Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Amendment (Parole) Bill 2004
Reverend the Hon. Dr GORDON MOYES: I will be brief. I prepared a thorough speech, but in the light of the hour I will not use it. However, I will pull up a few important points. The bill is of interest to me as a former parole officer. The Christian Democratic Party supports the Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Amendment (Parole) Bill but there are some issues the Government ought to revisit. I hesitate to commend all the provisions. I will mention just a few. The current Parole Board will be renamed the State Parole Authority. I wonder why that is necessary, apart from political correctness. In the past 10 years the name has changed from the Parole Board to the Offenders Review Board back to the Parole Board and now to the State Parole Authority. Everyone in gaol understands exactly what Parole Board means and they would much rather keep that title.
The Parole Authority must take into consideration parole issues such as the need to protect the safety of the community, the need to maintain public confidence in the administration of justice and the nature and circumstance of the offence. That is fair enough, but a whole lot of other things ought to be included. Having written many reports for parole boards over the years, I would include the offender’s conduct while serving a sentence. That is a very important aspect that should be presented to the Parole Board. The board ought to know how the prisoner has behaved while serving a sentence. Something should be mentioned concerning the prisoner’s willingness to participate in rehabilitation programs. It is always important to mention the availability of family, community or government support for the prisoner upon release and the likelihood that the offender will benefit from the grant of parole through rehabilitation programs.
None of those factors is required by the Parole Authority. I believe they should be. Although it requires some factors, I am concerned about the omitted factors. The Parole Board is not instructed to consider an offender’s antecedents. In layman’s terms, that means the Parole Authority must have regard to the offender’s past. The offender’s criminal history is just one element of his or her past. Other issues concerning the offender ought to be considered. For example, earlier today the Hon. Peter Breen made mention of Bronson Blessington, who is one of a number of offenders labelled never to be released and one of a number of people who participated in the killing of Janine Balding. That was an horrific killing and we have no respect for those involved in that rape and murder. However, this man was only 14 years old when he involved himself in the murder of Ms Balding.
I do not want to underestimate the gravity of the loss suffered by Ms Janine Balding’s family. But I want to point out that Bronson at 14 had already had a very sad life. He had been sexually abused by four adult males, he was a street kid, he was an alcoholic, a petrol sniffer and basically uncontrollable. In 1990 while in prison he gave his life to Christ and became a Christian. Over the past 14 years in prison he has led more than 580 Bible studies within the prison yards with an attendance of well over 5,500 prisoners. In many people’s eyes there is great evidence that he has been rehabilitated. That kind of background and antecedents ought to be part of the Parole Board’s consideration. The authority must be given information regarding both the victim’s interests and the offender’s state in order to make an informed decision to release or not to release a person on parole.
I want to mention two or three other minor points that are very important for the person seeking parole. For example, under the existing regulations any serious offender, if parole is refused, will be considered again any time within the next 12 months. Under the proposed bill the offender is not given a date for reconsideration. He must make an application and this can only be made after 9 months have passed. There is no sense of hope for these people. A further problem is that it places the onus on the prisoner to make all of the approaches to the authority. Under the present regulations a hearing is automatically set if the board forms an intention not to make a parole order. Under the proposed provisions the Parole Authority sets a hearing only if the offender requests a hearing and if the Parole Authority is satisfied that a hearing is warranted.
A prisoner must make a request in writing. Honourable members would realise that many inmates are semi-illiterate. They are not able to make written submissions setting out why a hearing is warranted. In the past they have had access to the Legal Aid Service and the Aboriginal Legal Service. Both those services have been severely restricted in their funding and in their availability to prisoners. While I am happy on behalf of the Christian Democratic Party to commend many aspects of the bill, a range of issues should be carefully considered. I do not believe the Government has done that.