I listened very closely to Senator Brown’s comments and remarks in relation to the Commonwealth Parole Board Bill 2025, as I have listened to the remarks of other senators in this place. At the outset, I’d like to state that the position of attorney-general is quite unique in Australia’s political system. The Attorney-General is not just an elected official appointed as a minister; they also have all sorts of responsibilities connected with their role as the first law officer of the country. That brings significant obligations upon the Attorney-General with respect to our system of justice, with respect to rule of law and with respect to different discretions that they’re required to consider very carefully as to whether or not they exercise them. So I think the first point that needs to be made in this debate is that the position of attorney-general is quite unique in terms of ministerial status and responsibilities linked to their role as the first law officer of the country.
The second point I want to make is this: I have no doubt that attorneys-general from both of the parties of government, supported by experts within the Attorney-General’s Department, have been operating to make the best possible parole decisions they can in all the circumstances. Whilst people can allege that decisions were being made, or may be made, for political reasons, I haven’t heard any evidence of that. I haven’t heard any evidence that any attorney-general, from any party, in any government—certainly during my time in this place—has made a parole decision on the basis of political considerations. Not one example has been given. I have no doubt that my friend and colleague Senator Cash, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, when she had those responsibilities as Attorney-General, would have carefully considered, in her diligent way, the evidence given to her by the departmental officials—by the experts—and made a decision in accordance with the law with respect to parole. I have absolutely no doubt about it, and we have not heard any example of political interference or the exercise of decision-making power with respect to parole being influenced by political considerations. We haven’t heard one example of it—not one during the whole debate. That’s a good thing, because there shouldn’t be political considerations with respect to parole. So I really think people need to be careful before alleging that colleagues in this place have exercised powers for political considerations. I underline the fact that I am sure my friend and colleague Senator Cash would have exercised these powers extremely diligently, as her predecessors would have.
There’s a corollary. You want to take the power away from the Attorney-General and give it to an independent board. Well, let’s look at the independent board that you’re proposing. Let’s consider what’s actually being proposed here, because there is a benefit in the Attorney-General, an elected official, having this power and being responsible for the exercise of this power in this place and in the other place. There is a benefit in that, in terms of that public accountability, because when they make the wrong decision they can be held accountable for that decision in this place. You want to move it to an independent board. Okay, let’s look at the mechanics with respect to this independent board.
The first point I want to make is that I think the position of chair of this parole board under this piece of legislation is extraordinarily powerful. This will be an official who is appointed once and will be in this position for five years, and it is an extraordinarily important professional position. If you were to think about the sort of qualifications you would expect the chair of the parole board to have, I would have thought most reasonable people listening to this debate would think there would need to be something more than someone having been enrolled for at least five years as a practising lawyer. Five years? I wouldn’t feel confident to do this job as someone who was admitted some 25 years ago.
Well, I don’t necessarily agree with it in that context either, Senator Shoebridge. This is a person who is going to have the power under this bill to issue guidelines—as you would well know, Senator Shoebridge—that don’t even have to be published. The bill doesn’t even require the guidelines which will be promulgated by the Parole Board to be published. What an extraordinary situation. They don’t even have to be published.
Senator Shoebridge, I’ve got no doubt, sincerely believes that the guidelines will contain a regime for the points of view on the perspective of victims of crime to be considered. I have no doubt he has that sincere view. It may well be the case, but there’s nothing in this bill that requires it. Something that has happened in every single jurisdiction—those opposite keep telling us about what’s happening under the state and territory jurisdictions—is statutory recognition of the rights of victims to be consulted with respect to a range of matters involving parole, and there is no statutory obligation in this bill recognising the rights of victims—none. We’re totally dependent upon what the guidelines say, and the guidelines don’t even have to be published.
Going to my home state of Queensland, there are requirements for a victim of a crime to be consulted, informed, advised and treated with respect and compassion from when the victim of a crime initially reports the crime all the way through to the making of parole decisions. That’s actually in the law, but there’s nothing of that in this law—none of it. When those opposite get up and tell us the bill reflects best practice in states and territories, it doesn’t with respect to victims of crime. There’s nothing in it.
