❓ Question regarding the Attorney General's inaction in transferring convicted rapist Paul Stephen Keating to a maximum-security prison, potentially contributing to an attack on a prison worker. The Attorney General deflects responsibility to the Department of Justice and Minister for Justice.
AnsweredQoN 24Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
I refer to my questions of yesterday and the previous day when the Attorney refused to answer why he did not take action to ensure that convicted rapist Paul Stephen Keating was held in a maximum-security prison. (1) Is it true that the Attorney was made aware that Keating, a dangerous and unpredictable prisoner, was in Bunbury medium-security prison when the Parole Board asked for his approval for Keating to undertake a prerelease parole program in late 2004? (2) If so, why did the Attorney General not have him immediately transferred back to maximum security, given that the Attorney has acknowledged publicly, and I quote the Attorney General, that he is one of the “worst criminals in the state”? (3) Will the Attorney General now concede that his lack of due diligence in respect of Keating contributed to his horrendous attack on a prison education worker? Mr J.A. McGINTY
AnswerView source ↗
(1)-(3) I am not sure that part of the question is correct. I do not recollect a question being raised or a recommendation being received from the Parole Board in late 2004. The member has said that now on two occasions. I think he will find that the last time Keating was recommended to me was in the first half of 2004. He was also recommended to me for consideration for release on parole, from memory, in either 2002 or 2003. I gave those details yesterday in answer to a question. The specific answer to the question is that during my term as Attorney General, Keating was housed in three prisons. I made that point in response to the member’s question yesterday. I referred to Casuarina, Albany and Bunbury. The Parole Board and the prisons system thought that Keating was a person who should be prepared for release into the community. The Parole Board recommended that to me on two occasions. I rejected it. I said that I did not think it was an appropriate thing to do. I also made the point yesterday that Keating’s move between the prisons was done without reference to either the Minister for Justice or me. It was done as part of the prisoner classification system, which I understand will be looked into as part of the review announced by the Minister for Justice into the way prisoners are handled in Western Australia. Mr R.F. Johnson : In reference to seeking your approval for Keating to undertake the prerelease parole program in 2004, my information was that it was late 2004, but you say it was early 2004, but that is immaterial. My point is that as part of seeking your approval for Keating to be on the parole program, you were given advice regarding what prison he was in. It was a medium-security prison. Why didn’t you have him transferred back to a maximum-security prison after you described him as one of the worst criminals in the state? That is what I am trying to get an answer to. You have not answered it in the last two days. Mr J.A. McGINTY : I am sorry. Perhaps I can answer it by telling the member now. My job as the Attorney General is to decide on the recommendations that come from the Parole Board on whether people should be released on parole. I did that by sending back advice saying that the prisoner, in my view, should not be considered for release on parole, particularly because of his horrendous behaviour and his subsequent behaviour in prison. It gives me no satisfaction to have been proved right on this occasion in light of what occurred at Bunbury Regional Prison a couple of weeks ago. I sent back my note stating that this was not a person who should be considered for parole. It is then up to the Department of Justice to act on the matter. If somebody’s security rating has been lowered in preparation for release on parole, and when that recommendation is rejected, the normal course is for the Department of Justice to say that the person will not be released on parole. The purpose of reducing the security classification and moving to a new prison no longer exists; therefore, that person should be shifted back to the old arrangement. That has occurred in respect of a number of other prisoners. As Attorney General, I do not have day-to-day responsibility for the management of prisons. That is the responsibility of the Minister for Justice. That is the division in responsibility between the Attorney General and the Minister for Justice. I presume that the Department of Justice would have acted on the decision I made - that is, that this person would not be released on parole. I presume that the department would have acted on that and put him back into a secure classification. I do not become aware of that situation because the Department of Justice does not report to me in respect of prisoners. I think that is the answer to the member’s question. Mr M.J. Birney : Two weeks ago in The Australian you questioned why this fellow was being held in a medium-security prison in Bunbury. Why did you not question it at the time the Parole Board advised you he was there in 2004? Mr J.A. McGINTY : I have already answered that matter. When a recommendation is put to me by the Parole Board, and I say a person should not be released on parole - as I said in the Keating case - he should not be engaged in the prerelease program with that objective. The only reason Keating was in Bunbury was the administrative action taken by the Department of Justice as a precursor to his release on parole. Once that ceased to exist, he should have gone back to his normal classification, which is that of maximum security. I do not know why it did not occur. That was the very point I made in the interview with The Australian from which the member has just quoted. This is a person who was not going to be released on parole. His classification should have reverted, because the whole purpose of the Department of Justice’s putting him into a medium security prison was as a lead-up to his release on parole. Once that ceased to exist, his classification should have reverted.
