Continued the debate
Wallace opposed the bills, arguing they transferred parole decision-making from the elected Attorney-General to an unelected statutory body, thereby weakening ministerial accountability. Wallace asserted that the Attorney-General is better equipped to handle cases involving terrorists and other serious offenders due to access to intelligence and national security considerations. Wallace claimed the legislation would impose a $28.3 million burden on taxpayers across the forward estimates period, plus $7.3 million each year, creating unnecessary bureaucracy without improving safety. Wallace criticised the requirement for board membership to reflect community demographics, arguing appointments should be based on merit and professional competence. Wallace also noted the absence of mandatory victim consultation provisions, stating the bill failed to prioritise victims of crime.