Jana Stewart (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise today to speak in support of the Commonwealth Parole Board Bill 2025. This bill reflects the Albanese Labor government's unwavering commitment to the safety and security of all Australians. It is about strengthening our justice system and building a stronger, fairer and more effective federal parole system, a system where critical decisions are made with the utmost expertise and objectivity and a clear focus on protecting our communities—a system that Australians can have confidence in.

Parole plays a vital role in our justice system, and, when decisions about parole are administered properly and made by people with knowledge and expertise, parole actually keeps communities safer. This includes legal, law enforcement, corrective services, victims-of-crime advocates, psychologists and community safety experts. The combined interdisciplinary knowledge of these professions helps with rehabilitation, reintegration and public protection. With support and appropriate conditions, we can minimise reoffending. Of course, this would never be at the cost of public safety. Expert decision-making ensures that robust controls, supervision and safeguards are imposed where necessary to protect the community.

Despite this, the Commonwealth remains the only jurisdiction without an independent parole board. As it currently stands, decisions regarding federal offenders are currently made by the Commonwealth Parole Office, within the Attorney-General's Department, in coordination with the Attorney-General. While the office of the Attorney-General is one of immense responsibility and integrity, the current model places an undue burden on a single entity. It risks politicising a process that demands specialised knowledge and dispassionate judgement. In a liberal democracy like ours, the separation of powers is a cornerstone of good governance and legal systems. The current model is vulnerable to breaches of procedural fairness, a fundamental principle that holds our justice system together.

We do not ask the Attorney-General to determine who should be prosecuted. That responsibility rests with the Director of Public Prosecutions—precisely because we believe in the separation of powers. We expect the DPP to act independently, apolitically and in accordance with the law and evidence. The same principle must apply across the board. As the Attorney-General, Michelle Rowland, articulated so clearly in her second reading speech on this legislation, decisions about whether convicted federal offenders are released into the community on parole and the conditions under which they are released should be made by law enforcement and other community safety experts, not by politicians. This bill aligns the Commonwealth with best-practice approaches across states and territories as well as international partners, including Canada, the United Kingdom and New Zealand.

Calls for an independent Commonwealth Parole Board are not new. Governments have been talking about how this could happen since 1975. I am proud to be a part of the Albanese government, a government who is tackling these longstanding challenges. In my role as chair of the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee I have the privilege of working on these overdue elements of our legal system. These are reforms that strengthen our institutions, and the need for reform has never been clearer. The nature of federal offending has evolved significantly. Historically, federal offences often comprised matters like social services fraud. Today, federal offences include complex matters and serious offences, including terrorism and child sexual abuse offences. The make-up and complexity of the federal offender cohort has changed over time.

This shift demands a more sophisticated and specialised approach to parole decision-making. In 2024-25 there were more than 530 federal parole and parole-related decisions. This number has been consistently increasing each year by five to 15 per cent. The current model is no longer fit for purpose. The bill puts forward a statutory independent Commonwealth Parole Board. The board will have complete discretion in performing or exercising its functions or powers and is not subject to direction from anyone when doing so. The board will consist of a chair, a deputy chair and at least three sessional members.

Importantly, this bill mandates that members hold experience and expertise across a broad range of relevant disciplines. Members will possess expertise in law, law enforcement, corrective services, victim advocacy, psychology, social work, criminology, and even medicine and mental health. Parole decisions are complex, and this breadth of knowledge will ensure that every aspect of an offender's circumstances is considered and will lead to genuinely risk-informed decisions. This is how we truly de-politicise parole and foster a greater public trust and confidence in the federal parole system.

The legislation also delivers transparency and accountability. This also brings the Commonwealth in line with best-practice models that are already successfully implemented across Australia's states and territories. So this should really be non-controversial. Decisions will be documented and subject to review. The chair will be required to provide an annual report to parliament detailing the board's activities, case load and emerging issues, ensuring ongoing scrutiny.

