Shayne Neumann (Blair, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I'm pleased to speak on the Commonwealth Parole Board Bill 2025 and the Commonwealth Parole Board (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2025. At the outset, the Albanese government's highest priority is keeping Australians safe. To that end, the legislation will establish a new independent Commonwealth Parole Board, which will strengthen community safety by empowering law enforcement and community safety experts to make critical decisions about whether convicted federal offenders are released into the community on parole and the conditions under which they are released. Determining what circumstances a federal offender should be released into the community on parole is a critical decision. The bills will ensure these decisions are made by experts who have the qualifications, experience and knowledge to assess the risk posed to the community and whether an offender is suitable for release into the community on parole. We believe these decisions should be made by law enforcement and other community safety experts, not by politicians. Currently decisions are made by the Commonwealth Attorney-General. Parole decisions are complex.

Sitting suspended from 17:55 to 17:57

The Commonwealth Parole Board will strengthen the public's trust and confidence in the federal parole system by protecting the rights of incarcerated individuals to have their applications for liberty considered in an independent, transparent, fair and accountable manner and by addressing the risks of perceived political interference in parole decisions.

What we're doing here is very similar to what's happening in the states and territories, and it's important that we have separation of powers. I grew up under the Bjelke-Petersen regime, which had no respect for the separation of powers. It's critical that we have separation of powers. It's best practice, and it's happening across the states and territories. International partners who we follow and respect—such as Canada, the United Kingdom and New Zealand—are doing it as well. Independent parole decision-making bodies are widely accepted as an improvement in the administration of justice, having been adopted throughout Australia. All states and territories have implemented parole decision-making schemes that provide a degree of independence from the primary decision-making of the executive.

The Commonwealth is currently the only jurisdiction in Australia where elected officials make primary decisions about parole. Currently, once a federal offender is sentenced, responsibility for determining parole shifts to the executive branch of the government in the federal Attorney-General and delegates within the Attorney-General's Department. And that's exactly the problem which the member for Riverina does not quite understand, in terms of separation of powers. A federal parole authority will help take the politics out of parole and address the risk of perceived political interference, ensuring apolitical, consistent and evidence based parole decisions. If we were to take reductio ad absurdum, for the member for Riverina, we would have no Administrative Review Tribunal, no Federal Circuit and Family Court, no Federal Court and no High Court of Australia. That's the argument he's putting, if you take it to the extreme, because everyone brings their own views, philosophies and beliefs into the system, but judges and people who engage in these particular roles, in terms of the Parole Board, have to make decisions based on the evidence, the facts of the case and the law. That's the case. At the same time, we're making amendments here that provide the Commonwealth Parole Board with flexibility.

The background is really important. The member for Riverina should listen to this. The idea of a parole board is not new. There have been a range of calls for an independent Commonwealth parole board over the years, as well as some preparatory work to establish such a board. The former Whitlam government attorney-general Kep Enderby, who's widely respected as a very important figure not just in terms of the law but in Australian Labor history, was reported as having early discussions with state justice ministers to establish a federal parole board back in 1975. At different times, the Australian Law Reform Commission recommended that the Commonwealth could and should establish a federal parole board, noting intractable challenges within the federal parole system.

Then, during the Gillard government, the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs recommended 'the Australian government give further consideration to establishing a federal parole board' in a report on the Crimes Legislation Amendment (Powers and Offences) Bill 2011. More recently, the Law Council of Australia called for an independent Commonwealth parole board, including in its detailed 2022 position paper Principles underpinning a federal parole authority. So this is not new. It's been going on for 50 years, and it's about time we did it because it's the right thing to do and it's the right thing to do in terms of separation of powers.

Given this history of expert and stakeholder support and the current environment, the government believes the time is right to establish a Commonwealth parole board. There are about 1,200 federal offenders currently serving sentences across every state and territory in Australia, which is more than the prison populations of the ACT and Tasmania combined. The current legislative framework is no longer appropriate, given the significant rise in the number of Commonwealth criminal prosecutions and convictions since 1990.

We don't have the Attorney-General make decisions here with respect to prosecuting people. We have the Director of Public Prosecutions, the DPP, do that because we live in a democracy that believes in the rule of law and the separation of powers. That's what the member for Riverina could not understand, and that's why what we're doing is at the back end of this process. At the front of the process, we anticipate and expect that the DPP will act in an apolitical way and act on the law and the evidence and the facts in determining whether someone gets prosecuted. We do not live in a communist dictatorship or a fascist dictatorship. We live in a democracy, a liberal democracy, where the rule of law is absolutely critical and the separation of powers is absolutely vital to respect human rights and liberties that we anticipate and expect all Australian citizens to experience.