(1) Is it true that the Attorney was made aware that Keating, a dangerous and unpredictable prisoner, was in Bunbury medium-security prison when the Parole Board asked for his approval for Keating to undertake a prerelease parole program in late 2004? (2) If so, why did the Attorney General not have him immediately transferred back to maximum security, given that the Attorney has acknowledged publicly, and I quote the Attorney General, that he is one of the “worst criminals in the state”? (3) Will the Attorney General now concede that his lack of due diligence in respect of Keating contributed to his horrendous attack on a prison education worker? Mr J.A. McGINTY replied: (1)-(3) I am not sure that part of the question is correct. I do not recollect a question being raised or a recommendation being received from the Parole Board in late 2004. The member has said that now on two occasions. I think he will find that the last time Keating was recommended to me was in the first half of 2004. He was also recommended to me for consideration for release on parole, from memory, in either 2002 or 2003. I gave those details yesterday in answer to a question. The specific answer to the question is that during my term as Attorney General, Keating was housed in three prisons. I made that point in response to the member’s question yesterday. I referred to Casuarina, Albany and Bunbury. The Parole Board and the prisons system thought that Keating was a person who should be prepared for release into the community. The Parole Board recommended that to me on two occasions. I rejected it. I said that I did not think it was an appropriate thing to do. I also made the point yesterday that Keating’s move between the prisons was done without reference to either the Minister for Justice or me. It was done as part of the prisoner classification system, which I understand will be looked into as part of the review announced by the Minister for Justice into the way prisoners are handled in Western Australia. Mr R.F. Johnson : In reference to seeking your approval for Keating to undertake the prerelease parole program in 2004, my information was that it was late 2004, but you say it was early 2004, but that is immaterial. My point is that as part of seeking your approval for Keating to be on the parole program, you were given advice regarding what prison he was in. It was a medium-security prison. Why didn’t you have him transferred back to a maximum-security prison after you described him as one of the worst criminals in the state? That is what I am trying to get an answer to. You have not answered it in the last two days. Mr J.A. McGINTY : I am sorry. Perhaps I can answer it by telling the member now. My job as the Attorney General is to decide on the recommendations that come from the Parole Board on whether people should be released on parole. I did that by sending back advice saying that the prisoner, in my view, should not be considered for release on parole, particularly because of his horrendous behaviour and his subsequent behaviour in prison. It gives me no satisfaction to have been proved right on this occasion in light of what occurred at Bunbury Regional Prison a couple of weeks ago. I sent back my note stating that this was not a person who should be considered for parole. It is then up to the Department of Justice to act on the matter. If somebody’s security rating has been lowered in preparation for release on parole, and when that recommendation is rejected, the normal course is for the Department of Justice to say that the person will not be released on parole. The purpose of reducing the security classification and moving to a new prison no longer exists; therefore, that person should be shifted back to the old arrangement. That has occurred in respect of a number of other prisoners. As Attorney General, I do not have day-to-day responsibility for the management of prisons. That is the responsibility of the Minister for Justice. That is the division in responsibility between the Attorney General and the Minister for Justice. I presume that the Department of Justice would have acted on the decision I made - that is, that this person would not be released on parole. I presume that the department would have acted on that and put him back into a secure classification. I do not become aware of that situation because the Department of Justice does not report to me in respect of prisoners. I think that is the answer to the member’s question. Mr M.J. Birney : Two weeks ago in The Australian you questioned why this fellow was being held in a medium-security prison in Bunbury. Why did you not question it at the time the Parole Board advised you he was there in 2004? Mr J.A. McGINTY : I have already answered that matter. When a recommendation is put to me by the Parole Board, and I say a person should not be released on parole - as I said in the Keating case - he should not be engaged in the prerelease program with that objective. The only reason Keating was in Bunbury was the administrative action taken by the Department of Justice as a precursor to his release on parole. Once that ceased to exist, he should have gone back to his normal classification, which is that of maximum security. I do not know why it did not occur. That was the very point I made in the interview with The Australian from which the member has just quoted. This is a person who was not going to be released on parole. His classification should have reverted, because the whole purpose of the Department of Justice’s putting him into a medium security prison was as a lead-up to his release on parole. Once that ceased to exist, his classification should have reverted.
(2) If so, why did the Attorney General not have him immediately transferred back to maximum security, given that the Attorney has acknowledged publicly, and I quote the Attorney General, that he is one of the “worst criminals in the state”? (3) Will the Attorney General now concede that his lack of due diligence in respect of Keating contributed to his horrendous attack on a prison education worker? Mr J.A. McGINTY replied: (1)-(3) I am not sure that part of the question is correct. I do not recollect a question being raised or a recommendation being received from the Parole Board in late 2004. The member has said that now on two occasions. I think he will find that the last time Keating was recommended to me was in the first half of 2004. He was also recommended to me for consideration for release on parole, from memory, in either 2002 or 2003. I gave those details yesterday in answer to a question. The specific answer to the question is that during my term as Attorney General, Keating was housed in three prisons. I made that point in response to the member’s question yesterday. I referred to Casuarina, Albany and Bunbury. The Parole Board and the prisons system thought that Keating was a person who should be prepared for release into the community. The Parole Board recommended that to me on two occasions. I rejected it. I said that I did not think it was an appropriate thing to do. I also made the point yesterday that Keating’s move between the prisons was done without reference to either the Minister for Justice or me. It was done as part of the prisoner classification system, which I understand will be looked into as part of the review announced by the Minister for Justice into the way prisoners are handled in Western Australia. Mr R.F. Johnson : In reference to seeking your approval for Keating to undertake the prerelease parole program in 2004, my information was that it was late 2004, but you say it was early 2004, but that is immaterial. My point is that as part of seeking your approval for Keating to be on the parole program, you were given advice regarding what prison he was in. It was a medium-security prison. Why didn’t you have him transferred back to a maximum-security prison after you described him as one of the worst criminals in the state? That is what I am trying to get an answer to. You have not answered it in the last two days. Mr J.A. McGINTY : I am sorry. Perhaps I can answer it by telling the member now. My job as the