Importantly, those who live and breathe the work of implementing the legal system support the implementation of an independent parole board. The Australian Law Commission, Law Council of Australia and National Legal Aid have all recommended the establishment of an independent Commonwealth parole board. The Law Council have stated that parole decisions are complex. They require expertise and resourcing to facilitate procedural fairness where community safety, effective rehabilitation and human rights of prisoners, as well as the experience and perspectives of victims, all require respect and consideration. This bill delivers exactly that.

Finally, it is important to address concerns raised in light of recent events. The Attorney-General has stated that this bill will not change the statutory prohibition against parole for terrorist offenders. There is a very high threshold that must be met for a terrorism offender to be granted parole. Parole can only be granted if there are exceptional circumstances justifying the release. That won't change. Community safety remains the overriding principle, particularly for the most serious offences. By passing this bill, we are strengthening community protection, restoring confidence in the parole system and ensuring that critical decisions are made independently, expertly and fairly. I commend this bill to the Senate.

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

I rise on behalf of the Greens to indicate we'll be supporting the Commonwealth Parole Board Bill 2025, and we are very much looking forward to an independent Commonwealth parole authority. If we only needed one reason to support this bill, the reason I'd give would be David McBride. David McBride is a political prisoner in Australia who is in jail under a Commonwealth offence—a breaching secrecy offence—for telling the truth about war. David McBride, in the next 12 months, will come up for parole. I can tell you what I don't want to see happen. I don't want to see David McBride, as a political prisoner, have his parole application decided by an attorney-general—a politician from any one of the war parties. I don't want that to happen. I want to see an independent parole board actually look at the merits not just of David's parole application but of every parole application from anyone who's in jail for breaching a Commonwealth offence.

I've heard some pretty remarkable contributions in this chamber, but I have rarely seen one stray so far from reality as the one we heard from the shadow Attorney-General, Senator Cash, yesterday. Senator Cash suggested that having an independent statutory parole board at a Commonwealth level was some kind of political smokescreen, some terrible lack of accountability and a wicked political ploy from the Labor government to avoid accountability for parole decisions. She suggested that it was indicative of a collapse in political standards that we're finding, and she suggests that it would be an incredibly dangerous thing for community safety. As I said, rarely have I heard a speech stray so far from reality than that contribution from Senator Cash, and I haven't really done it justice. There was invective and passion that she also added to her attack on this bill.

But what Senator Cash forgot to say was that every other jurisdiction in this country has a parole board, every state and every territory has an independent parole board. The UK and the overwhelming bulk of jurisdictions across the world that follow a common-law tradition like us have independent parole boards. That is because the public expects decisions about criminal justice, about whether people go in jail or stay in jail, not to be decided by politicians but to be decided by independent bodies. In fact, our constitution requires that at a Commonwealth level. Courts making decisions about criminality and then independent parole boards making decisions about whether people should be released once their minimum sentence time has been reached—that's what happens across the Commonwealth. We then saw the shadow Attorney-General say this is outrageous because an independent statutory parole board will be making decisions about people who have committed serious Commonwealth offences such as terrorism, child abuse. They are incredibly serious criminal offences. The Greens believe that whether or not someone gets parole should be decided by an independent statutory body, not by a politician.

But again, what the shadow Attorney-General, who wants to be the Attorney-General in the future—a frightening thought that we would revisit that past—and the coalition forgot to mention was that, at a state and territory level, parole boards in their daily work across this country are deciding whether or not people who have been convicted of manslaughter, serious sexual assault, serious—even state based—terror offences, some of the most appalling crimes you can imagine get parole. They are doing it without the involvement and without a political veto from politicians at a state and territory level. That's how the public would expect our criminal justice system to work.