The number of parole decision at a federal level has continued to rise every year. More than 530 parole related decisions were made in 2024-25, and the number of decisions has increased by 10 per cent every year. On top of this, over time the federal offender cohort has changed, and now that includes increasing numbers of offenders that pose a direct risk to community safety, such as terrorists and child sex offenders. That's happened, by the way, at a state level, in my experience and observation, as well. So we need to act now to address this based on the evidence, based on the reports, based on the Law Council's recommendation and based on the parliamentary committee's recommendation.

Looking at these bills, just briefly, I want to say what this will do. It will establish a Commonwealth parole board as a secondary statutory structure in the federal Attorney-General's portfolio. It will provide for the Commonwealth Parole Board's membership, functions, decision-making and administrative arrangements for the release and management of federal offenders and other detainees. We will amend the Crimes Act 1914 to replace the Attorney-General with the board as the decision-maker for the management and release of federal offenders in the community on parole and licence, including the conditions under which they are released. We'll also make changes to the statutory timeframes for parole decision-making.

The board will bring together experts from a range of professions. If you listen to the member for Riverina, he obviously doesn't trust crime advocates, psychologists and other community safety experts. They're the kinds of people—experts in law and order, experts in law enforcement and corrective services staff—that will be on the board because they're the people we would employ to be on the board.

When recommending appointments to the board, the Attorney-General would ensure that the board possesses a range and a mix of qualifications, experience and knowledge and reflects as closely as possible the composition of the Australian community at large, to ensure the integrity of the scheme. Many parts of the Australian community have different experiences of the criminal justice system, either as victims or offenders. It's important that the board's membership includes individuals with a range of skills, expertise, lived experience and knowledge of the needs of the people and groups of people significantly affected by the board's decisions. That includes experts in law enforcement, the criminal justice system and the effective reintegration of offenders—making sure that people don't re-offend. Recidivism is a big issue in our community, and we've got to make sure that people no longer commit repeat offences.

The board will include people who are involved in community issues such as substance abuse or mental health issues—experts that understand these things and the impact of offences on victims. I've got a lot of faith in the Attorney-General, but I don't think she would portray herself as an expert on substance abuse or mental health issues. She was a very experienced lawyer and she's a good parliamentarian as well. So she is not an expert, and neither am I, and I spent nearly 10 years practising in criminal law as well as other areas of litigation. I don't consider myself an expert in the area. My grade 12 biology at Bundamba State Secondary College does not qualify me for understanding anything in relation to the human brain and how it operates. It does not.

So we need experts in this area to strike a balance between having relevant subject expertise on the board and people who are reflective of the wider community, in tune with community expectations and standards. That's absolutely critical. Ultimately, community safety will be the board's highest priority. It's important to ensure that all decisions about parole assess risk.

We're going to have a chair and a deputy chair. It's not unusual. You would think, if you listen to the member for Riverina, that we will just gather a few people off the street without any expertise and no knowledge and put them on the board, and they can go into a room and make decisions. We're going to have a chair, a deputy chair and three sessional members who will have the power to amend, make, revoke and rescind parole for offenders. It's absolutely important.

The board will consider a broad range of matters. I won't go through the whole thing, but it's really important for people to understand that the board's remit does not override the states and territories. It's limited to federally convicted criminals, those who committed crimes under Commonwealth legislation, including drug importation, online child sex offenders and social security fraud among other things. Let's be clear; the board's going to make decisions in relation to terrorism offenders, and the bill won't change the statutory prohibition against parole for terrorism offenders. It's a very high threshold that must be met for a person convicted of terrorism offences to gain parole, and parole can only be granted in exceptional circumstances that justify the release. That won't change at all.

The board is expected to commence operation in the second half of 2026, subject to passage of the legislation, and we've allocated money for it.

The feedback from stakeholders is that they are overwhelmingly in favour of this method, including the Australian Law Reform Commission, the Law Council of Australia and National Legal Aid. The Law Council has had a longstanding position supporting the establishment of a Commonwealth parole board and welcomes the legislation. The Law Council said the Parole Board would 'protect the rights of prisoners to have their application for freedom considered in a transparent manner and without political interference'. The chair of National Legal Aid and chief executive of the Legal Services Commission South Australia has supported the change. She said:

This will promote high-quality, evidence-based decision-making, and guard against the risk of politicisation …

It's also been welcomed by victim support groups and legal advocacy organisations.

I know how important this is. It is important reform legislation. I think it's one of those things about which the current Attorney-General could say, at the end of her long career, 'I was involved in this process.' It's a good thing. It's a good outcome. I have no qualms and I have no reservations in relation to this. This happens at the state and territory level. It's good practice. It's world's best practice. We should do it. It's long overdue, and I support the bills.

See this speech in context