Parole is the conditional release of an incarcerated person from prison before their sentence is complete. The New South Wales Government says that the purpose of parole is “to supervise and support the reintegration of offenders”. Ideally, parole should enhance rehabilitation and reintegration. In the recent decade, however, rules restricting the granting of parole and a lack of housing options undermine these intended benefits.
Judges decide how long a person may spend on parole when setting a head sentence and a non-parole period. Presumably, judges spend a lot of time considering all the relevant factors when setting non-parole and parole periods, including past circumstances, any prior offences, prospects of rehabilitation and, most importantly, the appropriate length of time on parole for best outcomes.
Today, it is common for people to be incarcerated for many months, sometimes years, over their non-parole period – not because of inappropriate behaviour but due to unjustified delays.
Two of the most common causes of delay are difficulties gaining housing and the inability for a person in prison to be enrolled in prison-run rehabilitation programs prior to parole. In my own experience, after serving almost 10 years in prison, I was due to see the parole board around February 2020. Administrative delays and difficulty finding “suitable accommodation” resulted in me spending an extra two years in prison. Although my parole was due in February 2020, I was released on parole in February 2022.
Many parolees wait many months, sometimes years, for housing considered “suitable for release”. Australia is experiencing a housing crisis. Rentals are expensive and hard to obtain. People applying for government housing are on waiting lists said to be up to eight years long.
Furthermore, strict rules often prevent parolees from living with family members who may have criminal convictions. The contradiction is evident in the fact that a parolee can live in a sharehouse with many other parolees or a block of flats containing tenants that pose more risk than the prohibited homes owned by family members. Such rules are particularly detrimental to Indigenous people, who have deep connections to family, which is said to be the cornerstone of Aboriginal culture as well as social, emotional and spiritual support.
Poor administration of rehabilitation programs in prisons also causes delays for parole. While corrections may deem it necessary for a person to complete certain programs, they often fail to deliver them in a timely manner. In South Australia, for example, it was not uncommon for prisoners to be informed of a requirement to complete a program after their application for parole, despite already having spent many years in prison. Enrolment and completion of such programs can then take up to two years.
Spending longer than expected in prison is extremely distressing.
Parole is the conditional release of an incarcerated person from prison before their sentence is complete. The New South Wales Government says that the purpose of parole is “to supervise and support the reintegration of offenders”. Ideally, parole should enhance rehabilitation and reintegration. In the recent decade, however, rules restricting the granting of parole and a lack of housing options undermine these intended benefits.
Judges decide how long a person may spend on parole when setting a head sentence and a non-parole period. Presumably, judges spend a lot of time considering all the relevant factors when setting non-parole and parole periods, including past circumstances, any prior offences, prospects of rehabilitation and, most importantly, the appropriate length of time on parole for best outcomes.
Today, it is common for people to be incarcerated for many months, sometimes years, over their non-parole period – not because of inappropriate behaviour but due to unjustified delays.
Two of the most common causes of delay are difficulties gaining housing and the inability for a person in prison to be enrolled in prison-run rehabilitation programs prior to parole. In my own experience, after serving almost 10 years in prison, I was due to see the parole board around February 2020. Administrative delays and difficulty finding “suitable accommodation” resulted in me spending an extra two years in prison. Although my parole was due in February 2020, I was released on parole in February 2022.
Many parolees wait many months, sometimes years, for housing considered “suitable for release”. Australia is experiencing a housing crisis. Rentals are expensive and hard to obtain. People applying for government housing are on waiting lists said to be up to eight years long.
Furthermore, strict rules often prevent parolees from living with family members who may have criminal convictions. The contradiction is evident in the fact that a parolee can live in a sharehouse with many other parolees or a block of flats containing tenants that pose more risk than the prohibited homes owned by family members. Such rules are particularly detrimental to Indigenous people, who have deep connections to family, which is said to be the cornerstone of Aboriginal culture as well as social, emotional and spiritual support.