We currently have at a Commonwealth level—the only jurisdiction in the country—a politician in the form of the Attorney-General who can pretty much pluck any parole decision away from the bureaucrats in their office and make a political decision on parole. That is an incredibly dangerous political role in what is meant to be an apolitical criminal justice system. How it works in practice is the Attorney-General delegates the bulk of the parole decision-making to bureaucrats inside the Attorney-General's office. That is another thing the coalition forgot to mention—that, under their preferred model, the overwhelming bulk of Commonwealth parole decisions under the status quo are not even made by a politician but are just made by bureaucrats in the office with no statutory controls, no statutory independence; you don't even know who is making the parole decisions. They are nameless bureaucrats whose careers depend on keeping in favour with the secretary—whose career depends on keeping in favour with the Attorney-General. That is the current Commonwealth parole system. If the coalition had been honest about wanting nameless, faceless bureaucrats who owe their careers to the secretary—who owes their career to the AG—to be the ongoing parole system for the Commonwealth, they should be honest and talk about it truthfully.

What does this bill do? It creates an independent parole board which will have people appointed to it based on relevant expertise. Parole is really hard. I can tell you now, having spoken with people who have been on parole boards in my home state of New South Wales, members of statutory parole boards take their jobs incredibly seriously. They look at the evidence about the offence. They look at a person's record inside the criminal justice, rehabilitation programs they have or haven't done, their stated intention. They can consult most times with victims and they inform victims of decisions being made.

Paul Scarr (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Immigration) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

They don't have to under this.

David Shoebridge (NSW, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to 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.

Jessica Collins (NSW, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Commonwealth Parole Board Bill 2025, which is a deeply flawed proposal. Unlike the Greens' Senator Shoebridge, we want accountability in our criminal justice system. This bill would strip the decision-making responsibility about parole for federal offenders from the Attorney-General and would enshrine a parole board that would then make decisions about parole, instead of the minister.

This parole board would be unelected and it would be fundamentally unaccountable—and, most importantly, right now, it would be elected by a very left government that has a poor track record of keeping Australians safe and protecting our way of life. It would also be made up of people who don't need the relevant legal, corrections or law-enforcement background. That's very, very important. As it stands, the Attorney-General is an elected member of the House of Representatives, accountable to the parliament and answerable to the people. The Attorney-General is not just another minister; the Attorney-General is the first law officer of the Commonwealth. The minister's decision as to whether a criminal goes free or remains in prison is a critical one. Currently, the Attorney-General has the final say over these decisions, and we, the people of Australia, can hold the minister accountable for their decisions.

The crux of why this proposal is so flat-out wrong comes down to accountability. Who holds the blame at the end of the day if that parole decision goes badly wrong? Who decides whether egregious criminals walk free early or not? Under this new bill, Labor is trying to take the easy path, to make the easy response. They will say: 'It was the decision of an independent body; don't blame us.' Under this new bill, this parole board would be appointed by this left-wing government but answerable to no-one.

This is a predictable step from a government addicted to shifting the blame. Just think about their response to Australia's record-high inflation. It is outpacing the rest of the OECD, because of the government and its spending, and, according to the Prime Minister and his Treasurer, the government is not at fault. The RBA begs to differ. The coalition's testimony—and that of many experts—shows that this government is hiding the truth: that the Labor government is degrading your standard of living, and, of course, it is a coalition, Liberal led, government that will restore it for the Australian people.

Immigration that has seen over 1½ million new arrivals to this country in three short years—that's not the fault of the Prime Minister; that's someone else's fault. But we all know the truth: that Labor has lost control of the borders. The ISIS brides are coming back. 'Don't blame me,' says the Prime Minister. They are Australian citizens, and Minister Burke must roll out the red carpet to these terrorists who seek to divide us or, worse, try to kill us in our own streets. Always remember: the Liberal led coalition will restore our standard of living and protect our way of life. There is a pattern here.

