Key points
- The Commonwealth is the only Australian jurisdiction without an independent parole board. Parole decisions regarding federal offenders are currently made by the Commonwealth Parole Office (which sits within the Attorney-General’s Department) in coordination with the Attorney-General.
- The Commonwealth Parole Board Bill 2025 and the Commonwealth Parole Board (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2025 establish an independent Commonwealth Parole Board that will make parole decisions for federal offenders. The Parole Board will:
- be constituted by a Chair, Deputy Chair and at least 3 sessional members, who will have expertise in relevant parole-related matters
- have the power to make, amend, revoke or rescind parole for federal offenders
- be authorised to request relevant information from relevant persons (as prescribed by the rules) and, where relevant, disclose information to relevant persons including law enforcement officials
- have discretion in exercising its functions and powers.
- In deciding to make parole decisions, the Parole Board may consider a broad range of matters that the Attorney-General can currently consider, including the risk to the community of releasing the person on parole; the person’s conduct while they have been serving their sentence; and the likely effect on the victim, or victim’s family, of releasing the person on parole.
- The Law Council of Australia has welcomed the introduction of the Parole Board Bill as ‘an important step towards taking politics out of parole.’
- The Bills have been referred to the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee for inquiry and report by 19 November 2025.
Introductory Info
Date of introduction: 8 October 2025
House introduced in: House of Representatives
Portfolio: Attorney-General
Commencement: Part 1 of the Commonwealth Parole Board Bill 2025 commences on Royal Assent. Parts 2 to 6 of that Bill commence on the earlier of proclamation or 12 months after Royal Assent. The Commonwealth Parole Board (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2025 commences immediately after the commencement of Part 2 of the Commonwealth Parole Board Act 2025.
Purpose and Structure of the Bill
The purpose of the Commonwealth Parole Board Bill 2025 (Parole Board Bill) is to establish an independent Commonwealth Parole Board (Parole Board). The Parole Board would be constituted by independent experts, and would replace the making of parole decisions, which are currently made by the Commonwealth Parole Office (which sits within the Attorney-General’s Department) in coordination with the Attorney-General.
The purpose of the Commonwealth Parole Board (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2025 (C&TP Bill) is to amend the Crimes Act 1914 to reflect the transition of parole decisions to the new Parole Board instead of the Attorney-General.
Background
Brief overview of parole in Australia
It is a principle of sentencing at common law, reflected in section 17A of the Crimes Act, that imprisonment is the punishment of last resort. A court should not impose a sentence of imprisonment unless satisfied, after considering all other available sentences, that no other sentence is appropriate in all the circumstances of the case. When a person is sentenced to imprisonment on conviction for a criminal offence, the court often sets a non-parole period, which is the minimum period that an offender must spend in prison. In Deakin v R, the High Court stated:
The intention of the legislature in providing for the fixing of minimum terms is to provide for mitigation of the punishment of the prisoner in favour of his rehabilitation through conditional freedom, when appropriate, once the prisoner has served the minimum time that a judge determines justice requires that he must serve having regard to all the circumstances of his offence. [para. 3]
Parole is the conditional release of a prisoner from custody, often with attached conditions, but only after the expiration of their non-parole period. Any conditions associated with the parolee’s release on parole are set by the relevant parole authority. Parole forms part of the sentence, as a parolee remains under sentence while on release, until the expiry of the full term imposed by the sentencing court.
The underpinning notion of parole is that it provides an appropriate transition for offenders, who are nearing the end of their sentence, to reintegrate back into society whilst remaining appropriately monitored for a period of time. As the Australian Law Reform Commission (ALRC) stated in ALRC Report 133, Pathways to justice: inquiry into the incarceration rate of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples, the setting of a parole date can be a positive step towards reintegration:
The setting of a parole date is seen to incentivise good behaviour and rehabilitation while an offender is in prison, and parole is seen to facilitate prisoner reintegration back into society. Parole generally involves case management to provide suitable accommodation, make referrals to required services, and help parolees manage financial, personal and other problems. (p. 302)
Each jurisdiction in Australia manages the parole process for offenders sentenced in that jurisdiction. The Commonwealth is the only Australian jurisdiction without an independent parole board. The Law Council of Australia has reflected on the Commonwealth’s unique status regarding parole:
The Commonwealth is currently the only jurisdiction in Australia where elected officials make primary decisions about parole. At the moment, once a federal offender is sentenced, the responsibility for determining parole decisions shifts to the federal Attorney-General.
