Commonwealth Parole Board Bill 2025, Commonwealth Parole Board (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2025

Ms CLUTTERHAM (Sturt) (17:19): 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 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— The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms Swanson ): 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 17:30 (Quorum formed) Ms CLUTTERHAM: 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.