The Prime Minister is refusing to accept responsibility for his government's decisions, and federal prisoner releases are just the next step in a long line of abrogation. Federal offenders are not just people who have done the wrong thing; they include people guilty of the most serious and complex crimes—terrorists, including offenders with ongoing ideological networks, child sex offenders, including those involved in large-scale abuse material networks, people smugglers and transnational facilitators, serious organised crime figures, cybercriminals with international reach, foreign interference actors and those linked to hostile state activity. These are heinous and damaging crimes that destroy the fabric of Australia. Releasing these prisoners is not a box-ticking exercise.

The government tells us that more than 530 parole decisions were made in the year 2024-25 and that the workload is only increasing. But a growing caseload is not a reason to hand this responsibility off to a panel. It's a reason to make sure that the decision-maker has the authority and information they need and accountability directly to the community. These decisions often touch on classified intelligence, frontline policing operations and sensitive international issues. In our Commonwealth system, only the Attorney-General can bring together the highest levels of advice from across the government and ensure that every relevant agency is engaged with the seriousness and seniority that these decisions demand. This board, acting inside tight, legislative restrictions, would have nowhere near the reach an Attorney-General does regarding national security, nor would it have the same capacity or accountability. This is why these decisions should be kept at the highest level—with the First Law Officer of the Commonwealth.

When drafting this bill, Labor has also made one serious omission. They gave no serious considerations to victims. The government would rather placate victims with discretionary language rather than organise a sensible way for victims to have their say. What you do not see in this bill is any kind of mandatory requirement for the victims of these criminals to be consulted before a parole decision is made. There will be no legislative requirement for any notification that an offender is due to be released nor that a hearing is being held or that a parole decision is imminent. How is that fair? How is it fair or just that a victim of sexual abuse, organised crime, exploitation or a terrorist act should remain unaware that the person that damaged their life so terribly is being released into the community? This bill neglects the rights of victims and treats them as a matter of procedural consideration rather than honouring their right to feel safe in their own country. Victims don't need platitudes; they need enforceable rights to be notified, to be heard and to know their safety is being taken seriously.

The coalition has strong concerns that the appointed members of this parole board will reflect the diversity policy of this government rather than merit. There is no requirement that the members of this board have a legal, corrections or law enforcement background. This sounds more like the judging panel for the Archibald Prize than a serious, community safety focused parole board. Appointments to this board must be based on merit, demonstrated expertise and experience based in law, intelligence, victim advocacy and risk assessment. Labor would be placing the safety of victims and Australians, more broadly, on decisions not made by experts but rather by diversity hires. I wholeheartedly support the amendment proposed by Senator Cash to allow the Attorney-General to object to decisions made by the Commonwealth Parole Board. This is a principled change that keeps accountability firmly in the court of the Attorney-General.

Public safety has taken a backseat in this bill. If this board is to be inaugurated, the board members must be qualified. You can only think of the most horrific potential scenarios: a serial child abuser is jailed and considered for parole just years later, and an inexperienced and inept board or a weak, left-leaning one grants parole without any oversight or accountability, which may result in that abuser reoffending. I know there is always risk in these decisions, but this risk must be weighed and the judgements made by experienced men and women who are held accountable by you, the Australian people—

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

A faceless bureaucrat?

Glenn Sterle (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Shoebridge, we are getting to the end of the speeches and the reading. I would ask that you show some tolerance, because we heard you in silence.

Paul Scarr (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Immigration) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Largely

Glenn Sterle (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Well, for the time that I have sat in the chair. Thank you, for clearing that up!

Jessica Collins (NSW, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We cannot afford to make mistakes in this area as the safety of the victims and the community, more broadly, depends on it. I do not trust this Labor government to appoint a board that is fit for purpose, and that is why the proposed amendment from Senator Cash is absolutely essential.

This bill comes from a government focused on making its job easier, not Australians safer. It comes from a government focused on delegating the hard decisions, not making them. It comes from the most secretive Australian government of the last 50 years, from FOIs to ISIS brides. This government is incapable of being transparent with the Australian people. I am proud to stand with the coalition, which opposes this bill as it is currently drafted. Only a Liberal-led coalition government would protect Australians' way of life. It would ensure victims are heard and consulted in these decisions and accept the responsibility of our actions, unlike this Labor government, which is hiding and ducking from every warranted criticism. I do not commend this bill in its current form to the Senate, and I urge all other senators to do the same.

