Andrew Wallace (Fisher, Liberal National Party, Shadow Cabinet Secretary) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Commonwealth Parole Board Bill 2025 and the associated Commonwealth Parole Board (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2025. These bills go to the heart of one of our most serious responsibilities as legislators and that is protecting the Australian people. They ask a simple but profound question: who should have the authority and the accountability for deciding when convicted criminals are released back into the community? The Albanese government's answer is to hand that responsibility to an unelected board of so-called independent experts. Our answer on this side of the House is clear: those decisions must remain the responsibility of the Attorney-General, an elected minister who is directly accountable to the Australian people.

The coalition will oppose these bills because they weaken ministerial accountability, they increase risk to community safety and they create another costly and unnecessary bureaucracy. At present the Attorney-General is the decision-maker for parole in relation to federal offenders. That arrangement has served Australia well. It provides ministerial oversight, democratic accountability and clear responsibility for decisions that have life-and-death consequences for the Australian community. But now Labor wants to change that. This bill seeks to create a new statutory body, the Commonwealth Parole Board, which will take over those responsibilities from the Attorney-General. The government argues this change is necessary to depoliticise parole and to bring the Commonwealth into line with the states and territories, which already have their own independent parole boards.

Let's be clear about what this bill really does. It removes accountability from an elected minister who answers to the public and gives it to a group of appointed officials who answer to no-one. That is not independence; that is avoidance. The Commonwealth Parole Board Bill 2025 establishes an independent statutory authority called the Commonwealth Parole Board. The board will be made up of a chair, a deputy chair and at least three sessional members appointed by the Governor-General on the recommendation of the Attorney-General for terms of up to five years. Its stated purpose is to make independent, risk-informed decisions about the conditional release and management of federal offenders and other detainees. It will replace the Attorney-General as the primary decision-maker for parole. The bill gives the board the power to grant, refuse, amend or revoke parole orders, to interview offenders and victims and to obtain information from relevant agencies. It also allows the board to share information with law enforcement, national security agencies and other jurisdictions as required. The government claims this will bring transparency, consistency and expertise to parole decisions, but what it actually brings is confusion cost and a loss of ministerial control.

There's an associated bill in relation to the substantive bill. As I referred to earlier, it's called the Commonwealth Parole Board (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill. It makes consequential amendments to the Crimes Act 1914 to support the establishment and operation of the new board. It transfers existing powers and responsibilities from the Attorney-General and the Commonwealth Parole Office to the new body and sets out procedural changes for making, amending and rescinding parole orders. It also includes transitional provisions to manage the handover of existing cases.

While the coalition acknowledges the administrative intent of the companion bill, we cannot support the legislation that implements a deeply flawed model. The problem is not the mechanics of transition; it is the fundamental shift in accountability that the main bill represents. The coalition opposes the substantive bill because it removes accountability from the executive and weakens community confidence in the justice system. Under this legislation, if the parole board makes a catastrophic error, if a convicted terrorist, child sex offender or organised crime figure is released and reoffends, the Attorney-General will simply point to the board and say, 'It was their decision.' That, to the coalition, is unacceptable. Public safety is too important to be delegated away.

The coalition believes that with power must come responsibility, and with responsibility must come accountability. These bills fail that basic test. The government has included in this bill a statement that public safety will be the board's paramount consideration. But we've all seen how those words can be meaningless when bureaucracy replaces responsibility. We know from experience that parole boards get it wrong, and they get it wrong often. Every Australian jurisdiction has seen tragic cases where offenders released on parole have gone on to commit violent crimes. Each time, the public is left asking the same question: how could this happen? Under this bill, when that happens at the federal level, there will be no clear answer as to accountability. There will be no minister standing in this place to explain. There will be no transparency or accountability to the Australian people. It's just another arms-length body, another annual report, another government shifting the blame. That is not leadership.

The Attorney-General, as the first law officer of the Commonwealth, has a unique responsibility for safeguarding the rule of law and protecting the Australian public. I acknowledge my good friend the member for Berowra for his efforts when he held the portfolio before I did and for the outstanding job he did as well.

Julian Leeser (Berowra, Liberal Party, Shadow Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thanks.

