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

Shoebridge supported the bill, emphasising the need for an independent body to decide parole applications, particularly for political prisoners. Shoebridge criticised the current system where bureaucrats make decisions without statutory controls or independence. Shoebridge noted that the Greens had secured an amendment to clause 24 to remove the departmental secretary from acting as chair, ensuring greater independence. Shoebridge argued that while procedural fairness is implicit in common law, guidelines should address victim engagement, and he opposed amendments mandating interviews for all cases as they could delay necessary releases.

Collins opposed the bill, arguing it strips accountability from the elected Attorney-General and transfers power to an unelected, unaccountable board. Collins claimed the legislation neglects victims by failing to mandate their consultation or notification before parole decisions. Collins expressed concern that board appointments might prioritise diversity over merit and legal expertise. Collins supported an amendment proposed by Senator Cash to allow the Attorney-General to object to board decisions, asserting this would maintain necessary oversight and community safety.

Brown supported the reform, stating it aligns the Commonwealth with state and territory models by transferring decision-making to an expert statutory body. Brown argued that the growing complexity of federal offences, including terrorism and organised crime, requires specialised risk assessment rather than political judgment. Brown highlighted that the government allocated $28.3 million across four years to set up the board, which would operate independently but remain subject to judicial review and annual parliamentary reporting. Brown maintained that the reform enhances community safety through consistent, evidence-based decisions.

Scarr opposed the bill, arguing that the Attorney-General’s role as first law officer provides essential democratic accountability that an independent board lacks. Scarr criticised the legislation for not requiring the publication of guidelines issued by the board chair, which he claimed obscures procedures for victim consultation. Scarr noted that unlike state jurisdictions, the bill does not grant victims statutory rights to be informed or to make submissions. Scarr questioned the qualifications required for board members, suggesting that five years of legal practice may be insufficient for such significant responsibilities.