Current parole settings in Australian jurisdictions
Whether a person is eligible for parole for their sentence of imprisonment will depend on the specific laws of the state or territory in which they were sentenced. As outlined in Table 1, every state and territory has an independent parole body that determines parole applications. However, as set out above, the Commonwealth does not have an independent parole board making decisions about federal offenders’ parole.
Generally, before a parole board decides to release a prisoner, the board will be required (often by law) to consider a range of factors. To do this, parole boards usually gather information about the prisoner from a variety of persons, including the prisoner themselves, as well as the prisoner’s family, staff at the prison, and victims (see, for example, a list of persons the Parole Board of the Northern Territory collects information from before determining parole).
It is common for ‘community safety’ to be the paramount consideration that a parole board must take into account in relation to any potential release of a person on parole. For instance, as the Parole Board of Queensland states:
When considering whether to grant parole the overriding consideration for the Board is community safety; it is the highest priority for the Board in its decision making process. This requires consideration of not only whether there is an unacceptable risk to the community if the prisoner is released to parole, but also whether the risk to the community would be greater if the prisoner ended up having no time under parole supervision before the end of their sentence. [emphasis added]
Parole boards will also consider a variety of other circumstances when assessing a prisoner’s suitability for parole. For instance, the Prisoners Review Board of Western Australia lists the legislative requirements the Board is to consider when determining a parole application (which reflect common considerations that parole boards across other jurisdictions must also consider). These include:
- the likelihood of a prisoner re-offending if released to parole
- the level of risk a prisoner's release to parole would pose to the community or any individual
- the circumstances and the seriousness of the prisoner’s crime
- the prisoner's criminal history
- issues for any victim if the prisoner is released to parole, including any matters raised in a victim’s submission and
- the prisoner’s behaviour whilst in prison.
Table 1 Parole boards in Australian jurisdictions, and whether prospective parolees are required to apply for release on parole
Source: relevant parole board websites from each jurisdiction, and, in some cases, legislative registers.
Parole decisions for federal offenders
Commonwealth parole decisions for federal offenders are made by the Attorney-General in coordination with delegates within the Commonwealth Parole Office (CPO), located within the Attorney-General’s Department. Federal offenders are people who are convicted of a Commonwealth offence, such as drug importation, online child sex offences, terrorism or social security fraud. The Parole Board’s remit will be limited to considering parole in relation to federal offenders. Parole decisions for Commonwealth offenders are governed by Part IB of the Crimes Act.
Subsection 19AL(1) of the Crimes Act requires the Attorney-General to make a decision about a person’s release on parole before the end of their non-parole period. In deciding, the Attorney-General may have regard to a range of matters including a person’s risk to the community if released, the person’s conduct during their sentence, and the likelihood that a person will comply with the parole order conditions (as outlined in subsection 19ALA(1)). However, as outlined in subsection 19ALA(2), the Attorney-General is not limited to considering the prescribed matters. Unlike some state and territory legislation, the Commonwealth Crimes Act does not require that consideration of risk to the community be of paramount consideration when making a parole decision (nor is this something the Attorney-General is required to consider).
Legal Aid NSW has provided an overview of the process leading up to the Attorney-General’s decision being made:
Several months before the end of the non-parole period Corrective Services will prepare a pre-release report about a federal offender’s behaviour in prison. This report will either recommend the offender not be released or indicate that release is recommended. This report will be provided to the Commonwealth Parole Office and will be influential in their decision.
