Claire Clutterham (Sturt, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to 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—

Meryl Swanson (Paterson, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will suspend the Federation Chamber, because we're no longer quorate. The chair will be resumed when a quorum is present.

Sitting suspended from 17:25 to 17:29

(Quorum formed)

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

The objective that the board be equipped with the tools to make independent, impartial and accurate decisions regarding parole and other forms of conditional release will be achieved in the Commonwealth Parole Board Bill, which provides the functions and powers of the board, the chair and the deputy chair and outlines the board's decision-making arrangements, including convening meetings, quorum, voting at meetings, and providing for the appointment of office holders and sessional members who have the expertise to support the risk-informed decision-making required of the board. The board will also have conferred on it powers to make those efficient and effective independent, risk-informed decisions about the conditional release and management of federal offenders and other detained persons.

The Commonwealth Parole Board (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill will operate to amend the Crimes Act to give effect to the Parole Board Bill. One of the most important aspects of schedule 1 to the consequential provisions bill is that those amendments to the Crimes Act facilitate the shift of the decision-making responsibility regarding parole and conditional release from the Attorney-General to the board in a way that ensures that the transfer of parole decision-making functions from the Attorney-General to the new Commonwealth Parole Board occurs seamlessly and does not impact the effective operations of state and territory corrective services or law enforcement agencies. This is in order to align with best-practice approaches in current operations in states, territories and internationally. In this respect, the bill makes a number of changes to parole decision-making, with the specific goal of providing the board with flexibility to ensure that decisions are made effectively and efficiently but still in concert with the critical statutory protections and time frames for offenders to be considered for parole.

The current operation of the Crimes Act requires the decision-maker to consider an offender for parole before the end of the non-parole period set by the court and reconsider an offender within every 12 months after any parole refusal. At present there is no discretion available for a decision-maker to defer a parole decision for any reason, which can have the unwelcome consequence of delaying or preventing rehabilitation or reintegration outcomes for offenders. Examples include where decision-making requires more information in order to make a justifiable decision but that information is not available ahead of the statutory consideration date. This would mean that a decision would have to be made on the basis of insufficient information, which does nothing to promote public trust and confidence in the process.

Circumstances also exist where there are obvious factors for a refusal that will take longer than 12 months for an offender to address, such as a sex offender treatment program that may take up to 18 months to complete. But, because of the current 12-month statutory review provision, the decision-maker would be required to reconsider that offender for parole before they had a chance to complete their treatment, potentially resulting in a waste of resources and significant stress and anxiety to all interested parties.

To address these issues, part 1B of the Crimes Act will be amended to provide the board with discretion to do a number of things: defer the initial parole consideration or reconsideration for up to three months if the board refuses parole to set a date for reconsideration that is more than 12 months after the date of refusal but no more than 24 months to allow the board to interview an offender to hear directly from them and to seek any further information that is required to inform their decision.

These amendments strike the right balance between the management of statutory deadlines and procedural fairness for federal offenders during that decision-making process and maintaining the statutory protection of regular parole reconsideration for offenders. To assist with the implementation of this board, the Australian government has committed $28.3 million over four years from 2025-26, and $7.3 million a year ongoing for the establishment and operation of the board.

Finally, decisions regarding a person's ongoing detention following their conviction and sentencing for an offence necessarily engages with human rights. The bill engages directly and indirectly with several human rights pursuant to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, including the right to an effective remedy, the right to a fair hearing, the prohibition on interference with privacy, the right to freedom of movement, the right to security of the person and freedom from arbitrary detention, the right to humane treatment in detention, and reformation and social rehabilitation in detention systems.

With respect to the right to a fair hearing, the bills promote this because the board will be comprised of appropriately qualified experts that are impartial and independent from government, and its decisions will remain subject to judicial review under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 and the Judiciary Act 1903, providing appropriate oversight. Existing procedural fairness obligations and review avenues will continue to apply, and an offender may engage legal representation or support should they wish to do so. The bill provides for the board to be able to hear from an offender by way of interview, thereby enabling more active participation in the board's decision-making process and supporting procedural fairness.