Attorney General is to decide on the recommendations that come from the Parole Board on whether people should be released on parole. I did that by sending back advice saying that the prisoner, in my view, should not be considered for release on parole, particularly because of his horrendous behaviour and his subsequent behaviour in prison. It gives me no satisfaction to have been proved right on this occasion in light of what occurred at Bunbury Regional Prison a couple of weeks ago. I sent back my note stating that this was not a person who should be considered for parole. It is then up to the Department of Justice to act on the matter. If somebody’s security rating has been lowered in preparation for release on parole, and when that recommendation is rejected, the normal course is for the Department of Justice to say that the person will not be released on parole. The purpose of reducing the security classification and moving to a new prison no longer exists; therefore, that person should be shifted back to the old arrangement. That has occurred in respect of a number of other prisoners. As Attorney General, I do not have day-to-day responsibility for the management of prisons. That is the responsibility of the Minister for Justice. That is the division in responsibility between the Attorney General and the Minister for Justice. I presume that the Department of Justice would have acted on the decision I made - that is, that this person would not be released on parole. I presume that the department would have acted on that and put him back into a secure classification. I do not become aware of that situation because the Department of Justice does not report to me in respect of prisoners. I think that is the answer to the member’s question. Mr M.J. Birney : Two weeks ago in The Australian you questioned why this fellow was being held in a medium-security prison in Bunbury. Why did you not question it at the time the Parole Board advised you he was there in 2004? Mr J.A. McGINTY : I have already answered that matter. When a recommendation is put to me by the Parole Board, and I say a person should not be released on parole - as I said in the Keating case - he should not be engaged in the prerelease program with that objective. The only reason Keating was in Bunbury was the administrative action taken by the Department of Justice as a precursor to his release on parole. Once that ceased to exist, he should have gone back to his normal classification, which is that of maximum security. I do not know why it did not occur. That was the very point I made in the interview with The Australian from which the member has just quoted. This is a person who was not going to be released on parole. His classification should have reverted, because the whole purpose of the Department of Justice’s putting him into a medium security prison was as a lead-up to his release on parole. Once that ceased to exist, his classification should have reverted.
(3) Will the Attorney General now concede that his lack of due diligence in respect of Keating contributed to his horrendous attack on a prison education worker? Mr J.A. McGINTY replied: (1)-(3) I am not sure that part of the question is correct. I do not recollect a question being raised or a recommendation being received from the Parole Board in late 2004. The member has said that now on two occasions. I think he will find that the last time Keating was recommended to me was in the first half of 2004. He was also recommended to me for consideration for release on parole, from memory, in either 2002 or 2003. I gave those details yesterday in answer to a question. The specific answer to the question is that during my term as Attorney General, Keating was housed in three prisons. I made that point in response to the member’s question yesterday. I referred to Casuarina, Albany and Bunbury. The Parole Board and the prisons system thought that Keating was a person who should be prepared for release into the community. The Parole Board recommended that to me on two occasions. I rejected it. I said that I did not think it was an appropriate thing to do. I also made the point yesterday that Keating’s move between the prisons was done without reference to either the Minister for Justice or me. It was done as part of the prisoner classification system, which I understand will be looked into as part of the review announced by the Minister for Justice into the way prisoners are handled in Western Australia. Mr R.F. Johnson : In reference to seeking your approval for Keating to undertake the prerelease parole program in 2004, my information was that it was late 2004, but you say it was early 2004, but that is immaterial. My point is that as part of seeking your approval for Keating to be on the parole program, you were given advice regarding what prison he was in. It was a medium-security prison. Why didn’t you have him transferred back to a maximum-security prison after you described him as one of the worst criminals in the state? That is what I am trying to get an answer to. You have not answered it in the last two days. Mr J.A. McGINTY : I am sorry. Perhaps I can answer it by telling the member now. My job as the Attorney General is to decide on the recommendations that come from the Parole Board on whether people should be released on parole. I did that by sending back advice saying that the prisoner, in my view, should not be considered for release on parole, particularly because of his horrendous behaviour and his subsequent behaviour in prison. It gives me no satisfaction to have been proved right on this occasion in light of what occurred at Bunbury Regional Prison a couple of weeks ago. I sent back my note stating that this was not a person who should be considered for parole. It is then up to the Department of Justice to act on the matter. If somebody’s security rating has been lowered in preparation for release on parole, and when that recommendation is rejected, the normal course is for the Department of Justice to say that the person will not be released on parole. The purpose of reducing the security classification and moving to a new prison no longer exists; therefore, that person should be shifted back to the old arrangement. That has occurred in respect of a number of other prisoners. As Attorney General, I do not have day-to-day responsibility for the management of prisons. That is the responsibility of the Minister for Justice. That is the division in responsibility between the Attorney General and the Minister for Justice. I presume that the Department of Justice would have acted on the decision I made - that is, that this person would not be released on parole. I presume that the department would have acted on that and put him back into a secure classification. I do not become aware of that situation because the Department of Justice does not report to me in respect of prisoners. I think that is the answer to the member’s question. Mr M.J. Birney : Two weeks ago in The Australian you questioned why this fellow was being held in a medium-security prison in Bunbury. Why did you not question it at the time the Parole Board advised you he was there in 2004? Mr J.A. McGINTY : I have already answered that matter. When a recommendation is put to me by the Parole Board, and I say a person should not be released on parole - as I said in the Keating case - he should not be engaged in the prerelease program with that objective. The only reason Keating was in Bunbury was the administrative action taken by the Department of Justice as a precursor to his release on parole. Once that ceased to exist, he should have gone back to his normal classification, which is that of maximum security. I do not know why it did not occur. That was the very point I made in the interview with The Australian from which the member has just quoted. This is a person who was not going to be released on parole. His classification should have reverted, because the whole purpose of the Department of Justice’s putting him into a medium security prison was as a lead-up to his release on parole. Once that ceased to exist, his classification should have reverted.
