Michael McCormack (Riverina, National Party) Share this | Hansard source

The member for Sturt and the speaker who will follow me, the member for Blair, are both lawyers, and I respect that. But I cannot understand why Labor wants to outsource what should be the work of a minister—it should be the role of the Attorney-General—particularly to the member for Sturt, who one day may well occupy the Attorney-General's chair. I hope she does. Why would she want to be advocating something that is going to lessen her role and responsibility in the Parliament of Australia? I just don't understand it.

There are only four speakers in the Federation Chamber on the Commonwealth Parole Board Bill 2025—the member for Sturt, the member for Blair, the member for Pearce, who will follow the member for Blair, and me—and this is an important bill. Sometimes, when we look at legislation, as legislators we get mired in perhaps the complexity of the particular legislation. There's no question that the Commonwealth Parole Board (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2025 carries with it a degree of complexity. But you don't need to be a lawyer. You don't need to have studied law to know that, once again, we're seeing this Albanese Labor government wanting to outsource its responsibilities. And what do they want to do here? Well, they want to outsource the responsibilities of the Attorney-General to a minister, to a board—a board described by the member for Sturt as having transparency and accountability, a board that will have a carefully managed process. Those deliberations by said board will have at their heart community safety. Well, let's hope so.

Now, I like the member for Sturt. I do. I have a lot of time for her. She speaks on just about every bit of legislation, and, for a new member of parliament, I really admire that. I take my hat off to her for that. I respect her for her successful legal profession. I know she studied in London. I know she mentioned the international experience. I know she also referred to the states as having best practice, and this is what the Commonwealth is now going to do. And let's face it: with a 51-seat majority, this will become law—unless, of course, it's held up in the Senate. But the coalition is opposing this particular piece of legislation.

The fact that the government is going to rely on a board astounds me. The fact that more people aren't getting up and belling the cat also, I have to say, surprises me. Now, the board will replace the Attorney-General as the decision-maker for the management and release of federal offenders into the community on parole and licence, including the conditions under which they are released. I know the member for Sturt mentioned those who have mental health issues. We know that 'federal offence' means an offence against the law of the Commonwealth. We know too that a 'federal offender' means a person convicted of a federal offence, and these sorts of offences include drug trafficking—awful, terrible; they take lives. They include child exploitation—nothing is worse than that—social security fraud and terrorism, which is a heinous act against society. Let me put this on the record: whilst people often think blue collar crime is the worst, it's white collar crime which also destroys lives. It does—truly. So federal offenders are people who should be locked up, people who need to have justice served on them. And justice must not only be done; it must also be seen to be done.

I don't think this legislation achieves what society needs or wants, particularly at this important juncture, where we are in a society where there is so much hatred and there is so much divisiveness. We see decisions made by Justice Belinda Rigg in early August where, despite the protestations of the New South Wales Premier, Chris Minns, who I also have a bit of time for, and, moreover, the New South Wales Police Force, those brave men and women in blue who go out every day and place their lives on the line to keep our state safe—they objected to a pro-Palestinian march on Sydney Harbour Bridge, and Justice Rigg allowed it. She went against the premier of the state. She went against, worse still, the police in that state to allow that protest to happen.

And what did we see? Well, we saw people waving al-Qaeda flags. We saw people who support Nazism. We saw people who were writing slogans on the Sydney Harbour Bridge: 'This is colonialism. Let's tear it down.' It is one of the most iconic pieces of infrastructure in the world which connects the north with the Sydney central business district, built in the early thirties during a time of great depression, and here we have these idiots, these—let's call them what they are—criminals, wanting to tear the bridge down. They foster hate.

And yet now we see a Labor government that wants to outsource parole responsibility to a board. Do you know what we'll see? We'll see a board of woke wets. That's what I fear the board will be made up of. These are people who, let's face it, don't have, in my view—and this is my view, and people can have their own view because the great thing about democracy is that you can have a view. I can see the member for Blair grimacing, but you often see these decisions made at committee level that don't concur with what society's expectation are. It'll be like these focus groups that political parties—don't shake your head, member for Blair. Just hear me out here. You know what focus groups are like with politics. It's the person who speaks first and speaks loudest who sways the rest of the committee, the rest of the focus group, with what they think. Then, all of a sudden, the polls are going this way and that way.