With respect to arbitrary detention, it's not arbitrary where in all circumstances it is reasonable, necessary and proportionate to achieving a legitimate objective. Federal sentences are only imposed following valid and lawful arrest and conviction for one or more Commonwealth crimes, and following a fair trial in accordance with procedures established by law. Federal offenders who are sentenced to a term of imprisonment suffer deprivation of liberty only in accordance with the law, and these bills do not change this.

The right to humane treatment in detention and to reformation and social rehabilitation in detention systems for federal offenders is promoted by this bill because it requires consideration of a person's prospects of rehabilitation and reintegration into the community. The broad and expert composition of the board will ensure relevant experience informs the board's decisions. If the board refuses parole, it must provide written reasons for the refusal, which might include that an offender needs to engage further in custodial based rehabilitation and treatment programs, which may ultimately positively impact access to an uptake of rehabilitation and treatment programs by offenders. The bills promote, on that basis, the right to humane treatment in detention and to reformation and social rehabilitation in detention systems.

The bill is compatible with human rights because it promotes the right to a fair hearing and the right to humane treatment in detention and to reformation and social rehabilitation. I commend the bill.

Michael McCormack (Riverina, National Party) Share this | Link to 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.

Shayne Neumann (Blair, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to 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.

Michelle Rowland (Greenway, Australian Labor Party, Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank honourable members for their contributions to the debate on the Commonwealth Parole Board bills. This legislation will ensure that decisions about the release and management of federal offenders are made by people who have the appropriate skills and experience to make decisions about an offender's prospects of rehabilitation and reintegration into the community and, ultimately, the risks they pose to community safety.

These bills will provide for the establishment of an independent Commonwealth Parole Board as a secondary statutory structure in the Attorney-General's Department. The members of the board will be independent, statutory office holders. The legislation will provide for the decision-making arrangements, structure and framework of the board to make independent, risk-informed decisions about the conditional release and management of federal offenders and other detained persons, in accordance with part 1B of the Crimes Act 1914. It will set out the membership of the board, the appointment process of board members and the mandatory requirements for board positions.

These requirements will ensure that the board's membership includes individuals who have a diverse range of skills, expertise, lived experience and knowledge of the needs of people and groups of people significantly affected by the board's decisions. The board will also retain discretion to consider all information that is known and relevant to a decision and will have the appropriate information-sharing powers to support their decision making.

To reinforce the board's independence, this legislation explicitly states that the board is not subject to direction from anyone in performing or exercising its functions or powers. To support transparency and accountability, the chair will be required to develop an annual report to be tabled in parliament on the board's performance and its functions. The bills will also provide for a legislative review to commence three years after the board's commencement. The amendments to part 1B of the Crimes Act will replace the Attorney-General with the board as the decision-maker for parole.

The purpose of parole will continue to be the rehabilitation and reintegration of federal offenders and the protection of the community. These amendments will ensure the board has key decision-making powers, including the power to make, refuse to make or amend parole orders for federal offenders and to deal with other relevant matters such as release on licence orders, breaches and revocation of parole or licence orders, overseas travel requests, and the ability to amend orders in certain circumstances.

The amendments to the Crimes Act will also provide the board with the discretion to manage statutory deadlines for people being considered for parole. The legislation also provides for the necessary transitional arrangements.

The establishment of the Commonwealth Parole Board will promote community safety and justice outcomes, as it will ensure these critical decisions are made by independent experts who are best placed to make the robust assessments of risk required to protect the community. I commend the bill to the House.

Mary Aldred (Monash, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that this bill be now read a second time.

Question unresolved.

As it is necessary to resolve this question to enable further questions to be considered in relation to this bill, in accordance with standing order 195 the bill will be returned to the House for further consideration.