Mr J.A. McGINTY replied: (1)-(3) I am not sure that part of the question is correct. I do not recollect a question being raised or a recommendation being received from the Parole Board in late 2004. The member has said that now on two occasions. I think he will find that the last time Keating was recommended to me was in the first half of 2004. He was also recommended to me for consideration for release on parole, from memory, in either 2002 or 2003. I gave those details yesterday in answer to a question. The specific answer to the question is that during my term as Attorney General, Keating was housed in three prisons. I made that point in response to the member’s question yesterday. I referred to Casuarina, Albany and Bunbury. The Parole Board and the prisons system thought that Keating was a person who should be prepared for release into the community. The Parole Board recommended that to me on two occasions. I rejected it. I said that I did not think it was an appropriate thing to do. I also made the point yesterday that Keating’s move between the prisons was done without reference to either the Minister for Justice or me. It was done as part of the prisoner classification system, which I understand will be looked into as part of the review announced by the Minister for Justice into the way prisoners are handled in Western Australia. Mr R.F. Johnson : In reference to seeking your approval for Keating to undertake the prerelease parole program in 2004, my information was that it was late 2004, but you say it was early 2004, but that is immaterial. My point is that as part of seeking your approval for Keating to be on the parole program, you were given advice regarding what prison he was in. It was a medium-security prison. Why didn’t you have him transferred back to a maximum-security prison after you described him as one of the worst criminals in the state? That is what I am trying to get an answer to. You have not answered it in the last two days. Mr J.A. McGINTY : I am sorry. Perhaps I can answer it by telling the member now. My job as the Attorney General is to decide on the recommendations that come from the Parole Board on whether people should be released on parole. I did that by sending back advice saying that the prisoner, in my view, should not be considered for release on parole, particularly because of his horrendous behaviour and his subsequent behaviour in prison. It gives me no satisfaction to have been proved right on this occasion in light of what occurred at Bunbury Regional Prison a couple of weeks ago. I sent back my note stating that this was not a person who should be considered for parole. It is then up to the Department of Justice to act on the matter. If somebody’s security rating has been lowered in preparation for release on parole, and when that recommendation is rejected, the normal course is for the Department of Justice to say that the person will not be released on parole. The purpose of reducing the security classification and moving to a new prison no longer exists; therefore, that person should be shifted back to the old arrangement. That has occurred in respect of a number of other prisoners. As Attorney General, I do not have day-to-day responsibility for the management of prisons. That is the responsibility of the Minister for Justice. That is the division in responsibility between the Attorney General and the Minister for Justice. I presume that the Department of Justice would have acted on the decision I made - that is, that this person would not be released on parole. I presume that the department would have acted on that and put him back into a secure classification. I do not become aware of that situation because the Department of Justice does not report to me in respect of prisoners. I think that is the answer to the member’s question. Mr M.J. Birney : Two weeks ago in The Australian you questioned why this fellow was being held in a medium-security prison in Bunbury. Why did you not question it at the time the Parole Board advised you he was there in 2004? Mr J.A. McGINTY : I have already answered that matter. When a recommendation is put to me by the Parole Board, and I say a person should not be released on parole - as I said in the Keating case - he should not be engaged in the prerelease program with that objective. The only reason Keating was in Bunbury was the administrative action taken by the Department of Justice as a precursor to his release on parole. Once that ceased to exist, he should have gone back to his normal classification, which is that of maximum security. I do not know why it did not occur. That was the very point I made in the interview with The Australian from which the member has just quoted. This is a person who was not going to be released on parole. His classification should have reverted, because the whole purpose of the Department of Justice’s putting him into a medium security prison was as a lead-up to his release on parole. Once that ceased to exist, his classification should have reverted.
(1)-(3) I am not sure that part of the question is correct. I do not recollect a question being raised or a recommendation being received from the Parole Board in late 2004. The member has said that now on two occasions. I think he will find that the last time Keating was recommended to me was in the first half of 2004. He was also recommended to me for consideration for release on parole, from memory, in either 2002 or 2003. I gave those details yesterday in answer to a question. The specific answer to the question is that during my term as Attorney General, Keating was housed in three prisons. I made that point in response to the member’s question yesterday. I referred to Casuarina, Albany and Bunbury. The Parole Board and the prisons system thought that Keating was a person who should be prepared for release into the community. The Parole Board recommended that to me on two occasions. I rejected it. I said that I did not think it was an appropriate thing to do. I also made the point yesterday that Keating’s move between the prisons was done without reference to either the Minister for Justice or me. It was done as part of the prisoner classification system, which I understand will be looked into as part of the review announced by the Minister for Justice into the way prisoners are handled in Western Australia. Mr R.F. Johnson : In reference to seeking your approval for Keating to undertake the prerelease parole program in 2004, my information was that it was late 2004, but you say it was early 2004, but that is immaterial. My point is that as part of seeking your approval for Keating to be on the parole program, you were given advice regarding what prison he was in. It was a medium-security prison. Why didn’t you have him transferred back to a maximum-security prison after you described him as one of the worst criminals in the state? That is what I am trying to get an answer to. You have not answered it in the last two days. Mr J.A. McGINTY : I am sorry. Perhaps I can answer it by telling the member now. My job as the Attorney General is to decide on the recommendations that come from the Parole Board on whether people should be released on parole. I did that by sending back advice saying that the prisoner, in my view, should