David Shoebridge (NSW, Australian Greens) Share this | Hansard source

I will get to the guidelines in due course. They do that in a respectful way. I can tell you now, not every victim, not every survivor, wants to be part of a parole decision. Many victims and survivors want that to be dealt with by an independent statutory body, and they want emotional and psychological distance from the decision being made. But some do want to be involved. They want their hurt, their pain, their experience to be before the Parole Board. Allowing that voice on parole to be heard should be and needs to be part of an effective parole system. But it's part of an array of complex material, including, as I said, the nature of the offence, the response by the person seeking parole to their time in prison, evidence from the corrections authorities, evidence from psychologists and sometimes evidence about a person's basic record inside the corrections system—a complex series of facts and expert evidence that is best assessed by an independent board, an independent body, not by a politician who's doing it on a part-time basis for political reasons and not by a nameless, faceless bureaucrat who isn't controlled by any identifiable guidelines or controls.

I've got to tell you an independent parole board will be significant, especially for some parts of the community—for example, First Nations people in federal custody. They deserve a fair and impartial process, not to have their parole decision decided by a coalition attorney-general or a Labor attorney-general. They deserve, as I think all people deserve, a pathway through the criminal justice system that is based upon the merits of the matter, not the politics of the matter. It has been a longstanding recommendation at a federal level, going back five decades, for the Commonwealth to establish an independent parole board. It's been a recommendation from multiple parliamentary committees and from the ALRC, the Australian Law Reform Commission, and it's about time it happened.

We did have concerns with the initial draft presented to us by the government. We had concerns that clause 24 of the bill allowed the departmental secretary to sit on the board when the chair or the acting chair was unavailable. The Greens firmly believe that a parole board should be genuinely independent from the government of the day, and a departmental secretary who owes their job and their political future to the attorney-general and the government of the day is not independent; they're a part of the executive government. As drafted, that clause significantly undermined the board's independence from the government of the day. I am very grateful for the assistance we've had from the Law Council, their detailed submissions and their detailed engagement with the bill, including on this issue about the independence of the parole board. I am glad that we've been able to reach an agreement with the government for an amendment to clause 24 which will remove the secretary's role and will instead put in place an arrangement where an acting chair can be appointed, to ensure that there's the independence of the parole board.

We have had a series of submissions, and there will be a series of amendments being moved, which are proposing to put in express provisions about how the parole board should operate. Save for the coalition's amendments, the amendments that are being brought forward by other senators, I think, are coming from a good place. They are, for example, suggesting that natural justice needs to be applied by the parole board, they are proposing that the parole board must conduct interviews before making a parole decision, and there have been propositions that we should expand the jurisdiction of the parole board to also include reconsiderations. I understand, and the Greens understand, where these amendments come from.

But can I say, on the amendment that would require the parole board to conduct interviews, that that may be good, and I and the Greens believe that would be essential if the parole board is intending to refuse parole, but there would be many circumstances where a parole board might be well satisfied to give a grant of parole without an interview, and you wouldn't want to limit the ability to do that. I would hope, and the Greens would expect, that that kind of process would be adopted in the guidelines once the parole board is up and running. But, as currently drafted, that amendment would potentially prevent some people who are entitled to and worthy of parole from getting parole in a timely fashion.

As to the amendment proposing the rules of procedural fairness, again, we understand the effect of that and the intent of that. The common law makes it clear that people have a right of procedural fairness in decisions such as those of the parole board. And, under common law, unless there's some statutory statement to the contrary, there is a right of procedural fairness, which will be part of the parole board as established. For that reason, we don't believe it is necessary to include that statement in the legislation, because it's implicit in the board as established under existing Commonwealth principles. And, of course, the guidelines would not be able to limit the right as to procedural fairness. They might be able to articulate how it occurs, but they would not be able to remove the right to procedural fairness.

I'll say, finally, on the issue of victims: I would expect the guidelines to include the role for victims that I've articulated in this speech on the second reading—the rights of victims to be advised; the rights of victims, if they wish, to have their voice heard in a parole decision. I believe that we will see that, in these guidelines—and it will be a significant improvement from the current system, that the coalition are trying to defend, where there are no rights for victims and they are not engaged with, they are not heard, unless a politician decides it's in their political interests to do so.

We want to depoliticise the criminal justice system. We want experts, well qualified and independent, to decide parole, not politicians. And we support the bill.