Claire Clutterham (Sturt, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise today to speak in support of the Commonwealth Parole Board Bill 2025 and the Commonwealth Parole Board (Consequential and Transitional Provisions Bill) 2025. These bills are an important step in ensuring that, for federal offences, there is an independent and effective process for assessing the risk of releasing an offender and an independent and effective process for determining whether to grant, deny or cancel parole—and to set appropriate conditions for parole release. In order to do this, the bills make consequential amendments to part 1B of the Crimes Act of 1914, which is the part of that legislation that deals with sentencing, imprisonment and release of federal offenders.

There are 10 divisions within this part, covering general sentencing principles; sentences of imprisonment; the fixing of non-parole periods and recognisance release orders; conditional release on parole or licence, including revocation of parole or licence; discharge without conviction; conditional release and alternative sentencing; unfitness to be tried; acquittal because of mental illness; summary disposition of persons suffering from mental illness or intellectual disability, including alternative sentencing for persons falling within those categories; and finally, the sharing of information in relation to federal offences. It is therefore entirely appropriate that these two bills would amend part 1B of the Crimes Act 1914 to establish a statutory independent Commonwealth parole board to make effective and risk-informed decisions about the conditional release and management of federal offenders and other detained persons.

Federal offences are offences against the law of the Commonwealth, and a federal offender is one who commits a federal offence. It is only fair to the people of Australia that decisions regarding the release of federal offenders into the community are to be made following a carefully managed process that has at its heart community safety. Australians expect this, and Australians deserve this.

What this means is that determinations about the circumstances under which a federal offender should be released into the community on parole are critical decisions. These bills would ensure that these decisions are made by experts who not only have the qualifications, experience and knowledge to assess the risk posed to the community about whether an offender is suitable for release into the community on parole but are independent and impartial, with no actual or perceived skin in the game, and equipped to operate in an environment that promotes transparency and accountability. The bills therefore improve the integrity levels in the federal criminal justice system because of the way that these key principles will be embedded.

How does it work? The parole board bill will establish the Commonwealth Parole Board and set out the process and framework required to support the work of the board so that it can make the effective, risk-informed decisions about federal offenders, including those who have been found mentally unfit to be tried or acquitted because of mental illness. The decisions are about whether these persons should be released into the community on parole or other conditional release arrangements.

By way of background, the purpose of parole is set out in section 19AKA of the Crimes Act, being the protection of the community, the rehabilitation of the offender and the reintegration of the offender into the community. Section 19ALA of the Crimes Act then sets out a comprehensive list of factors to be considered when determining whether parole should be granted. At the top of the list, quite rightly, is community safety and the risk to community safety that would arise if the person in question were released on parole. Other factors include: the person's conduct while serving his or her sentence; the likely effect on the victim or the victim's family of releasing the person on parole; the nature and circumstances of the offence relating to the person sentenced; the person's criminal history; the risk of noncompliance with any parole order, the behaviour of the person when under previous parole orders, if that is relevant; whether releasing the person on parole is likely to assist the person to adjust to lawful community life; whether the length of the parole period is sufficient to achieve the purposes of parole; and then any special circumstances, including the likelihood that the person will be subject to removal or deportation upon release. Then, once parole is granted, the person is subject—

See this speech in context