Carol Brown (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

For serious offenders, community safety is non-negotiable. The question is not whether we take risks seriously; the question is how we manage that risk when release occurs. That requires judgement; it requires experience, and above all it requires independence. That is why the legislation before the Senate matters. The Commonwealth Parole Board Bill 2025 and the Commonwealth Parole Board (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2025 establish an independent Commonwealth Parole Board and transfer federal parole decision-making to an expert statutory body, replacing the current ministerial decision-making framework with an independent statutory model.

At its core, this reform is about aligning the Commonwealth with what Australians already expect. Decisions about whether a convicted federal offender is released into the community and on what conditions should be made carefully, consistently and based on evidence and risk. At the moment, parole decisions for federal offenders are made by the Attorney-General, working with delegates within the Commonwealth Parole Office inside the Attorney-General's department. That arrangement has existed for a long time. It developed in a very different context when the federal offender cohort was small, relatively narrow and largely made up of offences like social security fraud and regulatory breaches. That context has changed.

The number of federal offenders has grown. There are now around 1,200 federal offenders serving sentences across Australia. That is more than the combined prison populations of the ACT and Tasmania. More importantly, the nature of federal funding has changed. The cohort now includes people convicted of terrorism offences, serious organised crime and child sexual abuse material offences. These are complex cases. They involve real risks and they demand deep expertise, yet until now the structures for making those decisions has not kept pace.

Every state and territory in Australia has an independent parole board. The Commonwealth is the only jurisdiction that does not. That makes us the exception, not the standard. Australians expect parole decisions to be made independently of politics. They expect consistency, they expect transparency and they expect community safety to be taken seriously at every stage. This reform responds directly to those expectations.

The Albanese Labor government is establishing a statutory, independent, Commonwealth parole board made up of people with experience across law, law enforcement, corrections, psychology, psychiatry, social work, rehabilitation and working with victims of crime. This matters because parole is not a box-ticking exercise. Assessing risks requires understanding patterns of offending. Understanding rehabilitation requires insight into treatment, behaviour and support structures. Understudy community impact requires listening to victims and considering the broader consequences of release. These are not skills developed through politics; they are developed through practice.

This reform reflects Labor's values of fairness, security and responsibility. Fairness means decisions should be made on the merits of each case, not shaped by political pressure, media attention or fear of criticism. Security means putting community protection first. Parole is not a concession; it is a control mechanism. It allows authorities to impose strict conditions, monitor behaviour and act immediately if those conditions are breached. Responsibility means government has a duty to modernise systems when they no longer reflect best practice. Parole is often misunderstood in public debate. It's not an automatic release. It's not a reward. It is not leniency. Parole is a conditional release under strict control. It allows enforceable conditions to be imposed. It allows supervision. It allows authorities to monitor behaviour closely. If those conditions are breached, parole can be suspended or revoked and the person returned to custody. It's structured oversight.

A system that manages the transition from custody to community is safer than one that ignores it. That is why parole decisions matter so deeply and that is why who makes those decisions matters just as much. Under the current system, the Attorney-General is the decision-maker. This is a question of system design. Ministers are elected to make laws, set policy and be accountable to parliament and the public. Individual parole decisions should sit with an independent expert body. The current arrangement potentially exposes decisions to political pressure and undermines confidence even when decisions are made carefully and in good faith. This legislation draws a clear and appropriate line. Ministers set the laws; experts apply it. The Commonwealth Parole Board will make decisions independently. The board will not be subject to direction. Members will be statutory officeholders. Decisions will be made collectively, with reasons recorded. The board will be required to report annually to parliament, and its operations will be reviewed after commencement. Importantly, decisions will remain subject to judicial review and existing procedural fairness obligations will continue to apply. That is accountability built into the system, not bolted on after the fact.

