Question Time AU

Bill Debate · Second Reading

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

Senate · Monday 2 March 2026

Official Hansard for this day (APH) · Read this debate on OpenAustralia

At a glance

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.

Summary in reported speech - not a transcript. AI-generated, so check the official record before quoting.

How the debate unfolded

Opened the debate

Michaelia Cash (WA) (Liberal Party) Liberal

Cash argued that the bills were designed to insulate ministers from accountability for parole decisions regarding federal offenders, including terrorists and serious criminals. Cash contended that transferring this power to an unelected board would create a system where no elected official could be held responsible if a released offender reoffended. Cash highlighted the financial cost of establishing the new board, noting it would require significant ongoing expenditure while other areas faced budget constraints. Cash also criticised the requirement for board membership to reflect community composition, arguing that appointments should be based on merit and expertise in law enforcement and corrections. Furthermore, she stated that the bill failed to provide enforceable rights for victims to be heard or notified, treating them as procedural considerations rather than prioritising their safety.

Opposition response

Michaelia Cash (Shadow Attorney-General) Liberal WA

Cash maintained that the Attorney-General should remain directly responsible for parole decisions to ensure clear lines of accountability to the parliament and the public. Cash argued that the proposed board would allow the government to distance itself from the consequences of releasing high-risk offenders. Cash emphasised that federal offences often involve national security and complex risks that require ministerial oversight rather than administrative delegation. Cash concluded that the legislation weakened the justice system by creating a bureaucratic shield for ministers and failing to adequately protect victims.