The Queensland Liberal National party leader, David Crisafulli, has been accused of “racialised dog whistling” for his repeated use of a phrase common in anti-crime social media groups, where it is used as a derogatory reference to Aboriginal children.
First Nations academics and other experts says Crisafulli’s repeated use of the phrase “generation of untouchables” – whether known to him or not – has “coded racist undertones”.
The term has been used regularly by the opposition leader and LNP candidates. It has appeared in television advertisements and other campaign material to refer to young people in the justice system. Crisafulli and the LNP’s use of the term does not refer specifically to Aboriginal children.
But online the term “untouchables” is often used in anti-crime communities – including before it was used by the LNP – as a reference to Indigenous children.
Examples of dozens of online posts include references to the “3% untouchables”, “aboriginal kids feel like untouchables”, and “the indigenous are untouchable and a protected species by the UN”.
One comment, referring to a post about a group of First Nations girls, says: “out of control filth that are untouchable”.
Crisafulli began using the phrase “generation of untouchables” in mid-2023 to highlight his claims that the state is in the grip of a crime crisis, and that children are able to escape consequences under “watered down” youth justice laws.
But the term has been used frequently during the campaign as the LNP seeks to promote its hardline law and order policies before the 26 October poll.
The LNP and Crisafulli did not respond to a series of questions.
Dr Bartholomew Stanford, a Torres Strait Islander man and political science lecturer from Griffith University, reviewed posts identified by Guardian Australia. He said the phrase “generation of untouchables” was used on social media “to refer to the supposed leniency provided to Indigenous youth offenders”.
“David Crisafulli’s use of the phrase, whether known to him or not, has coded racist undertones that are a dog whistle to those who believe Indigenous youth offenders are receiving special treatment in the courts, and who support harsher penalties like the ones proposed by the LNP.”
The director of the Australian Centre at the University of Melbourne, Sarah Maddison, said the term amounted to “racialised dog whistling”.
“It plays into this racialised trope that Aboriginal people and young people in this country get specialised treatment,” Maddison said.
“It has no basis in fact, it is just not a reality to suggest that Aboriginal people are untouchable from the law. They’re far more likely to be subject of racialised policing or over-incarceration.”
Kevin Yow Yeh, a Wakka Wakka and South Sea Islander man, and a principal researcher at the Institute of Collaborative Race Research, said there had been a recent “escalation in rhetoric” from both the LNP and Labor in relation to young people and youth offending.
“When terms like ‘untouchables’ are used, we see the dangers of this rhetoric in how people online and in our community receive that,” Yow Yeh said.
“It almost gives these vigilante groups permission to be more brazen and emboldened in their actions. It’s scary to see some of the rhetoric, and I’m deeply concerned about the safety of all young people when this sorts of rhetoric gets legs”.
Experts and community service organisations have grown worried about the way online forums might skew community sentiment about the frequency of crime, normalise racism, and excuse calls for violence and retribution.
Guardian Australia sought comment from the LNP and Crisafulli, including whether he was aware of the “racialised” connotation of the term “untouchables” in online anti-crime communities.
Crisafulli was also asked what he meant by the phrase, given arrest and custody data shows more children than ever before in custody in Queensland.
No response was received.