The Commonwealth Parole Office will send a ‘Notice of Likely Refusal of Parole’ or ‘Adverse Comments Letter’ to offenders at risk of refusal and request a response from them. This letter will be sent to the Parole Unit or the SAPO [Service and Programs Officers] at the gaol to be given to the offender. The offender may be given very little time to respond (sometimes only 2 days). The parole unit or SAPO may simply give them a pen and paper and ask them to write their response on the spot. (p. 2)
Previous calls for an independent Commonwealth Parole Board
There have long been calls for an independent Commonwealth parole board, as well as preparatory plans to establish such a board. For instance, in 1975, former Commonwealth Attorney-General Keppel Enderby was reported as having early discussions with State Ministers of Justice to establish a federal parole board.
The ALRC has, at different times, also recommended the Commonwealth could potentially establish a federal parole board, noting intractable challenges with the federal parole system. For instance, former Justice of the High Court Michael Kirby, in his capacity as Chairman of the ALRC in 1983, stated that ‘of all the defective Australian systems for the early release of prisoners, the federal system is the most defective.’ Kirby suggested that parole decisions should be removed from the federal Attorney-General and given to a federal parole board.
1980 ALRC Report
In the 1980 ALRC Interim Report, Sentencing of federal offenders (Report no. 15), the ALRC discussed the federal parole process. The report (p. 196) briefly suggests that ‘the Commonwealth should establish its own entirely separate parole system’, and Recommendation 118 recommends that:
A Commonwealth Parole Board should be established as the Federal parole authority to hear applications for and relating to parole concerning Federal prisoners. This Board should be itinerant and should take over from Commonwealth parole authorities their present parole responsibilities. (p. lii)
The Report also discusses why it may be inappropriate for the Attorney-General (and the Governor-General, acting on the advice of the Attorney-General) to make parole decisions affecting federal prisoners:
The Governor-General and the Attorney-General both have wide ranging national responsibilities to discharge. In neither case would it be appropriate, nor reasonable to expect them to be involved in formal parole hearings
…
The course preferred by the Commission is for the Commonwealth to establish a small itinerant Commonwealth Parole Board. The Board’s membership should consist of a Chairman and Deputy Chairman, who should be Judges of the Federal Court of Australia, and part-time members appointed by the Governor-General. (pp. 208–209)
1988 ALRC Reports
A subsequent ALRC Report, Report 44 (1988) examined sentencing laws and briefly considered the development of a Commonwealth parole board. Report 44 noted that ‘there may be a need to establish a federal parole board in the future as the number of federal prisoners increases.’ (pp. 51–52).
2006 ALRC Report
In the 2006 ALRC report 103, Same crime, same time, the ALRC considered three options for Commonwealth parole reform:
- establish a federal parole authority as an independent statutory authority
- delegate decision-making authority, in relation to federal offenders, to state and territory parole authorities or
- establish a parole division within the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. (p. 574)
Ultimately, the ALRC was of the view that parole decisions made by the Attorney-General or departmental delegates are not appropriate, based on the direct impact to an individual’s liberty, the lack of procedural fairness and independence from the executive, and that these arrangements ‘lack adequate transparency and independence.’ (p. 574).
The ALRC stated that ‘[i]n consultations and submissions there was almost universal support for the principle that decisions in relation to parole should be made by a body independent of the executive’ though at the time the Attorney-General’s Department did not support the establishment of an independent federal parole authority (p. 573). While some stakeholders were supportive of delegating federal parole decisions to state and territory parole authorities, the ALRC was concerned that not all state/territory parole procedures met appropriate levels of transparency and fairness (p. 575). Further, the ALRC was of the view that responsibility for release of federal offenders into the community prior to expiration of their sentence should reside at the federal level (p. 575).
The ALRC recommended that the preferred option would be to establish a federal parole authority either as: (a) an independent statutory authority to be called the Federal Parole Board; or (b) a division of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal to be called the Federal Parole Division (Recommendation 23-1, p. 578).
