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

Continued the debate

Clutterham supported the bills, arguing they establish an independent process for assessing release risks and determining parole conditions for federal offenders. Clutterham stated the legislation amends the Crimes Act 1914 to transfer decision-making from the Attorney-General to a board of experts, ensuring impartiality and transparency. Clutterham highlighted that the board would have discretion to defer decisions for up to three months or extend review periods to 24 months, allowing for better-informed judgments. Clutterham noted the government pledged $28.3 million across four years starting in 2025-26 for the board's establishment and operation. Clutterham asserted the bills promote human rights, including the right to a fair hearing and humane treatment in detention.

Government response

Rowland commended the bills, stating they ensure parole decisions are made by individuals with appropriate skills to assess rehabilitation prospects and community risks. Rowland explained the board would operate as a secondary statutory structure within the Attorney-General's Department, with members appointed based on diverse expertise and lived experience. Rowland emphasized that the legislation explicitly prevents the board from being subject to direction, reinforcing its independence. Rowland noted the chair would table an annual report in parliament and a legislative review would commence three years after the board's operation began. Rowland confirmed the board would handle parole orders, licence breaches, and travel requests, replacing the Attorney-General's role in these matters.

Opposition response

McCormack opposed the legislation, arguing it unnecessarily outsourced the Attorney-General's responsibilities to an unelected board. McCormack expressed concern that removing ministerial accountability could lead to decisions that do not align with community expectations or safety needs. McCormack questioned the necessity of the change, noting that elected officials currently make these decisions in the Commonwealth jurisdiction. McCormack suggested the board might lack the political acumen required for such critical roles and warned of potential public backlash if offenders were released under the new system. McCormack urged the government to retain the Attorney-General's role in parole decisions.