not be considered for release on parole, particularly because of his horrendous behaviour and his subsequent behaviour in prison. It gives me no satisfaction to have been proved right on this occasion in light of what occurred at Bunbury Regional Prison a couple of weeks ago. I sent back my note stating that this was not a person who should be considered for parole. It is then up to the Department of Justice to act on the matter. If somebody’s security rating has been lowered in preparation for release on parole, and when that recommendation is rejected, the normal course is for the Department of Justice to say that the person will not be released on parole. The purpose of reducing the security classification and moving to a new prison no longer exists; therefore, that person should be shifted back to the old arrangement. That has occurred in respect of a number of other prisoners. As Attorney General, I do not have day-to-day responsibility for the management of prisons. That is the responsibility of the Minister for Justice. That is the division in responsibility between the Attorney General and the Minister for Justice. I presume that the Department of Justice would have acted on the decision I made - that is, that this person would not be released on parole. I presume that the department would have acted on that and put him back into a secure classification. I do not become aware of that situation because the Department of Justice does not report to me in respect of prisoners. I think that is the answer to the member’s question. Mr M.J. Birney : Two weeks ago in The Australian you questioned why this fellow was being held in a medium-security prison in Bunbury. Why did you not question it at the time the Parole Board advised you he was there in 2004? Mr J.A. McGINTY : I have already answered that matter. When a recommendation is put to me by the Parole Board, and I say a person should not be released on parole - as I said in the Keating case - he should not be engaged in the prerelease program with that objective. The only reason Keating was in Bunbury was the administrative action taken by the Department of Justice as a precursor to his release on parole. Once that ceased to exist, he should have gone back to his normal classification, which is that of maximum security. I do not know why it did not occur. That was the very point I made in the interview with The Australian from which the member has just quoted. This is a person who was not going to be released on parole. His classification should have reverted, because the whole purpose of the Department of Justice’s putting him into a medium security prison was as a lead-up to his release on parole. Once that ceased to exist, his classification should have reverted.
The specific answer to the question is that during my term as Attorney General, Keating was housed in three prisons. I made that point in response to the member’s question yesterday. I referred to Casuarina, Albany and Bunbury. The Parole Board and the prisons system thought that Keating was a person who should be prepared for release into the community. The Parole Board recommended that to me on two occasions. I rejected it. I said that I did not think it was an appropriate thing to do. I also made the point yesterday that Keating’s move between the prisons was done without reference to either the Minister for Justice or me. It was done as part of the prisoner classification system, which I understand will be looked into as part of the review announced by the Minister for Justice into the way prisoners are handled in Western Australia. Mr R.F. Johnson : In reference to seeking your approval for Keating to undertake the prerelease parole program in 2004, my information was that it was late 2004, but you say it was early 2004, but that is immaterial. My point is that as part of seeking your approval for Keating to be on the parole program, you were given advice regarding what prison he was in. It was a medium-security prison. Why didn’t you have him transferred back to a maximum-security prison after you described him as one of the worst criminals in the state? That is what I am trying to get an answer to. You have not answered it in the last two days. Mr J.A. McGINTY : I am sorry. Perhaps I can answer it by telling the member now. My job as the Attorney General is to decide on the recommendations that come from the Parole Board on whether people should be released on parole. I did that by sending back advice saying that the prisoner, in my view, should not be considered for release on parole, particularly because of his horrendous behaviour and his subsequent behaviour in prison. It gives me no satisfaction to have been proved right on this occasion in light of what occurred at Bunbury Regional Prison a couple of weeks ago. I sent back my note stating that this was not a person who should be considered for parole. It is then up to the Department of Justice to act on the matter. If somebody’s security rating has been lowered in preparation for release on parole, and when that recommendation is rejected, the normal course is for the Department of Justice to say that the person will not be released on parole. The purpose of reducing the security classification and moving to a new prison no longer exists; therefore, that person should be shifted back to the old arrangement. That has occurred in respect of a number of other prisoners. As Attorney General, I do not have day-to-day responsibility for the management of prisons. That is the responsibility of the Minister for Justice. That is the division in responsibility between the Attorney General and the Minister for Justice. I presume that the Department of Justice would have acted on the decision I made - that is, that this person would not be released on parole. I presume that the department would have acted on that and put him back into a secure classification. I do not become aware of that situation because the Department of Justice does not report to me in respect of prisoners. I think that is the answer to the member’s question. Mr M.J. Birney : Two weeks ago in The Australian you questioned why this fellow was being held in a medium-security prison in Bunbury. Why did you not question it at the time the Parole Board advised you he was there in 2004? Mr J.A. McGINTY : I have already answered that matter. When a recommendation is put to me by the Parole Board, and I say a person should not be released on parole - as I said in the Keating case - he should not be engaged in the prerelease program with that objective. The only reason Keating was in Bunbury was the administrative action taken by the Department of Justice as a precursor to his release on parole. Once that ceased to exist, he should have gone back to his normal classification, which is that of maximum security. I do not know why it did not occur. That was the very point I made in the interview with The Australian from which the member has just quoted. This is a person who was not going to be released on parole. His classification should have reverted, because the whole purpose of the Department of Justice’s putting him into a medium security prison was as a lead-up to his release on parole. Once that ceased to exist, his classification should have reverted.
