❓ A parliamentary question regarding the classification of prisoners under the AIMS contract and a potential escape. The Minister deflects the first part of the question to an independent inquiry but acknowledges the obvious consequence of a high-security classification in the second part.
AnsweredQoN 337Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
I refer the minister to the AIMS contract which excludes high-security prisoners from being managed by AIMS. (1) Given that these prisoners were a mixed bag of armed robbers and sex offenders, and given that most of them were housed in different prisons because they were known to each other and presented a high security risk when brought together, why on earth did the minister’s department not classify them as high-security prisoners? (2) Does the minister concede that if this classification had been given, then armed police or departmental guards - and not unarmed AIMS staff - would have been responsible for these prisoners and the escape may not have occurred? Mrs M.H. ROBERTS
AnswerView source ↗
(1) That is a very good question and I hope that the independent inquiry will provide an answer. Mr M.W. Trenorden: What about you? The SPEAKER: Order, members! Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: My answer continues - (2) Had the prisoners been classified as high-security prisoners, they would have had a high-security escort. That much is obvious.
(1) Given that these prisoners were a mixed bag of armed robbers and sex offenders, and given that most of them were housed in different prisons because they were known to each other and presented a high security risk when brought together, why on earth did the minister’s department not classify them as high-security prisoners? (2) Does the minister concede that if this classification had been given, then armed police or departmental guards - and not unarmed AIMS staff - would have been responsible for these prisoners and the escape may not have occurred? Mrs M.H. ROBERTS replied: (1) That is a very good question and I hope that the independent inquiry will provide an answer. Mr M.W. Trenorden: What about you? The SPEAKER: Order, members! Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: My answer continues - (2) Had the prisoners been classified as high-security prisoners, they would have had a high-security escort. That much is obvious.
(2) Does the minister concede that if this classification had been given, then armed police or departmental guards - and not unarmed AIMS staff - would have been responsible for these prisoners and the escape may not have occurred? Mrs M.H. ROBERTS replied: (1) That is a very good question and I hope that the independent inquiry will provide an answer. Mr M.W. Trenorden: What about you? The SPEAKER: Order, members! Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: My answer continues - (2) Had the prisoners been classified as high-security prisoners, they would have had a high-security escort. That much is obvious.
Mrs M.H. ROBERTS replied: (1) That is a very good question and I hope that the independent inquiry will provide an answer. Mr M.W. Trenorden: What about you? The SPEAKER: Order, members! Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: My answer continues - (2) Had the prisoners been classified as high-security prisoners, they would have had a high-security escort. That much is obvious.
(1) That is a very good question and I hope that the independent inquiry will provide an answer. Mr M.W. Trenorden: What about you? The SPEAKER: Order, members! Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: My answer continues - (2) Had the prisoners been classified as high-security prisoners, they would have had a high-security escort. That much is obvious.
Mr M.W. Trenorden: What about you? The SPEAKER: Order, members! Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: My answer continues - (2) Had the prisoners been classified as high-security prisoners, they would have had a high-security escort. That much is obvious.
The SPEAKER: Order, members! Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: My answer continues - (2) Had the prisoners been classified as high-security prisoners, they would have had a high-security escort. That much is obvious.
Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: My answer continues - (2) Had the prisoners been classified as high-security prisoners, they would have had a high-security escort. That much is obvious.
(2) Had the prisoners been classified as high-security prisoners, they would have had a high-security escort. That much is obvious.
(1) Given that these prisoners were a mixed bag of armed robbers and sex offenders, and given that most of them were housed in different prisons because they were known to each other and presented a high security risk when brought together, why on earth did the minister’s department not classify them as high-security prisoners? (2) Does the minister concede that if this classification had been given, then armed police or departmental guards - and not unarmed AIMS staff - would have been responsible for these prisoners and the escape may not have occurred? Mrs M.H. ROBERTS replied: (1) That is a very good question and I hope that the independent inquiry will provide an answer. Mr M.W. Trenorden: What about you? The SPEAKER: Order, members! Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: My answer continues - (2) Had the prisoners been classified as high-security prisoners, they would have had a high-security escort. That much is obvious.
(2) Does the minister concede that if this classification had been given, then armed police or departmental guards - and not unarmed AIMS staff - would have been responsible for these prisoners and the escape may not have occurred? Mrs M.H. ROBERTS replied: (1) That is a very good question and I hope that the independent inquiry will provide an answer. Mr M.W. Trenorden: What about you? The SPEAKER: Order, members! Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: My answer continues - (2) Had the prisoners been classified as high-security prisoners, they would have had a high-security escort. That much is obvious.
Mrs M.H. ROBERTS replied: (1) That is a very good question and I hope that the independent inquiry will provide an answer. Mr M.W. Trenorden: What about you? The SPEAKER: Order, members! Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: My answer continues - (2) Had the prisoners been classified as high-security prisoners, they would have had a high-security escort. That much is obvious.
(1) That is a very good question and I hope that the independent inquiry will provide an answer. Mr M.W. Trenorden: What about you? The SPEAKER: Order, members! Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: My answer continues - (2) Had the prisoners been classified as high-security prisoners, they would have had a high-security escort. That much is obvious.
Mr M.W. Trenorden: What about you? The SPEAKER: Order, members! Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: My answer continues - (2) Had the prisoners been classified as high-security prisoners, they would have had a high-security escort. That much is obvious.
The SPEAKER: Order, members! Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: My answer continues - (2) Had the prisoners been classified as high-security prisoners, they would have had a high-security escort. That much is obvious.
Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: My answer continues - (2) Had the prisoners been classified as high-security prisoners, they would have had a high-security escort. That much is obvious.
(2) Had the prisoners been classified as high-security prisoners, they would have had a high-security escort. That much is obvious.
Explore WA Government Data
Search the full archive in the free dashboard, or query programmatically via API.
Explore more
Government Gazette
Appointments, regulatory notices, planning changes.
Hansard
Debates, questions, speeches and sentiment.
Tabled Papers
Reports and documents tabled in Parliament.
Committees
Committee profiles and recent reports.
Regulations
Subsidiary legislation with filters and summaries.
Bills
Proposed laws and parliamentary progress.
Acts
Current WA legislation and summaries.
Explanatory Memoranda
Bills with EMs (text/PDF) available.
Members
MP profiles, party breakdown and rankings.
Pollie Rankings
Data-driven rankings across 19 categories.
Amendment Chains
Track how schemes and regulations evolve over time.