Andrew Wallace (Fisher, Liberal National Party, Shadow Cabinet Secretary) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The decisions that the Attorney-General makes about parole are not administrative conveniences; they are moral and legal responsibilities that demand accountability. Ministerial accountability is not a political inconvenience; it is a cornerstone of our democracy. It is how the public knows that, when something goes wrong, there is someone in government who is responsible and there is someone in government who should be accountable. These bills sever that link. The bills transfer responsibility from a minister accountable to the parliament to a statutory authority accountable to no-one but itself. That undermines confidence in both the system and the democratic principle that those who wield power must also bear its consequences.

Federal offenders are not ordinary offenders; they include some of the most dangerous individuals in our country—terrorists, child sex offenders, people smugglers, cybercriminals, drug kingpins and foreign agents who seek to do us harm. These are offenders whose cases often involve classified intelligence, complex diplomatic implications and serious risks to national security. Such cases cannot and should not be determined by a board removed from the oversight of government. Only the Attorney-General, supported by the agencies of the Commonwealth, is equipped to consider all relevant factors, from intelligence assessments to foreign policy and even defence considerations. These bills strip all of that away. These bills hand that power to a board that, while it may be made up of experts, will never have the full picture, as the Commonwealth Attorney-General should.

These bills also impose a significant financial cost on taxpayers for no appreciable benefit. The establishment of the Commonwealth Parole Board will cost taxpayers $28.3 million over the forward estimates and $7.3 million per year ongoing. That is $28 million to remove responsibility from the Attorney-General and give it to a new bureaucracy. It is $28 million to do something that the government already does at no additional cost. This is bureaucracy for bureaucracy's sake. Australians are paying record prices for food, fuel and energy, yet this government finds millions of dollars to create new boards and commissions that do nothing to make Australians safer. It is more red tape, more layers and less accountability.

Another major concern is the proposed composition of the board. Clause 29(4)(b) of the bill requires that the board's membership must reflect 'as closely as possible the composition of the Australian community at large'. In other words, demographic representation is to be considered alongside qualifications and experience. I ask this question: why should that matter more than professional competence or law enforcement experience? This is not a focus group; it is a body that will make decisions affecting public safety. The coalition believes this provision should be removed. Appointments to the board must be based on merit, experience and integrity, not on identity politics.

The coalition has always stood up for victims of crime, and this bill fails them. Nowhere does the bill guarantee that victims or their families will be consulted before parole is granted. There is no mandatory requirement for victim input, no guarantee of notification and no explicit rights for victims to be heard. That is unacceptable. Victims and their families live with the consequences of these crimes long after the sentence is served. Their voices must be at the centre of the parole process, not sidelined by bureaucratic procedure. This bill pays lip service to victims, but it gives them no real power. The coalition will continue to fight for a system that puts victims first.

These bills are part of a familiar pattern. When faced with hard decisions, Labor's instinct is always the same—to outsource responsibility. Whether it's immigration, energy, infrastructure or law enforcement, Labor creates a board, a committee or an inquiry to avoid accountability. This is not good governance. It is buck-passing dressed up as reform. We saw it with the NZYQ cohort, where ministers claimed they could not act because the courts had ruled. We saw it with the NDIS, where bureaucratic reform replaced personal accountability. And now we see it here with the government creating a parole board so that when the next tragic failure occurs they can say, 'Well, it wasn't our decision.' Australians deserve better.

The coalition's position could not be clearer. We oppose the creation of a Commonwealth parole board, lock, stock and barrel, because it removes ministerial accountability and democratic oversight, it increases risk to community safety, it adds unnecessary cost and bureaucracy, it ignores victims of crime and it hands power to unelected appointees instead of elected officials. The issue of unnecessary cost is a factor that should weigh upon this place. It's a cost that is already being met by the Commonwealth because the decision is already made by the Attorney-General. The existing system works. It provides transparency, accountability and coordination across national security, immigration and foreign affairs. It ensures that, when life-changing decisions are made, they are made by someone who is answerable to the parliament and to the Australian people. That is how democracy works—or it's how it should work.

The Commonwealth Parole Board Bill 2025 and its consequential amendment bill are not about safety. This is not about transparency. It is about the Albanese government walking away from responsibility yet again. It removes accountability from the highest law officer in the land, spends millions of dollars on a new bureaucracy and puts community safety at risk. The coalition will not support it. We will always stand for a justice system that is strong, accountable and victim focused. The coalition believes in ministerial responsibility, not bureaucratic delegation. The coalition believes in leadership, not avoidance. Above all, we believe in keeping Australians safe. That is our duty in this place. That is why we oppose this bill. Only a coalition government will back our police, strengthen our laws and restore safety and security to the Australian community.

Debate adjourned.