Mr R.F. Johnson : In reference to seeking your approval for Keating to undertake the prerelease parole program in 2004, my information was that it was late 2004, but you say it was early 2004, but that is immaterial. My point is that as part of seeking your approval for Keating to be on the parole program, you were given advice regarding what prison he was in. It was a medium-security prison. Why didn’t you have him transferred back to a maximum-security prison after you described him as one of the worst criminals in the state? That is what I am trying to get an answer to. You have not answered it in the last two days. Mr J.A. McGINTY : I am sorry. Perhaps I can answer it by telling the member now. My job as the Attorney General is to decide on the recommendations that come from the Parole Board on whether people should be released on parole. I did that by sending back advice saying that the prisoner, in my view, should not be considered for release on parole, particularly because of his horrendous behaviour and his subsequent behaviour in prison. It gives me no satisfaction to have been proved right on this occasion in light of what occurred at Bunbury Regional Prison a couple of weeks ago. I sent back my note stating that this was not a person who should be considered for parole. It is then up to the Department of Justice to act on the matter. If somebody’s security rating has been lowered in preparation for release on parole, and when that recommendation is rejected, the normal course is for the Department of Justice to say that the person will not be released on parole. The purpose of reducing the security classification and moving to a new prison no longer exists; therefore, that person should be shifted back to the old arrangement. That has occurred in respect of a number of other prisoners. As Attorney General, I do not have day-to-day responsibility for the management of prisons. That is the responsibility of the Minister for Justice. That is the division in responsibility between the Attorney General and the Minister for Justice. I presume that the Department of Justice would have acted on the decision I made - that is, that this person would not be released on parole. I presume that the department would have acted on that and put him back into a secure classification. I do not become aware of that situation because the Department of Justice does not report to me in respect of prisoners. I think that is the answer to the member’s question. Mr M.J. Birney : Two weeks ago in The Australian you questioned why this fellow was being held in a medium-security prison in Bunbury. Why did you not question it at the time the Parole Board advised you he was there in 2004? Mr J.A. McGINTY : I have already answered that matter. When a recommendation is put to me by the Parole Board, and I say a person should not be released on parole - as I said in the Keating case - he should not be engaged in the prerelease program with that objective. The only reason Keating was in Bunbury was the administrative action taken by the Department of Justice as a precursor to his release on parole. Once that ceased to exist, he should have gone back to his normal classification, which is that of maximum security. I do not know why it did not occur. That was the very point I made in the interview with The Australian from which the member has just quoted. This is a person who was not going to be released on parole. His classification should have reverted, because the whole purpose of the Department of Justice’s putting him into a medium security prison was as a lead-up to his release on parole. Once that ceased to exist, his classification should have reverted.
Mr J.A. McGINTY : I am sorry. Perhaps I can answer it by telling the member now. My job as the Attorney General is to decide on the recommendations that come from the Parole Board on whether people should be released on parole. I did that by sending back advice saying that the prisoner, in my view, should not be considered for release on parole, particularly because of his horrendous behaviour and his subsequent behaviour in prison. It gives me no satisfaction to have been proved right on this occasion in light of what occurred at Bunbury Regional Prison a couple of weeks ago. I sent back my note stating that this was not a person who should be considered for parole. It is then up to the Department of Justice to act on the matter. If somebody’s security rating has been lowered in preparation for release on parole, and when that recommendation is rejected, the normal course is for the Department of Justice to say that the person will not be released on parole. The purpose of reducing the security classification and moving to a new prison no longer exists; therefore, that person should be shifted back to the old arrangement. That has occurred in respect of a number of other prisoners. As Attorney General, I do not have day-to-day responsibility for the management of prisons. That is the responsibility of the Minister for Justice. That is the division in responsibility between the Attorney General and the Minister for Justice. I presume that the Department of Justice would have acted on the decision I made - that is, that this person would not be released on parole. I presume that the department would have acted on that and put him back into a secure classification. I do not become aware of that situation because the Department of Justice does not report to me in respect of prisoners. I think that is the answer to the member’s question. Mr M.J. Birney : Two weeks ago in The Australian you questioned why this fellow was being held in a medium-security prison in Bunbury. Why did you not question it at the time the Parole Board advised you he was there in 2004? Mr J.A. McGINTY : I have already answered that matter. When a recommendation is put to me by the Parole Board, and I say a person should not be released on parole - as I said in the Keating case - he should not be engaged in the prerelease program with that objective. The only reason Keating was in Bunbury was the administrative action taken by the Department of Justice as a precursor to his release on parole. Once that ceased to exist, he should have gone back to his normal classification, which is that of maximum security. I do not know why it did not occur. That was the very point I made in the interview with The Australian from which the member has just quoted. This is a person who was not going to be released on parole. His classification should have reverted, because the whole purpose of the Department of Justice’s putting him into a medium security prison was as a lead-up to his release on parole. Once that ceased to exist, his classification should have reverted.
Mr M.J. Birney : Two weeks ago in The Australian you questioned why this fellow was being held in a medium-security prison in Bunbury. Why did you not question it at the time the Parole Board advised you he was there in 2004? Mr J.A. McGINTY : I have already answered that matter. When a recommendation is put to me by the Parole Board, and I say a person should not be released on parole - as I said in the Keating case - he should not be engaged in the prerelease program with that objective. The only reason Keating was in Bunbury was the administrative action taken by the Department of Justice as a precursor to his release on parole. Once that ceased to exist, he should have gone back to his normal classification, which is that of maximum security. I do not know why it did not occur. That was the very point I made in the interview with The Australian from which the member has just quoted. This is a person who was not going to be released on parole. His classification should have reverted, because the whole purpose of the Department of Justice’s putting him into a medium security prison was as a lead-up to his release on parole. Once that ceased to exist, his classification should have reverted.