I really worry when the government of the day outsources the work of the Attorney-General, and we've got a good Attorney-General. I really wonder what the member for Greenway thinks deep down in her heart of hearts about this particular legislation. Now, you'll tell me that she brought it to the chamber. You'll tell me that she thinks it's a good thing, but she's outsourcing her work—why would you want to do that—to a board which is not elected, which is faceless—

Well, you may think that, but we see these decisions. They crop up in our tabloid newspapers. They'll release someone; they'll let someone out in society who, quite frankly, should not be allowed out into society. We have seen it all too often in recent times, decisions made regarding people who came to this country and then, because they didn't have their correct identification or paperwork, they had a little anklet, a little bracelet, put on their leg and were allowed out in society where they recommitted offences. People right across the nation, ordinary, average people—I'll call them Mr and Mrs Average—were outraged. They thought: 'Why is our government doing this? This is not in the best interests of the safety and security of average, ordinary, everyday Australians of our communities.' And they're right.

This is what I worry about with this particular bill. I do. You may say that I'm off on the wrong tangent, but I don't believe that we should be outsourcing ministerial work to committees. Otherwise, why don't we just outsource everything to committees? I saw it when Labor got into power in May—

An honourable member interjecting—

Let me have my say. Labor got into power in May 2022, and, all of a sudden, they wanted to outsource regional infrastructure to a committee. What have we got now? We've got a pause on regional infrastructure. Ministers should do their job. Attorney-General is the title of the first law officer of the land. I'll say this. I'll put it on the record that I think we've got an outstanding first law officer of the land in the member for Greenway. She is an outstanding member of parliament, and I think she'll make a very good Attorney-General, but I don't agree with this piece of legislation.

Members opposite can disagree with me all they like, but mark my words: down the track, when this becomes law—and we know that it will because you've got the majority, and majority rules; I get that, I understand that, I recognise that—you will see this committee make a decision in the future, and people will just slump their shoulders and go, 'Why did a board designated by the parliament to do a job allow that decision to take place?' They will. Member for Blair, you will too. I think one day in the future you'll go: 'You know what, member for Riverina? You were right.' We'll be in our dotage; we probably already are there. But you'll say: 'You know what? You were right. You were right.' And that's what I fear.

I just think this sort of legislation is unnecessary. Why is it happening? I don't get it. I mean, we've got the Commonwealth Parole Board. 'This legislation seeks to establish an independent'—well, everybody's always making as if 'independent' means that they are totally devoid of having political acumen or political decision-making ideas. No-one—let's face it—is really, truly independent. They have to vote for someone. They'll come here with their biases. They'll all be lefties. You can just see it. But, anyway. It continues with 'an independent federal parole authority to replace the Attorney-General'—why? I don't know—'as the primary decision maker for parole or federal offenders'. It says, 'Currently the Commonwealth is the only jurisdiction in Australia where elected officials make parole decisions.' Good! Excellent! Fantastic! Let's keep it that way. 'The Parole Board bill aims to depoliticise'—go figure that one out—'this process by appointing a board of experts.' Experts? That's a drip under pressure. 'This would include legal professionals, law enforcement, psychologists and victims advocates to assess parole applications based on risk and rehabilitation potential.'

You know what we'll see? We'll see these federal offenders making all sorts of wonderful applications and reasons as to why they should be released and why they should be out in the community, and you'll get this bunch of woke wets who'll go: 'Oh, yes—poor little Johnny and poor little Mary suffered a traumatised childhood. They should be released.' I say bunkum! I'm sorry if I'm the lone voice against that, but sometimes you've got to take a stand. Sometimes you can't be silent when you ought to speak, and I'm speaking because I think this is a folly. This is a risk, and it's a risk to good law and order.

I'm no lawyer, and you could probably shoot holes in my argument left, right and centre. But I'll tell you what. I stand here for ordinary, average, everyday Australians who expect better. They expect better from a government which they gave a landslide majority to—in the number of seats, not necessarily the number of votes—at the May election this year.

This legislation worries me. It truly does. 'The Parole Board will have the powers and functions to make decisions about whether convicted federal offenders are released into the community.' I really worry about this because what we'll see is when the first offender is released by the first woke, wet, leftie board—you can laugh all you like, but that's what they'll be made up of—Ben Fordham and the other shock jocks will have a field day, as well they should. And I hope they refer to my speech as the lone voice against it. I hope they say: 'You know what? The member for Riverina was right. He was a hundred per cent correct, because he belled the cat on this particular piece of legislation, which should not have even been debated.'

Why we are outsourcing the work of the Attorney-General to a bunch of so-called experts I will never know. And that is why the coalition will be opposing this all the way. Even if I am the only voice speaking against it, I think it's bad policy. I think Labor should go back to the drawing board on this, and I think the Attorney-General should do the job that she was elected to do—'she' at the moment; 'he', maybe, in the future. Who knows? It doesn't matter. We've got a good Attorney-General. She should do her job.

See this speech in context