Other commentary on a federal parole board
The House of Representatives Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs, in its report on the Crimes Legislation Amendment (Powers and Offences) Bill 2012 recommended that ‘the Australian Government give further consideration to establishing a Federal parole board’ (Recommendation 9, p. 50).
The Law Council of Australia has previously called for an independent Commonwealth parole board, including in its detailed position paper Principles underpinning a federal parole authority (2022).
Policy position of non-government parties, independents and key stakeholders
Stakeholders
The Law Council of Australia has welcomed the introduction of the Parole Board Bill as ‘an important step towards taking politics out of parole.’ Sonya Ryan, founder of the internet safety organisation Carly Ryan Foundation, and Annmarie Lumsden, Chair of National Legal Aid Chair and Chief Executive of Legal Services South Australia, have both welcomed the Parole Board Bill. Ms Lumsden reportedly stated that having an independent Commonwealth Parole Board will ‘promote high-quality, evidence-based decision-making, and guard against the risk of politicisation.’
Non-government parties and independents
At the time of publication, there appears to have been no other publicly available commentary on the Parole Board Bill or the C&TP Bill.
Key issues and provisions in the Bills
Membership, powers, functions of the Parole Board
The Bill establishes an independent Commonwealth Parole Board (Parole Board) (clause 8). The Parole Board will consider information and manage the release of federal offenders in accordance with Part IB of the Crimes Act (being the Part of the Crimes Act consequentially amended by the C&TP Bill).
Board membership and assistance
The Parole Board will be constituted by a Chair, Deputy Chair, and at least 3 sessional members (clause 8). Members of the Parole Board are to be appointed by the Governor-General on recommendation by the Attorney-General (clause 29). The membership of the Board must reflect ‘as closely as possible the composition of the Australian community at large’.
The Attorney-General must also be satisfied that persons being appointed have the appropriate qualifications, experience or knowledge to perform the role. Qualifications, experience or knowledge may be in (but not limited to) areas such as law, law enforcement, matters relating to victims of crime, medicine, psychology, or criminology (clause 29). At least one of either the Chair or Deputy Chair must have been enrolled as a legal practitioner for at least 5 years (clause 29). Members of the Parole Board must not be appointed for more than 5 years at a time, but may be reappointed (clause 30 and section 33AA of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901).
Subject to any specific requirements in the Parole Board Bill or other relevant legislation, the Parole Board will have complete discretion in performing or exercising its functions and powers and is not subject to direction from anyone when doing so (clause 14). The Parole Board may be assisted to undertake its functions by relevant APS employees, members of the Australian Federal Police (AFP), and persons employed under the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Act 1979 or the Intelligence Services Act 2001. The Parole Board may also appoint a legal practitioner to act as counsel for specific matters or more generally (clause 15).
The Chair or Deputy Chair must not engage in paid work outside their duties without the Minister’s approval. Sessional members must not engage in paid work if the Minister is of the opinion such work conflicts with the performance of their duties as a member (clause 36). Members of the Parole Board must provide the Minister with written notice of all interests, pecuniary and otherwise, that could conflict (or be perceived to conflict) with the proper performance of the member’s functions (clause 37).
Members of the Parole Board are not liable to civil proceedings for actions (or omissions) done in good faith in the performance of their functions, powers or duties as prescribed in the Bill (clause 16).
Board administration and procedures
The Chair of the Parole Board may make guidelines, which will support the Board in the performance of its functions, including by regulating procedures to be followed. These guidelines can detail arrangements for Board meetings (including frequency, conduct, and record-keeping), procedures to be followed by the Chair and Deputy Chair of the Board, and any arrangements for managing conflicts of interest (clause 13).