The board will also have the flexibility to make better decisions. This legislation allows the board to defer decisions in limited circumstances where more information is genuinely needed. It allows reconsideration periods to be set in a way that reflects the time required to complete rehabilitation programs or secure stable accommodation. That flexibility is not about delay for its own sake; it's about making decisions at the right time rather than the wrong time. Good decisions made later are better than poor decisions made early.

This reform does not make it easier for serious offenders to be released. It does not weaken the law. It does not lower the threshold for release, and it does not reduce protections for the community. The bill strengthens the integrity of the system by ensuring decisions are made independently, consistently and on the basis of evidence. The legal framework for parole remains in place. The criteria remain the same. The standards remain high. The purposes of parole are unchanged—rehabilitation and reintegration, where appropriate, and the protection of the community.

Community safety is not a secondary consideration here; it is central to the system. It always has been, and it remains so under this legislation. The statutory prohibition on parole for terrorist offenders remains unchanged. The threshold for release remains extremely high. Nothing in this bill alters that. What changes is not the standard; what changes is the decision-maker. Decisions will be made with greater independence, greater consistency and greater credibility.

This reform also stands in sharp contrast to the former coalition government's approach. For years, they resisted the establishment of an independent Commonwealth parole board—and it appears they still will—despite repeated calls from the Law Council of Australia, the Australian Law Reform Commission, National Legal Aid and victim-advocacy groups. They were content to leave parole decisions with ministers while criticising outcomes they disagreed with from the sidelines. Labor has chosen a different path. We have listened to experts. We have listened to victim advocates, and we have acted. This legislation is the product of extensive consultation with various stakeholders across Australia, including state and territory justice agencies, correction authorities, legal bodies and advocacy groups. It reflects best practice, not political theatre.

For Tasmania, this reform has real and practical significance. Federal offenders are held in Tasmanian prisons. They are supervised by Tasmanian correctional staff. Decisions made at the Commonwealth level have direct consequences for the Tasmanian community. Tasmania already operates under an independent parole board model at the state level. We understand the value of independence in maintaining consistency and public trust.

The government has committed $28.3 million over four years to establish and operate the Commonwealth Parole Board with ongoing funding of around $7 million per year. That is a serious investment. It reflects the seriousness of the task and the importance of getting it right. Success will not be measured by headlines or slogans. It will be measured by better decisions, safer communities and greater confidence in the justice system.

At its heart, this reform is about responsibility. This includes responsibility to victims, who deserve a system that takes their safety seriously and treats their experiences with respect; responsibility to the community, which expects decisions about release from custody to be made carefully and, I'll say it again, independently and, again, on the basis of evidence; and responsibility to the integrity of our institutions, which depends on power being exercised properly, not politically. This is careful reform. It's overdue reform, and it's the right reform. I commend the bill to the Senate.

Paul Scarr (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Immigration) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I listened very closely to Senator Brown's comments and remarks in relation to the Commonwealth Parole Board Bill 2025, as I have listened to the remarks of other senators in this place. At the outset, I'd like to state that the position of attorney-general is quite unique in Australia's political system. The Attorney-General is not just an elected official appointed as a minister; they also have all sorts of responsibilities connected with their role as the first law officer of the country. That brings significant obligations upon the Attorney-General with respect to our system of justice, with respect to rule of law and with respect to different discretions that they're required to consider very carefully as to whether or not they exercise them. So I think the first point that needs to be made in this debate is that the position of attorney-general is quite unique in terms of ministerial status and responsibilities linked to their role as the first law officer of the country.