In my home state of Queensland—and Senator Shoebridge did recognise that it’s a voluntary right—a victim has a right, not an obligation, to be registered as someone who wants to be kept informed through the whole process, so they’re actually advised of what the sentence is for the perpetrator of the crime of which they are a victim. They’re actually informed when the time period of the custodial sentence is expiring and they’re coming up to a parole decision. They’re actually given a statutory right to make a submission—not something dependent upon guidelines which may or may not be published but a statutory right to make a submission to a parole board so that their voice is heard, so that the voices of the victims of crime are heard.
Under this system, there is absolutely no obligation upon this new, independent parole board that requires it to hear the perspective of the victim, and that is not good enough. Don’t come into this place and tell us you’re introducing this fantastic reform that has been mooted for many years—I understand the rationale, and I well understand the argument. Don’t come into this place and say this is a fantastic reform that replicates the best of the systems across other states and territories when the fact of the matter is that there’s a gaping hole in terms of the voices of the victims of crime. We’re better than that in this place.
It didn’t take me long to look at a number of jurisdictions, from Queensland and South Australia to New South Wales, to find that the law with respect to parole board decision-making has moved on, and the voices of victims of crimes need to be heard. In my home state of Queensland, a victim actually has rights to seek redress in the event that their right to be consulted isn’t complied with by parole boards in Queensland. It’s not just a paper right; there are some teeth to it as well. There are consequences if victims aren’t consulted, but there’s nothing in here about those processes. All there is is this extraordinary power given to the chair to issue guidelines. This is clause 13 of the bill:
The Chair may, in writing, issue guidelines, not inconsistent with this or any other Act, relating to the procedures of the Commonwealth Parole Board including, but not limited to… et cetera. The guidelines aren’t a legislative instrument, so that means they never come back to this place. We never get the opportunity to say, ‘Those guidelines are inappropriate. Those procedures are inappropriate.’ We never get the opportunity to disallow those guidelines, because they’re not a legislative instrument.
And here’s the kicker: the chair may publish the guidelines if the chair considers it appropriate to do so. How ridiculous! Why is it up to the chair to decide whether or not to publish the guidelines? That’s extraordinary. Why shouldn’t these guidelines be public? If, as Senator Shoebridge suggests, and I don’t doubt his sincerity in this regard, the guidelines will include procedures for victims to be consulted, why wouldn’t those guidelines be published? Shouldn’t the guidelines—the procedures and processes for the operation of this independent parole board—be on the public record? Don’t you all have a right to know what those guidelines are, including with respect to how victims are consulted?
Over the last few years, there have certainly been cases, including victims of sexual assault from my home state of Queensland, where survivors of the gravest type of assault have been absolutely devastated when the perpetrator of the crime against them has been released, either from prison or from immigration detention, and they weren’t informed, and they’ve only found out because a journalist has rung them and told them. How would you feel? I can’t imagine. I can try and imagine. I can try and put myself in the position of a victim of crime subject to that. I can try. But how would you feel if a perpetrator of such a dreadful crime against you had been released and the first you heard about it was when you got a phone call from a journalist? It’s extraordinary, and it’s not good enough.
That’s why, across states and territories all around this country, the rights of victims of crime have been incorporated into legislation so they are enforceable rights. Victims can choose to be kept abreast as to whether or not offenders are going to be released or whether or not they’re coming up for parole. They can be given the opportunity to make submissions if offenders are coming up for parole hearings. If victims want to exercise their right to have their views heard by parole boards, those rights are embedded in legislation. That is missing from this legislation. It’s missing from the current system. I take Senator Shoebridge’s comment in that regard: it’s missing from the current system as well. But it’s also missing from this legislation, and that’s not good enough. If we’re going to introduce a reform like this, we should be good enough to be able to consider all aspects of the policy issues relating to parole and make sure, when we go through this process, that the bill that’s passed at the end of the process represents best practice in all respects. However, in this respect, there is a gaping hole in relation to the rights of the victims of crime, and that is very, very disappointing.
I want to make some other comments with respect to the qualifications of the members of the Parole Board. There is a section that deals with the sorts of qualifications that people have to have, but you then have this problematic overlay of needing someone with experience, knowledge of law, knowledge of matters relating to victims of crime. I would’ve thought the best people are the actual victims themselves, and that’s why I think they should be heard. Then you have this overlay with respect to the demographics of Australia. I’m not sure what that means. Now, as much as anyone, I’m in favour of seeking to make sure that, across government boards, we have equality of representation of women et cetera, but what does reflecting the demographics of the country mean? Does that mean you’ve got to have someone from a rural area or a regional area? How do you dovetail that with the qualifications? (Time expired)