The Parole Board may hold such meetings as the Chair considers necessary for the efficient performance of the Board’s functions (clause 18). To achieve quorum, at least 3 members (including one of either the Chair or the Deputy Chair) must be present (clause 19). A voting decision of the Parole Board is to be made by a majority of members present, at least one of whom is the Chair or Deputy Chair. If there is an equal number of votes, the person presiding over the meeting has a casting vote to resolve the matter (clause 20). The Chair and Deputy Chair are provided with powers, which can be exercised without board majority consensus (clause 22). Upon request by the Chair, the Secretary of the Department may also participate in Parole Board meetings, including in circumstances where a Board member is not readily available. Where the Secretary has been requested to attend a Board meeting, they can exercise powers and perform functions otherwise exercisable by Board members, including voting (clause 24).
Parole board functions and powers
The Parole Board will have three key functions. Firstly, it will make independent, risk-informed decisions about the conditional release and management of federal offenders. Secondly, and at the request of the Attorney-General, it will provide advice to the Attorney-General about certain federal offenders on matters which the Attorney-General must make decisions, including advice about transferring prisoners serving sentences in one state or territory to another state or territory to serve their sentence, as well as advice in relation to the Royal Prerogative of Mercy. The Board would not be required to provide advice to the Attorney-General in relation to matters involving the Board’s decision-making functions (Explanatory Memorandum, p. 18). Finally, the Board may have other functions conferred on it by relevant laws and can do anything incidental or conducive to the listed functions (functions listed in clause 9).
The Parole Board will have power to do all things necessary or convenient in connection with the exercise of its functions (clause 10). Additionally, the Parole Board may conduct interviews with relevant persons including federal offenders and victims (clause 23) (Explanatory Memorandum, p. 24).
Making, amending, revoking or rescinding parole decisions
Currently, section 19AL of the Crimes Act provides that the Attorney-General must, before the end of a non-parole period for a federal offender, make or refuse to make a parole order to release the person. Item 6 of Schedule 1 of the CT&P Bill repeals section 19AL and substitutes it with provisions detailing the Parole Board’s decision-making functions in relation to parole.
Proposed subsection 19AKB(1) provides that, before the end of a federal offender’s non-parole period, the Parole Board must decide to:
- make a parole order
- refuse to make a parole order or
- defer deciding whether to make or refuse an order until no later than 3 months after the end of a person’s non-parole period.
If the Parole Board decides to make a parole order (that is, makes an order to release a federal prisoner from parole), it must be made as soon as possible after this decision (proposed subsection 19AKD(1)) and will be required to specify whether the person is to be released on parole subject to supervision (proposed paragraph 19AKD(2)(b)). Additionally, the C&TP Bill (items 13–14, Schedule 1) amend section 19AN to allow the Parole Board to specify conditions to be contained in a parole order.
If the Parole Board refuses to make a parole order, or defers deciding whether to make a parole order, it must notify the person within 14 days, include reasons for refusing or deferring, and set out any reconsideration requirements (proposed section 19AKF).
If the Parole Board makes a parole order, the Board will be able to amend it before the end of the parole period, including by amending the conditions or imposing new conditions (item 16, Schedule 1, C&TP Bill). Item 17 of Schedule 1 of the C&TP Bill provides that the Parole Board will be able to amend the release date specified in the parole order (proposed paragraph 19APA(1)(da)); a power not currently available to the Attorney-General.
As with the Attorney-General currently, the Parole Board will be unable to make parole orders for certain federal offenders who have been convicted in relation to terrorism offences, unless exceptional circumstances apply (items 9–11, Schedule 1, C&TP Bill).
Matters that the Parole Board may consider in making a parole order decision
Item 7 of Schedule 1 to the C&TP Bill makes amendments to section 19ALA, so that the Parole Board (instead of the Attorney-General) may (but is not required to) have regard to certain matters when making parole decisions. These matters are listed in subsection 19ALA(1) and include (but are not limited to):
- the risk to the community of releasing the person on parole
- the person’s conduct while serving his or her sentence
- the likely effect on the victim, or victim’s family, of releasing the person on parole
- the nature and circumstances of the offence to which the person’s sentence relates
- the person’s criminal history and
- any report or information in relation to the granting of parole that has been provided by the relevant State or Territory corrective services or parole agency.
