Commonwealth Parole Board (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2025

Stage by Stage

Summaries in reported speech - not a transcript. In date order, both chambers.

1. Wednesday 8 October 2025 · House of Representatives

   Second Reading

   The Attorney-General introduced legislation to establish the Commonwealth Parole Board as the decision-maker for federal offenders, replacing the Attorney-General. The bill amends the Crimes Act 1914 to grant the board powers over parole orders, licence breaches, and travel requests. It introduces discretion to defer decisions to allow for better rehabilitation outcomes and procedural fairness. The debate concluded with the bill being commended to the House and the debate adjourned.

   Outcome: The debate was adjourned.

   Read the full summary

2. Tuesday 25 November 2025 · House of Representatives

   Second Reading
   See who spoke

3. Tuesday 25 November 2025 · House of Representatives

   Reference to Federation Chamber
   See who spoke

4. Tuesday 25 November 2025 · House of Representatives

   Second Reading

   The debate concerned legislation to establish an independent Commonwealth Parole Board to replace the Attorney-General as the decision-maker for parole and conditional release of federal offenders. Labor members argued the change aligns with state practices, ensures separation of powers, and improves risk assessment through expert involvement. The National Party member opposed the bill, arguing it outsourced ministerial responsibility and risked community safety. The Attorney-General supported the bills, emphasizing independence and transparency. The outcome of the vote was not stated in the transcript.

   Read the full summary

5. Wednesday 26 November 2025 · House of Representatives

   Report from Federation Chamber
   See who spoke

6. Wednesday 26 November 2025 · House of Representatives

   Third Reading
   See who spoke

7. Monday 2 March 2026 · Senate

   Second Reading

   The debate concerned legislation to establish a Commonwealth Parole Board, transferring parole decision-making power from the Attorney-General to an independent statutory authority. The Shadow Attorney-General argued this move would remove ministerial accountability for public safety and create an 'accountability dead zone' where elected officials could evade responsibility for releasing dangerous federal offenders. Cash criticised the bill for its significant cost, lack of mandatory victim consultation, and inclusion of demographic representation requirements for board members. The Coalition opposed the bills, asserting that parole decisions involving serious crimes require direct ministerial responsibility rather than delegation to a bureaucracy.

   Outcome: The debate was interrupted before a vote was taken.

   Read the full summary

8. Wednesday 4 March 2026 · Senate

   Second Reading

   The Senate debated legislation to establish an independent Commonwealth Parole Board, replacing the current system where the Attorney-General makes parole decisions for federal offenders. Labor and Greens senators supported the bill, arguing it aligns the Commonwealth with state and territory best practices, ensures expert decision-making, and removes political influence from parole processes. Liberal senators opposed the bill, contending that it reduces democratic accountability, lacks mandatory provisions for victim consultation, and fails to guarantee that board members possess sufficient legal or law enforcement expertise. The debate highlighted concerns regarding the independence of the board, the rights of victims, and the qualifications of appointed members.

   Read the full summary

9. Thursday 5 March 2026 · Senate

   Second Reading

   The debate concerned the proposed transfer of parole decision-making power for federal offenders from the Attorney-General to a new Commonwealth Parole Board. Senator Leah Blyth opposed the legislation, arguing it would dilute democratic accountability, create unnecessary bureaucracy costing approximately $28.3 million over four years, and lack sufficient safeguards against political appointments. Senator Slade Brockman also opposed the bill, citing failures in similar independent boards in other jurisdictions and the exclusion of victim input in the proposed process. Both speakers argued that the current system provides clearer responsibility and better protection for victims and community safety.

   Read the full summary

10. Wednesday 1 April 2026 · Senate

    Limitation of Debate
    See who spoke