Parole Decisions

The Hon. J.S. LEE (15:09): I seek leave to make a brief explanation before asking a question of the Attorney-General regarding the parole decision of convicted serial killer James Vlassakis.

Leave granted.

The Hon. J.S. LEE: James Vlassakis, one of the perpetrators of the Snowtown murders, was granted parole after serving his non-parole period of 26 years. He will first enter a prerelease centre for up to 12 months. This decision has caused significant distress among victims' families and has raised concerns about public safety, transparency and the adequacy of victim consultation in parole processes. While the Attorney-General has publicly stated that any decision to request a review is confidential, the broader implications of such decisions demand some scrutiny. My questions to the minister are:

1. What safeguards are in place to ensure public safety during the prerelease and parole process for life sentence offenders such as Mr Vlassakis?

2. Given the Attorney-General's statutory authority to request a review of parole decisions, what mechanisms exist to ensure that community concerns and victims' perspectives are considered in that process, even if the outcome remains confidential?

3. Will the government consider legislative changes to strengthen the oversight and transparency in parole decisions involving serious violent offenders?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER (Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, Attorney-General, Minister for Industrial Relations and Public Sector, Special Minister of State) (15:11): I thank the honourable member for her question. As the honourable member indicated in her question, there are confidentiality provisions in the operations of the parole act, and particularly whether a review is asked of the administrative parole reviewer, so that is something I can't canvass.

But I can say in relation to a general matter, in relation to life sentence prisoners, when decisions are made they are made by the Parole Board, who rightly are independent of government. The head of the Parole Board, Frances Nelson KC, has served for some decades under many governments of many persuasions, and I don't think there is a member in this chamber who wouldn't have confidence that Frances Nelson KC and her board diligently do their work in assessing people when it comes to parole.

For a life sentence prisoner, as I have said, a parole decision will still be subject to very strict conditions. The honourable member asked about the input from victims' family members in relation to conditions. I have had a number of conversations with the Commissioner for Victims' Rights about matters generally but also about this matter specifically, and I greatly appreciate the role that she plays in helping victims navigate what is obviously a traumatic time of their lives, to have these matters re-agitated in relation to the possibility of parole.

As I said, I appreciate the work that the Commissioner for Victims' Rights does in helping families navigate and put forward their views in these sorts of areas. But, as I have said, for a life sentence prisoner, it is not just conditions that will be imposed now; life sentence prisoners have parole conditions for the rest of their lives.