Pre-release considerations and ability to rescind parole orders
Item 19 of Schedule 1 of the C&TP Bill introduces new Subdivision AA into Division 5 of Part IB of the Crimes Act, which provides authority for the Parole Board to rescind parole orders for persons during their pre-release period. Pre-release period is defined in proposed subsection 19APC(2) to mean the period between (and including) the day the parole order was granted and the day that the person is to be released from prison under the parole order.
Proposed subsection 19APC(1) states that the Parole Board may rescind a parole order during a person’s pre-release period if:
- the Board is satisfied that the person would pose:
- a serious identifiable risk to the community if released, where such a risk cannot be sufficiently mitigated or
- a serious and immediate risk to their own safety if released, where such a risk cannot be sufficiently mitigated, or
- the parolee has requested the recission of the parole order, or
- the Board is satisfied that there has been a substantial change in a matter considered by the Board when making the parole order.
As outlined the C&TP Bill, Explanatory Memorandum (p. 44), ‘rescinding’ a parole order is distinct from ‘revoking’ a parole order, as different Board processes apply for each.
Revocation of parole orders
The Parole Board may revoke a parole order at any time after the person is released on parole and before the end of the parole period if the offender has failed to comply with parole conditions, or there are reasonable grounds to suspect the offender has failed to comply with conditions (section 19AU of the Crimes Act, as amended by item 21, Schedule 1, C&TP Bill). Additionally, the Chair or Deputy Chair may, on behalf of the Parole Board, revoke a parole order in circumstances of urgency or to ensure the safety and protection of the community or a person (clause 22, Parole Board Bill). These provisions reflect the current revocation power available to the Attorney-General.
Information gathering and sharing powers
Authorised officers (being Board members, the Secretary, or persons lawfully assisting the Board) can request or require, from ‘relevant persons’ (discussed below) or a person prescribed by the Minister, information which the officer ‘reasonably believes to be relevant to the performance of the functions or the exercise of the powers’ of the Parole Board (clause 25). A person given written notice of a requirement to provide relevant information must, as soon as practicable after receiving the notice, comply with it to the extent that they can reasonably acquire the information (subclause 25(4)). This requirement to provide information applies despite any other Australian law (subclause 25(5)).
Authorised officers can disclose Parole Board information to a ‘relevant person’ if the member believes doing so is necessary for the relevant person to exercise that person’s powers, functions or duties. An authorised officer may also disclose Parole Board information to a person prescribed in rules made by the Minister, in circumstances set out in the rules (clause 26).
Relevant person includes (as outlined in clause 28):
- the Attorney-General in connection with certain functions relating to:
- enforcement of fines pursuant to section 15A of the Crimes Act
- escape from criminal detention contained in Division 5, Part III of the Crimes Act and
- the exercise of the Royal prerogative of mercy by the Crown in right of the Commonwealth
- AFP officials including the Commissioner, Deputy Commissioner, and AFP employees
- Members of State and Territory police forces
- Persons exercising powers under relevant crime commission or anti-corruption commission legislation
- Commonwealth, State and Territory Directors of Public Prosecutions
- Officers of Customs
- Members of the Defence Force and
- Taxation officers.
Sensitive Parole Board information (as defined in clause 7) must not be disclosed to a person other than a relevant person, unless the disclosure is authorised under clause 26. Sensitive Parole Board information is information:
- that could be prejudicial to the investigation or prosecution of a person
- that could endanger the life or safety of any person or
- that could be prejudicial to the security, defence or international relations of Australia, where the information was given in confidence to the Parole Board and the person or body who provided the information has not provided written consent to its public disclosure (clause 7).
Review of the operation of the parole framework, and rule-making powers
A review of the operation of the parole framework (being the Parole Board Bill, once commenced, and relevant parts of the Crimes Act) is to be conducted after 3 years of operation of the Bill, but no later than 4 years after its commencement (clause 45). The Minister is required to table a copy of the report of the review in Parliament.
The Minister may make rules prescribing certain matters (clause 46).