Mr J.A. McGINTY : I have already answered that matter. When a recommendation is put to me by the Parole Board, and I say a person should not be released on parole - as I said in the Keating case - he should not be engaged in the prerelease program with that objective. The only reason Keating was in Bunbury was the administrative action taken by the Department of Justice as a precursor to his release on parole. Once that ceased to exist, he should have gone back to his normal classification, which is that of maximum security. I do not know why it did not occur. That was the very point I made in the interview with The Australian from which the member has just quoted. This is a person who was not going to be released on parole. His classification should have reverted, because the whole purpose of the Department of Justice’s putting him into a medium security prison was as a lead-up to his release on parole. Once that ceased to exist, his classification should have reverted.
(1) Is it true that the Attorney was made aware that Keating, a dangerous and unpredictable prisoner, was in Bunbury medium-security prison when the Parole Board asked for his approval for Keating to undertake a prerelease parole program in late 2004? (2) If so, why did the Attorney General not have him immediately transferred back to maximum security, given that the Attorney has acknowledged publicly, and I quote the Attorney General, that he is one of the “worst criminals in the state”? (3) Will the Attorney General now concede that his lack of due diligence in respect of Keating contributed to his horrendous attack on a prison education worker? Mr J.A. McGINTY replied: (1)-(3) I am not sure that part of the question is correct. I do not recollect a question being raised or a recommendation being received from the Parole Board in late 2004. The member has said that now on two occasions. I think he will find that the last time Keating was recommended to me was in the first half of 2004. He was also recommended to me for consideration for release on parole, from memory, in either 2002 or 2003. I gave those details yesterday in answer to a question. The specific answer to the question is that during my term as Attorney General, Keating was housed in three prisons. I made that point in response to the member’s question yesterday. I referred to Casuarina, Albany and Bunbury. The Parole Board and the prisons system thought that Keating was a person who should be prepared for release into the community. The Parole Board recommended that to me on two occasions. I rejected it. I said that I did not think it was an appropriate thing to do. I also made the point yesterday that Keating’s move between the prisons was done without reference to either the Minister for Justice or me. It was done as part of the prisoner classification system, which I understand will be looked into as part of the review announced by the Minister for Justice into the way prisoners are handled in Western Australia. Mr R.F. Johnson : In reference to seeking your approval for Keating to undertake the prerelease parole program in 2004, my information was that it was late 2004, but you say it was early 2004, but that is immaterial. My point is that as part of seeking your approval for Keating to be on the parole program, you were given advice regarding what prison he was in. It was a medium-security prison. Why didn’t you have him transferred back to a maximum-security prison after you described him as one of the worst criminals in the state? That is what I am trying to get an answer to. You have not answered it in the last two days. Mr J.A. McGINTY : I am sorry. Perhaps I can answer it by telling the member now. My job as the Attorney General is to decide on the recommendations that come from the Parole Board on whether people should be released on parole. I did that by sending back advice saying that the prisoner, in my view, should not be considered for release on parole, particularly because of his horrendous behaviour and his subsequent behaviour in prison. It gives me no satisfaction to have been proved right on this occasion in light of what occurred at Bunbury Regional Prison a couple of weeks ago. I sent back my note stating that this was not a person who should be considered for parole. It is then up to the Department of Justice to act on the matter. If somebody’s security rating has been lowered in preparation for release on parole, and when that recommendation is rejected, the normal course is for the Department of Justice to say that the person will not be released on parole. The purpose of reducing the security classification and moving to a new prison no longer exists; therefore, that person should be shifted back to the old arrangement. That has occurred in respect of a number of other prisoners. As Attorney General, I do not have day-to-day responsibility for the management of prisons. That is the responsibility of the Minister for Justice. That is the division in responsibility between the Attorney General and the Minister for Justice. I presume that the Department of Justice would have acted on the decision I made - that is, that this person would not be released on parole. I presume that the department would have acted on that and put him back into a secure classification. I do not become aware of that situation because the Department of Justice does not report to me in respect of prisoners. I think that is the answer to the member’s question. Mr M.J. Birney : Two weeks ago in The Australian you questioned why this fellow was being held in a medium-security prison in Bunbury. Why did you not question it at the time the Parole Board advised you he was there in 2004? Mr J.A. McGINTY : I have already answered that matter. When a recommendation is put to me by the Parole Board, and I say a person should not be released on parole - as I said in the Keating case - he should not be engaged in the prerelease program with that objective. The only reason Keating was in Bunbury was the administrative action taken by the Department of Justice as a precursor to his release on parole. Once that ceased to exist, he should have gone back to his normal classification, which is that of maximum security. I do not know why it did not occur. That was the very point I made in the interview with The Australian from which the member has just quoted. This is a person who was not going to be released on parole. His classification should have reverted, because the whole purpose of the Department of Justice’s putting him into a medium security prison was as a lead-up to his release on parole. Once that ceased to exist, his classification should have reverted.
