❓ Ms Walker questions the Minister for Justice regarding changes to the parole process for high-risk offenders, specifically the cessation of independent psychiatric assessments. The Minister avoids directly answering, citing an ongoing independent review and accusing the opposition of political point-scoring.
AnsweredQoN 970Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
I refer the minister to the former Government’s policy that required all high-risk offenders eligible for parole to undergo an independent forensic psychiatric assessment, which was then forwarded to the Parole Board of Western Australia for its consideration prior to any decision to release a prisoner. (1) Will the minister confirm that these psychiatric assessments, which also included a recommendation on the likelihood of reoffending, are no longer being undertaken prior to the parole of high-risk offenders? (2) Will the minister also confirm that as a result, the Parole Board does not have the benefit of a thorough psychiatric assessment of high-risk offenders when ascertaining whether they should be paroled? (3) Will the minister also confirm that the Parole Board no longer receives any recommendation from a forensic psychiatrist to shape the conditions of a high-risk offender’s parole, including the need for community-based programs such as anger management and drug counselling? Mrs M.H. ROBERTS
AnswerView source ↗
I cannot confirm the matters that the member for Nedlands has asked me to confirm. However, the advice from the department is that no changes have been made by this Government that impacted on the events that occurred with the offender being at large. Rather than jump to hasty conclusions about who was responsible and why, members should wait until the independent report on the matter is available. Members opposite have made a political issue of the matter, but more importantly it is being independently and apolitically reviewed by someone of integrity. The report will be short and sharp. I have asked that the report take only one month so that the Government will be in a position to come to a conclusion about what occurred and why, rather than engage with members opposite in petty political point scoring. This matter is about someone who has lost her life and other people who were taken hostage; it is a very serious matter. It is not a matter for cheap political point scoring. The matter must be thoroughly examined in an appropriate and independent way. When the Government has received the report of the independent investigation, all members will be in a much better position to comment on the events that occurred. Members could say many things off the top of their head about this matter; however, the Government must ensure that procedural fairness is applied to each and every member of the Department of Justice and that the matter is dealt with appropriately under the Public Sector Management Act. I have been advised that no change was made by this Government that adversely impacted on the outcome of the events of the other day. I suggest that members opposite wait for that independent review, rather than try to score cheap political points out of someone dying and other people being taken hostage.
(1) Will the minister confirm that these psychiatric assessments, which also included a recommendation on the likelihood of reoffending, are no longer being undertaken prior to the parole of high-risk offenders? (2) Will the minister also confirm that as a result, the Parole Board does not have the benefit of a thorough psychiatric assessment of high-risk offenders when ascertaining whether they should be paroled? (3) Will the minister also confirm that the Parole Board no longer receives any recommendation from a forensic psychiatrist to shape the conditions of a high-risk offender’s parole, including the need for community-based programs such as anger management and drug counselling? Mrs M.H. ROBERTS replied: I cannot confirm the matters that the member for Nedlands has asked me to confirm. However, the advice from the department is that no changes have been made by this Government that impacted on the events that occurred with the offender being at large. Rather than jump to hasty conclusions about who was responsible and why, members should wait until the independent report on the matter is available. Members opposite have made a political issue of the matter, but more importantly it is being independently and apolitically reviewed by someone of integrity. The report will be short and sharp. I have asked that the report take only one month so that the Government will be in a position to come to a conclusion about what occurred and why, rather than engage with members opposite in petty political point scoring. This matter is about someone who has lost her life and other people who were taken hostage; it is a very serious matter. It is not a matter for cheap political point scoring. The matter must be thoroughly examined in an appropriate and independent way. When the Government has received the report of the independent investigation, all members will be in a much better position to comment on the events that occurred. Members could say many things off the top of their head about this matter; however, the Government must ensure that procedural fairness is applied to each and every member of the Department of Justice and that the matter is dealt with appropriately under the Public Sector Management Act. I have been advised that no change was made by this Government that adversely impacted on the outcome of the events of the other day. I suggest that members opposite wait for that independent review, rather than try to score cheap political points out of someone dying and other people being taken hostage.