The second point I want to make is this: I have no doubt that attorneys-general from both of the parties of government, supported by experts within the Attorney-General's Department, have been operating to make the best possible parole decisions they can in all the circumstances. Whilst people can allege that decisions were being made, or may be made, for political reasons, I haven't heard any evidence of that. I haven't heard any evidence that any attorney-general, from any party, in any government—certainly during my time in this place—has made a parole decision on the basis of political considerations. Not one example has been given. I have no doubt that my friend and colleague Senator Cash, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, when she had those responsibilities as Attorney-General, would have carefully considered, in her diligent way, the evidence given to her by the departmental officials—by the experts—and made a decision in accordance with the law with respect to parole. I have absolutely no doubt about it, and we have not heard any example of political interference or the exercise of decision-making power with respect to parole being influenced by political considerations. We haven't heard one example of it—not one during the whole debate. That's a good thing, because there shouldn't be political considerations with respect to parole. So I really think people need to be careful before alleging that colleagues in this place have exercised powers for political considerations. I underline the fact that I am sure my friend and colleague Senator Cash would have exercised these powers extremely diligently, as her predecessors would have.

There's a corollary. You want to take the power away from the Attorney-General and give it to an independent board. Well, let's look at the independent board that you're proposing. Let's consider what's actually being proposed here, because there is a benefit in the Attorney-General, an elected official, having this power and being responsible for the exercise of this power in this place and in the other place. There is a benefit in that, in terms of that public accountability, because when they make the wrong decision they can be held accountable for that decision in this place. You want to move it to an independent board. Okay, let's look at the mechanics with respect to this independent board.

The first point I want to make is that I think the position of chair of this parole board under this piece of legislation is extraordinarily powerful. This will be an official who is appointed once and will be in this position for five years, and it is an extraordinarily important professional position. If you were to think about the sort of qualifications you would expect the chair of the parole board to have, I would have thought most reasonable people listening to this debate would think there would need to be something more than someone having been enrolled for at least five years as a practising lawyer. Five years? I wouldn't feel confident to do this job as someone who was admitted some 25 years ago.

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

That's the test for High Court judges, district court judges—

Paul Scarr (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Immigration) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Well, I don't necessarily agree with it in that context either, Senator Shoebridge. This is a person who is going to have the power under this bill to issue guidelines—as you would well know, Senator Shoebridge—that don't even have to be published. The bill doesn't even require the guidelines which will be promulgated by the Parole Board to be published. What an extraordinary situation. They don't even have to be published.

Senator Shoebridge, I've got no doubt, sincerely believes that the guidelines will contain a regime for the points of view on the perspective of victims of crime to be considered. I have no doubt he has that sincere view. It may well be the case, but there's nothing in this bill that requires it. Something that has happened in every single jurisdiction—those opposite keep telling us about what's happening under the state and territory jurisdictions—is statutory recognition of the rights of victims to be consulted with respect to a range of matters involving parole, and there is no statutory obligation in this bill recognising the rights of victims—none. We're totally dependent upon what the guidelines say, and the guidelines don't even have to be published.

Going to my home state of Queensland, there are requirements for a victim of a crime to be consulted, informed, advised and treated with respect and compassion from when the victim of a crime initially reports the crime all the way through to the making of parole decisions. That's actually in the law, but there's nothing of that in this law—none of it. When those opposite get up and tell us the bill reflects best practice in states and territories, it doesn't with respect to victims of crime. There's nothing in it.

In my home state of Queensland—and Senator Shoebridge did recognise that it's a voluntary right—a victim has a right, not an obligation, to be registered as someone who wants to be kept informed through the whole process, so they're actually advised of what the sentence is for the perpetrator of the crime of which they are a victim. They're actually informed when the time period of the custodial sentence is expiring and they're coming up to a parole decision. They're actually given a statutory right to make a submission—not something dependent upon guidelines which may or may not be published but a statutory right to make a submission to a parole board so that their voice is heard, so that the voices of the victims of crime are heard.

Under this system, there is absolutely no obligation upon this new, independent parole board that requires it to hear the perspective of the victim, and that is not good enough. Don't come into this place and tell us you're introducing this fantastic reform that has been mooted for many years—I understand the rationale, and I well understand the argument. Don't come into this place and say this is a fantastic reform that replicates the best of the systems across other states and territories when the fact of the matter is that there's a gaping hole in terms of the voices of the victims of crime. We're better than that in this place.