Poor administration of rehabilitation programs in prisons also causes delays for parole. While corrections may deem it necessary for a person to complete certain programs, they often fail to deliver them in a timely manner. In South Australia, for example, it was not uncommon for prisoners to be informed of a requirement to complete a program after their application for parole, despite already having spent many years in prison. Enrolment and completion of such programs can then take up to two years.
Spending longer than expected in prison is extremely distressing.
People who do the right thing in prison should have an expectation of release on parole close to the date determined by the courts.
Every extra day spent in prison is another day in a hostile environment, another day away from children and other loved ones, another day prohibiting positive activities to get life back on track, another day of increased institutionalisation.
The uncertainty of the elusive release date can also be extremely distressing. One would think that the best chance of success for parole requires as much certainty as possible with respect to a release date. Not knowing a release date well in advance results in an inability to plan and prepare. Parolees cannot organise employment or accommodation well in advance without the risk of letting a potential employee or landlord down. In my circumstances, I was informed on a Friday afternoon that I would be released Monday morning – just two and a half days’ notice. I did not have clothes, bedding or other basics ready for my first day in the community after almost 12 years inside.
Even those indifferent to the plight of prisoners should be critical of the burden of the current system on state finances. Australians spent $6.4 billion last year on housing imprisoned people. At $100,000–$150,000 per head per year, keeping imprisoned people over their non-parole periods is wasting millions of taxpayer dollars.
The administration of justice is also undermined by the current system. Corrections and the parole boards wield the power to simply disregard the wisdom and careful consideration that judges put into sentencing. This is demonstrated by the advice that corrections gives to prisoners, with one state routinely advising that “we prioritise program enrolment with consideration to the end date of a sentence”.
The ultimate tragedy of delaying parole was exemplified in the Victorian Coroner’s recent findings on the death of Heather Calgaret. Ms Calgaret died in custody because of healthcare failures, one month after having her parole denied. Ms Calgaret’s parole was denied because her nominated residence, her mother’s house, was deemed to be “unsuitable”. The coroner criticised the parole process, stating,
“Whether and how a parole application progresses has the potential to impact on a person’s continuing incarceration, and all that flows from being in custody of the state.”
The current system often results in more harm than good. While change is difficult to see, this coronial finding appears to put prison authorities on notice.
People who do the right thing in prison should have an expectation of release on parole close to the date determined by the courts.
Every extra day spent in prison is another day in a hostile environment, another day away from children and other loved ones, another day prohibiting positive activities to get life back on track, another day of increased institutionalisation.
The uncertainty of the elusive release date can also be extremely distressing. One would think that the best chance of success for parole requires as much certainty as possible with respect to a release date. Not knowing a release date well in advance results in an inability to plan and prepare. Parolees cannot organise employment or accommodation well in advance without the risk of letting a potential employee or landlord down. In my circumstances, I was informed on a Friday afternoon that I would be released Monday morning – just two and a half days’ notice. I did not have clothes, bedding or other basics ready for my first day in the community after almost 12 years inside.
Even those indifferent to the plight of prisoners should be critical of the burden of the current system on state finances. Australians spent $6.4 billion last year on housing imprisoned people. At $100,000–$150,000 per head per year, keeping imprisoned people over their non-parole periods is wasting millions of taxpayer dollars.
The administration of justice is also undermined by the current system. Corrections and the parole boards wield the power to simply disregard the wisdom and careful consideration that judges put into sentencing. This is demonstrated by the advice that corrections gives to prisoners, with one state routinely advising that “we prioritise program enrolment with consideration to the end date of a sentence”.
The ultimate tragedy of delaying parole was exemplified in the Victorian Coroner’s recent findings on the death of Heather Calgaret. Ms Calgaret died in custody because of healthcare failures, one month after having her parole denied. Ms Calgaret’s parole was denied because her nominated residence, her mother’s house, was deemed to be “unsuitable”. The coroner criticised the parole process, stating,
“Whether and how a parole application progresses has the potential to impact on a person’s continuing incarceration, and all that flows from being in custody of the state.”
The current system often results in more harm than good. While change is difficult to see, this coronial finding appears to put prison authorities on notice.