(2) Will the minister also confirm that as a result, the Parole Board does not have the benefit of a thorough psychiatric assessment of high-risk offenders when ascertaining whether they should be paroled? (3) Will the minister also confirm that the Parole Board no longer receives any recommendation from a forensic psychiatrist to shape the conditions of a high-risk offender’s parole, including the need for community-based programs such as anger management and drug counselling? Mrs M.H. ROBERTS replied: I cannot confirm the matters that the member for Nedlands has asked me to confirm. However, the advice from the department is that no changes have been made by this Government that impacted on the events that occurred with the offender being at large. Rather than jump to hasty conclusions about who was responsible and why, members should wait until the independent report on the matter is available. Members opposite have made a political issue of the matter, but more importantly it is being independently and apolitically reviewed by someone of integrity. The report will be short and sharp. I have asked that the report take only one month so that the Government will be in a position to come to a conclusion about what occurred and why, rather than engage with members opposite in petty political point scoring. This matter is about someone who has lost her life and other people who were taken hostage; it is a very serious matter. It is not a matter for cheap political point scoring. The matter must be thoroughly examined in an appropriate and independent way. When the Government has received the report of the independent investigation, all members will be in a much better position to comment on the events that occurred. Members could say many things off the top of their head about this matter; however, the Government must ensure that procedural fairness is applied to each and every member of the Department of Justice and that the matter is dealt with appropriately under the Public Sector Management Act. I have been advised that no change was made by this Government that adversely impacted on the outcome of the events of the other day. I suggest that members opposite wait for that independent review, rather than try to score cheap political points out of someone dying and other people being taken hostage.
(3) Will the minister also confirm that the Parole Board no longer receives any recommendation from a forensic psychiatrist to shape the conditions of a high-risk offender’s parole, including the need for community-based programs such as anger management and drug counselling? Mrs M.H. ROBERTS replied: I cannot confirm the matters that the member for Nedlands has asked me to confirm. However, the advice from the department is that no changes have been made by this Government that impacted on the events that occurred with the offender being at large. Rather than jump to hasty conclusions about who was responsible and why, members should wait until the independent report on the matter is available. Members opposite have made a political issue of the matter, but more importantly it is being independently and apolitically reviewed by someone of integrity. The report will be short and sharp. I have asked that the report take only one month so that the Government will be in a position to come to a conclusion about what occurred and why, rather than engage with members opposite in petty political point scoring. This matter is about someone who has lost her life and other people who were taken hostage; it is a very serious matter. It is not a matter for cheap political point scoring. The matter must be thoroughly examined in an appropriate and independent way. When the Government has received the report of the independent investigation, all members will be in a much better position to comment on the events that occurred. Members could say many things off the top of their head about this matter; however, the Government must ensure that procedural fairness is applied to each and every member of the Department of Justice and that the matter is dealt with appropriately under the Public Sector Management Act. I have been advised that no change was made by this Government that adversely impacted on the outcome of the events of the other day. I suggest that members opposite wait for that independent review, rather than try to score cheap political points out of someone dying and other people being taken hostage.
Mrs M.H. ROBERTS replied: I cannot confirm the matters that the member for Nedlands has asked me to confirm. However, the advice from the department is that no changes have been made by this Government that impacted on the events that occurred with the offender being at large. Rather than jump to hasty conclusions about who was responsible and why, members should wait until the independent report on the matter is available. Members opposite have made a political issue of the matter, but more importantly it is being independently and apolitically reviewed by someone of integrity. The report will be short and sharp. I have asked that the report take only one month so that the Government will be in a position to come to a conclusion about what occurred and why, rather than engage with members opposite in petty political point scoring. This matter is about someone who has lost her life and other people who were taken hostage; it is a very serious matter. It is not a matter for cheap political point scoring. The matter must be thoroughly examined in an appropriate and independent way. When the Government has received the report of the independent investigation, all members will be in a much better position to comment on the events that occurred. Members could say many things off the top of their head about this matter; however, the Government must ensure that procedural fairness is applied to each and every member of the Department of Justice and that the matter is dealt with appropriately under the Public Sector Management Act. I have been advised that no change was made by this Government that adversely impacted on the outcome of the events of the other day. I suggest that members opposite wait for that independent review, rather than try to score cheap political points out of someone dying and other people being taken hostage.
