has reached a point where ordinary citizens are adjusting their lives around lawlessness. Retailers are barricading storefronts, parents are escorting children home from school in daylight, and security firms, once the last line of defence, are now becoming the only line. But federal intervention remains timid. Why? Because confronting crime in the Territory means confronting a web of judicial activism, ideological obstruction, and a culture of excusing criminality under the guise of historical injustice.

While assaults, rape, murder, thefts, and home invasions climb, courts are clogged with lawyers spinning sociological narratives to mitigate responsibility. Judges, elevated more for their ideological sympathies than their constitutional fidelity, issue lenient sentences to repeat offenders while citing systemic disadvantage and colonial legacies. The result? Lawfare is not only protecting criminals but undermining the sovereign right of a community to defend itself.

Crime in Darwin and Palmerston has surged, with urban areas grappling with a 20% rise in property crimes and a 15% uptick in violent offenses over the past five years. The Northern Territory’s unique challenges, a sparse populations, remote communities, and a strained justice system, amplify these issues, leaving residents feeling vulnerable. Federal and local parties propose varied solutions to restore safety, but their policies must confront not only crime but also the deeper erosion of national sovereignty through judicial activism and lawfare, which undermine the rule of law and public trust.

The Liberal/National Coalition and the Country Liberal Party (CLP) in the NT speak of law and order. Their platform includes mandatory sentencing, increased police resources, and federal support for task forces. However, they too shy away from confronting the real issue, activist judges and the legal industry’s grip on justice policy.

The Coalition’s refusal to address judicial reform has left their policies half-measured or worse they incentivise criminality. What’s the use of stronger policing when courts release violent criminals under pretextual legal interpretations? Without federal leadership to reverse this judicial capture, tough-on-crime rhetoric will always be undermined at the sentencing stage.

They propose $50 million for federal law enforcement partnerships, increasing police presence in Darwin and Palmerston, and introducing stricter bail laws. The CLP, fresh off a 2024 landslide victory, has already lowered the age of criminal responsibility to 10, aiming to deter youth crime, a major driver of NT’s statistics, where 40% of offenders are under 18. They also push for federal tax breaks to attract private security firms to the NT, believing market competition can bolster community safety. Historically, similar policies under the CLP in 2012 reduced crime by 10% through targeted policing, but then socialist policies like introducing “free” bus travel for minors increased juvenile crime rates by over 80%.

Critics argue any reduction comes at the cost of over-incarceration, particularly among Indigenous youth, with incarceration rates rising 25% during the period crime dropped. The Coalition’s reluctance to address judicial activism, where courts increasingly overstep legislative intent, incentivises lawfare to weaken sovereignty, as seen in past cases where activist rulings delayed critical infrastructure projects, costing the NT over $300 million annually in lost economic opportunities. Federal and NT Labor continue to push the line that crime is caused, not committed. Their policies expand social programs and “diversion initiatives,” but never mention the victims. The NT Labor Government embedded this soft-on-crime philosophy into local governance, building youth drop-in centres rather than detention centres, and treating violent offenders as clients rather than threats. The massive increase in physical, sexual and mental abuse of those in family care should have ended FACSIA and seen hundreds of enablers behind bars, but these people still remain in their jobs.

The Federal and NT Labor Party focuses on social equity, proposing $100 million for community safety programs, including youth diversion initiatives and mental health support, to address crime’s root causes. They aim to expand federal oversight of NT policing, ensuring culturally sensitive practices, especially for Indigenous communities, which make up 30% of the population but over 80% of the prison population. Labor’s past efforts, like the 2016 community policing initiative, cut youth reoffending by 12%, but the crime rate still soared, their centralised approach falters in the NT’s vast terrain. Only 25% of remote areas saw improved safety outcomes. Labor’s silence on judicial overreach is glaring, as their progressive leanings often align with activist judges, further eroding public confidence in governance and leaving sovereignty exposed to legal challenges that prioritize ideology over security. Labor's plans offer more of the same, funding “First Nations justice panels,” introducing community-led policing strategies, and promoting rehabilitation over restraint. But the data shows a different story. In jurisdictions where these programs have been trialled, like parts of Western Sydney and inner Melbourne, violent crime remained steady or increased while police morale plummeted. You don’t deter crime by empathising with the offender more than with the victim.

The Greens' position on crime is a masterclass in misdirection. They argue that policing is inherently racist, that prisons are colonial tools, and that justice is better served through “restorative circles” than criminal prosecution. Their plan for Darwin and Palmerston would defund law enforcement, expand activist-run legal aid groups, and criminalise what they call “systemic bias” rather than the individuals terrorizing neighbourhoods.

In any practical sense, their policies would only guarantee one thing, more crime, less accountability, and a justice system that punishes the law-abiding for daring to protect themselves.

Phil Scott, the Independent Teal Candidate offers slick presentations and recycled slogans. Their solution to NT crime? Convene more roundtables, appoint more “diverse community voices,” and fund non-profit “social entrepreneurs” to run outreach programs. Scott’s platform echoes Labor-lite sentiment, less direct enforcement, more theoretical understanding.

What’s glaringly absent is any concrete action plan for prosecuting crime, holding repeat offenders accountable, or reforming judicial discretion. His approach replaces deterrence with dialogue and substitutes legal authority with moral grandstanding.

One Nation’s policies, while unpopular in media circles, speak plainly to the public. They call for the reinstatement of mandatory sentencing, the construction of secure youth facilities, and federal oversight of activist judges. They propose legal reforms to restrict lawfare and restore public confidence in justice by ensuring the courts reflect community standards, not elite ideology.

Their critics brand them “extreme,” but in Darwin’s crime-heavy suburbs, their supporters call them honest. One Nation sees crime not as an abstract social condition, but as the outcome of bad policy, failed incentives, and unchecked ideological capture of the judiciary.

Their focus on local hiring for police forces aims to rebuild community trust, but past isolationist policies in other regions led to a 20% drop in police recruitment, exacerbating shortages. So, their policy may sound good, however, while trust in the police remains at record lows, and the recruitment of police is struggling around the country, it is a policy that will requires review.

At its root, federal inaction isn’t about resources, it’s about will. Australia’s sovereignty, especially in the NT, is under siege not from external threats but internal ones, laws twisted to protect the lawless, judges who confuse compassion with exoneration, and politicians afraid to confront the dogma of institutional guilt.

Crime in the NT is not a mystery, it is the consequence of policies that reward excuses, punish self-defence, and defer to unelected legal elites. If Canberra cannot muster the courage to reverse this course, and the local government has proven inadequate then the crime will not be limited to Darwin’s streets. it will be a moral crime of abandonment by the very state sworn to protect its people.

The real question is not whether federal policies can keep Darwin safe. It's whether anyone in Canberra still remembers that this is their duty.

From the author.

The opinions and statements are those of Sam Wilks and do not necessarily represent whom Sam Consults or contracts to. Sam Wilks is a skilled and experienced Security and Risk Consultant with 3 decades of expertise in the fields of Real estate, Security, and the hospitality/gaming industry. Sam has trained over 1,000 entry level security personnel, taught defensive tactics, weapons training and handcuffs to policing personnel and the public. His knowledge and practical experience have made him a valuable asset to many organisations looking to enhance their security measures and provide a safe and secure environment for their clients and staff.