It didn't take me long to look at a number of jurisdictions, from Queensland and South Australia to New South Wales, to find that the law with respect to parole board decision-making has moved on, and the voices of victims of crimes need to be heard. In my home state of Queensland, a victim actually has rights to seek redress in the event that their right to be consulted isn't complied with by parole boards in Queensland. It's not just a paper right; there are some teeth to it as well. There are consequences if victims aren't consulted, but there's nothing in here about those processes. All there is is this extraordinary power given to the chair to issue guidelines. This is clause 13 of the bill:

The Chair may, in writing, issue guidelines, not inconsistent with this or any other Act, relating to the procedures of the Commonwealth Parole Board including, but not limited to…

…   …   …

… the arrangements for meetings …

…   …   …

… procedures to be followed …

… arrangements for managing conflicts of interest …

…any other matter … required or permitted—

et cetera. The guidelines aren't a legislative instrument, so that means they never come back to this place. We never get the opportunity to say, 'Those guidelines are inappropriate. Those procedures are inappropriate.' We never get the opportunity to disallow those guidelines, because they're not a legislative instrument.

And here's the kicker: the chair may publish the guidelines if the chair considers it appropriate to do so. How ridiculous! Why is it up to the chair to decide whether or not to publish the guidelines? That's extraordinary. Why shouldn't these guidelines be public? If, as Senator Shoebridge suggests, and I don't doubt his sincerity in this regard, the guidelines will include procedures for victims to be consulted, why wouldn't those guidelines be published? Shouldn't the guidelines—the procedures and processes for the operation of this independent parole board—be on the public record? Don't you all have a right to know what those guidelines are, including with respect to how victims are consulted?

Over the last few years, there have certainly been cases, including victims of sexual assault from my home state of Queensland, where survivors of the gravest type of assault have been absolutely devastated when the perpetrator of the crime against them has been released, either from prison or from immigration detention, and they weren't informed, and they've only found out because a journalist has rung them and told them. How would you feel? I can't imagine. I can try and imagine. I can try and put myself in the position of a victim of crime subject to that. I can try. But how would you feel if a perpetrator of such a dreadful crime against you had been released and the first you heard about it was when you got a phone call from a journalist? It's extraordinary, and it's not good enough.

That's why, across states and territories all around this country, the rights of victims of crime have been incorporated into legislation so they are enforceable rights. Victims can choose to be kept abreast as to whether or not offenders are going to be released or whether or not they're coming up for parole. They can be given the opportunity to make submissions if offenders are coming up for parole hearings. If victims want to exercise their right to have their views heard by parole boards, those rights are embedded in legislation. That is missing from this legislation. It's missing from the current system. I take Senator Shoebridge's comment in that regard: it's missing from the current system as well. But it's also missing from this legislation, and that's not good enough. If we're going to introduce a reform like this, we should be good enough to be able to consider all aspects of the policy issues relating to parole and make sure, when we go through this process, that the bill that's passed at the end of the process represents best practice in all respects. However, in this respect, there is a gaping hole in relation to the rights of the victims of crime, and that is very, very disappointing.

I want to make some other comments with respect to the qualifications of the members of the Parole Board. There is a section that deals with the sorts of qualifications that people have to have, but you then have this problematic overlay of needing someone with experience, knowledge of law, knowledge of matters relating to victims of crime. I would've thought the best people are the actual victims themselves, and that's why I think they should be heard. Then you have this overlay with respect to the demographics of Australia. I'm not sure what that means. Now, as much as anyone, I'm in favour of seeking to make sure that, across government boards, we have equality of representation of women et cetera, but what does reflecting the demographics of the country mean? Does that mean you've got to have someone from a rural area or a regional area? How do you dovetail that with the qualifications? (Time expired)

Debate interrupted.