I cannot confirm the matters that the member for Nedlands has asked me to confirm. However, the advice from the department is that no changes have been made by this Government that impacted on the events that occurred with the offender being at large. Rather than jump to hasty conclusions about who was responsible and why, members should wait until the independent report on the matter is available. Members opposite have made a political issue of the matter, but more importantly it is being independently and apolitically reviewed by someone of integrity. The report will be short and sharp. I have asked that the report take only one month so that the Government will be in a position to come to a conclusion about what occurred and why, rather than engage with members opposite in petty political point scoring. This matter is about someone who has lost her life and other people who were taken hostage; it is a very serious matter. It is not a matter for cheap political point scoring. The matter must be thoroughly examined in an appropriate and independent way. When the Government has received the report of the independent investigation, all members will be in a much better position to comment on the events that occurred. Members could say many things off the top of their head about this matter; however, the Government must ensure that procedural fairness is applied to each and every member of the Department of Justice and that the matter is dealt with appropriately under the Public Sector Management Act. I have been advised that no change was made by this Government that adversely impacted on the outcome of the events of the other day. I suggest that members opposite wait for that independent review, rather than try to score cheap political points out of someone dying and other people being taken hostage.
(1) Will the minister confirm that these psychiatric assessments, which also included a recommendation on the likelihood of reoffending, are no longer being undertaken prior to the parole of high-risk offenders? (2) Will the minister also confirm that as a result, the Parole Board does not have the benefit of a thorough psychiatric assessment of high-risk offenders when ascertaining whether they should be paroled? (3) Will the minister also confirm that the Parole Board no longer receives any recommendation from a forensic psychiatrist to shape the conditions of a high-risk offender’s parole, including the need for community-based programs such as anger management and drug counselling? Mrs M.H. ROBERTS replied: I cannot confirm the matters that the member for Nedlands has asked me to confirm. However, the advice from the department is that no changes have been made by this Government that impacted on the events that occurred with the offender being at large. Rather than jump to hasty conclusions about who was responsible and why, members should wait until the independent report on the matter is available. Members opposite have made a political issue of the matter, but more importantly it is being independently and apolitically reviewed by someone of integrity. The report will be short and sharp. I have asked that the report take only one month so that the Government will be in a position to come to a conclusion about what occurred and why, rather than engage with members opposite in petty political point scoring. This matter is about someone who has lost her life and other people who were taken hostage; it is a very serious matter. It is not a matter for cheap political point scoring. The matter must be thoroughly examined in an appropriate and independent way. When the Government has received the report of the independent investigation, all members will be in a much better position to comment on the events that occurred. Members could say many things off the top of their head about this matter; however, the Government must ensure that procedural fairness is applied to each and every member of the Department of Justice and that the matter is dealt with appropriately under the Public Sector Management Act. I have been advised that no change was made by this Government that adversely impacted on the outcome of the events of the other day. I suggest that members opposite wait for that independent review, rather than try to score cheap political points out of someone dying and other people being taken hostage.
(2) Will the minister also confirm that as a result, the Parole Board does not have the benefit of a thorough psychiatric assessment of high-risk offenders when ascertaining whether they should be paroled? (3) Will the minister also confirm that the Parole Board no longer receives any recommendation from a forensic psychiatrist to shape the conditions of a high-risk offender’s parole, including the need for community-based programs such as anger management and drug counselling? Mrs M.H. ROBERTS replied: I cannot confirm the matters that the member for Nedlands has asked me to confirm. However, the advice from the department is that no changes have been made by this Government that impacted on the events that occurred with the offender being at large. Rather than jump to hasty conclusions about who was responsible and why, members should wait until the independent report on the matter is available. Members opposite have made a political issue of the matter, but more importantly it is being independently and apolitically reviewed by someone of integrity. The report will be short and sharp. I have asked that the report take only one month so that the Government will be in a position to come to a conclusion about what occurred and why, rather than engage with members opposite in petty political point scoring. This matter is about someone who has lost her life and other people who were taken hostage; it is a very serious matter. It is not a matter for cheap political point scoring. The matter must be thoroughly examined in an appropriate and independent way. When the Government has received the report of the independent investigation, all members will be in a much better position to comment on the events that occurred. Members could say many things off the top of their head about this matter; however, the Government must ensure that procedural fairness is applied to each and every member of the Department of Justice and that the matter is dealt with appropriately under the Public Sector Management Act. I have been advised that no change was made by this Government that adversely impacted on the outcome of the events of the other day. I suggest that members opposite wait for that independent review, rather than try to score cheap political points out of someone dying and other people being taken hostage.
(3) Will the minister also confirm that the Parole Board no longer receives any recommendation from a forensic psychiatrist to shape the conditions of a high-risk offender’s parole, including the need for community-based programs such as anger management and drug counselling? Mrs M.H. ROBERTS replied: I cannot confirm the matters that the member for Nedlands has asked me to confirm. However, the advice from the department is that no changes have been made by this Government that impacted on the events that occurred with the offender being at large. Rather than jump to hasty conclusions about who was responsible and why, members should wait until the independent report on the matter is available. Members opposite have made a political issue of the matter, but more importantly it is being independently and apolitically reviewed by someone of integrity. The report will be short and sharp. I have asked that the report take only one month so that the Government will be in a position to come to a conclusion about what occurred and why, rather than engage with members opposite in petty political point scoring. This matter is about someone who has lost her life and other people who were taken hostage; it is a very serious matter. It is not a matter for cheap political point scoring. The matter must be thoroughly examined in an appropriate and independent way. When the Government has received the report of the independent investigation, all members will be in a much better position to comment on the events that occurred. Members could say many things off the top of their head about this matter; however, the Government must ensure that procedural fairness is applied to each and every member of the Department of Justice and that the matter is dealt with appropriately under the Public Sector Management Act. I have been advised that no change was made by this Government that adversely impacted on the outcome of the events of the other day. I suggest that members opposite wait for that independent review, rather than try to score cheap political points out of someone dying and other people being taken hostage.
Mrs M.H. ROBERTS replied: I cannot confirm the matters that the member for Nedlands has asked me to confirm. However, the advice from the department is that no changes have been made by this Government that impacted on the events that occurred with the offender being at large. Rather than jump to hasty conclusions about who was responsible and why, members should wait until the independent report on the matter is available. Members opposite have made a political issue of the matter, but more importantly it is being independently and apolitically reviewed by someone of integrity. The report will be short and sharp. I have asked that the report take only one month so that the Government will be in a position to come to a conclusion about what occurred and why, rather than engage with members opposite in petty political point scoring. This matter is about someone who has lost her life and other people who were taken hostage; it is a very serious matter. It is not a matter for cheap political point scoring. The matter must be thoroughly examined in an appropriate and independent way. When the Government has received the report of the independent investigation, all members will be in a much better position to comment on the events that occurred. Members could say many things off the top of their head about this matter; however, the Government must ensure that procedural fairness is applied to each and every member of the Department of Justice and that the matter is dealt with appropriately under the Public Sector Management Act. I have been advised that no change was made by this Government that adversely impacted on the outcome of the events of the other day. I suggest that members opposite wait for that independent review, rather than try to score cheap political points out of someone dying and other people being taken hostage.
I cannot confirm the matters that the member for Nedlands has asked me to confirm. However, the advice from the department is that no changes have been made by this Government that impacted on the events that occurred with the offender being at large. Rather than jump to hasty conclusions about who was responsible and why, members should wait until the independent report on the matter is available. Members opposite have made a political issue of the matter, but more importantly it is being independently and apolitically reviewed by someone of integrity. The report will be short and sharp. I have asked that the report take only one month so that the Government will be in a position to come to a conclusion about what occurred and why, rather than engage with members opposite in petty political point scoring. This matter is about someone who has lost her life and other people who were taken hostage; it is a very serious matter. It is not a matter for cheap political point scoring. The matter must be thoroughly examined in an appropriate and independent way. When the Government has received the report of the independent investigation, all members will be in a much better position to comment on the events that occurred. Members could say many things off the top of their head about this matter; however, the Government must ensure that procedural fairness is applied to each and every member of the Department of Justice and that the matter is dealt with appropriately under the Public Sector Management Act. I have been advised that no change was made by this Government that adversely impacted on the outcome of the events of the other day. I suggest that members opposite wait for that independent review, rather than try to score cheap political points out of someone dying and other people being taken hostage.
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.