(2) If so, why did the Attorney General not have him immediately transferred back to maximum security, given that the Attorney has acknowledged publicly, and I quote the Attorney General, that he is one of the “worst criminals in the state”? (3) Will the Attorney General now concede that his lack of due diligence in respect of Keating contributed to his horrendous attack on a prison education worker? Mr J.A. McGINTY replied: (1)-(3) I am not sure that part of the question is correct. I do not recollect a question being raised or a recommendation being received from the Parole Board in late 2004. The member has said that now on two occasions. I think he will find that the last time Keating was recommended to me was in the first half of 2004. He was also recommended to me for consideration for release on parole, from memory, in either 2002 or 2003. I gave those details yesterday in answer to a question. The specific answer to the question is that during my term as Attorney General, Keating was housed in three prisons. I made that point in response to the member’s question yesterday. I referred to Casuarina, Albany and Bunbury. The Parole Board and the prisons system thought that Keating was a person who should be prepared for release into the community. The Parole Board recommended that to me on two occasions. I rejected it. I said that I did not think it was an appropriate thing to do. I also made the point yesterday that Keating’s move between the prisons was done without reference to either the Minister for Justice or me. It was done as part of the prisoner classification system, which I understand will be looked into as part of the review announced by the Minister for Justice into the way prisoners are handled in Western Australia. Mr R.F. Johnson : In reference to seeking your approval for Keating to undertake the prerelease parole program in 2004, my information was that it was late 2004, but you say it was early 2004, but that is immaterial. My point is that as part of seeking your approval for Keating to be on the parole program, you were given advice regarding what prison he was in. It was a medium-security prison. Why didn’t you have him transferred back to a maximum-security prison after you described him as one of the worst criminals in the state? That is what I am trying to get an answer to. You have not answered it in the last two days. Mr J.A. McGINTY : I am sorry. Perhaps I can answer it by telling the member now. My job as the Attorney General is to decide on the recommendations that come from the Parole Board on whether people should be released on parole. I did that by sending back advice saying that the prisoner, in my view, should not be considered for release on parole, particularly because of his horrendous behaviour and his subsequent behaviour in prison. It gives me no satisfaction to have been proved right on this occasion in light of what occurred at Bunbury Regional Prison a couple of weeks ago. I sent back my note stating that this was not a person who should be considered for parole. It is then up to the Department of Justice to act on the matter. If somebody’s security rating has been lowered in preparation for release on parole, and when that recommendation is rejected, the normal course is for the Department of Justice to say that the person will not be released on parole. The purpose of reducing the security classification and moving to a new prison no longer exists; therefore, that person should be shifted back to the old arrangement. That has occurred in respect of a number of other prisoners. As Attorney General, I do not have day-to-day responsibility for the management of prisons. That is the responsibility of the Minister for Justice. That is the division in responsibility between the Attorney General and the Minister for Justice. I presume that the Department of Justice would have acted on the decision I made - that is, that this person would not be released on parole. I presume that the department would have acted on that and put him back into a secure classification. I do not become aware of that situation because the Department of Justice does not report to me in respect of prisoners. I think that is the answer to the member’s question. Mr M.J. Birney : Two weeks ago in The Australian you questioned why this fellow was being held in a medium-security prison in Bunbury. Why did you not question it at the time the Parole Board advised you he was there in 2004? Mr J.A. McGINTY : I have already answered that matter. When a recommendation is put to me by the Parole Board, and I say a person should not be released on parole - as I said in the Keating case - he should not be engaged in the prerelease program with that objective. The only reason Keating was in Bunbury was the administrative action taken by the Department of Justice as a precursor to his release on parole. Once that ceased to exist, he should have gone back to his normal classification, which is that of maximum security. I do not know why it did not occur. That was the very point I made in the interview with The Australian from which the member has just quoted. This is a person who was not going to be released on parole. His classification should have reverted, because the whole purpose of the Department of Justice’s putting him into a medium security prison was as a lead-up to his release on parole. Once that ceased to exist, his classification should have reverted.
(3) Will the Attorney General now concede that his lack of due diligence in respect of Keating contributed to his horrendous attack on a prison education worker? Mr J.A. McGINTY replied: (1)-(3) I am not sure that part of the question is correct. I do not recollect a question being raised or a recommendation being received from the Parole Board in late 2004. The member has said that now on two occasions. I think he will find that the last time Keating was recommended to me was in the first half of 2004. He was also recommended to me for consideration for release on parole, from memory, in either 2002 or 2003. I gave those details yesterday in answer to a question. The specific answer to the question is that during my term as Attorney General, Keating was housed in three prisons. I made that point in response to the member’s question yesterday. I referred to Casuarina, Albany and Bunbury. The Parole Board and the prisons system thought that Keating was a person who should be prepared for release into the community. The Parole Board recommended that to me on two occasions. I rejected it. I said that I did not think it was an appropriate thing to do. I also made the point yesterday that Keating’s move between the prisons was done without reference to either the Minister for Justice or me. It was done as part of the prisoner classification system, which I understand will be looked into as part of the review announced by the Minister for Justice into the way prisoners are handled in Western Australia. Mr R.F. Johnson : In reference to seeking your approval for Keating to undertake the prerelease parole program in 2004, my information was that it was late 2004, but you say it was early 2004, but that is immaterial. My point is that as part of seeking your approval for Keating to be on the parole program, you were given advice regarding what prison he was in. It was a medium-security prison. Why didn’t you have him transferred back to a maximum-security prison after you described him as one of the worst criminals in the state? That is what I am trying to get an answer to. You have not answered it in the last two days. Mr J.A. McGINTY : I am sorry. Perhaps I can answer it by telling the member now. My job as the Attorney General is to decide on the recommendations that come from the Parole Board on whether people should be released on parole. I did that by sending back advice saying that the prisoner, in my view, should not be considered for release on parole, particularly because of his horrendous behaviour and his subsequent behaviour in prison. It gives me no satisfaction to have been proved right on this occasion in light of what occurred at Bunbury Regional Prison a couple of weeks ago. I sent back my note stating that this was not a person who should be considered for parole. It is then up to the Department of Justice to act on the matter. If somebody’s security rating has been lowered in preparation for release on parole, and when that recommendation is rejected, the normal course is for the Department of Justice to say that the person will not be released on parole. The purpose of reducing the security classification and moving to a new prison no longer exists; therefore, that person should be shifted back to the old arrangement. That has occurred in respect of a number of other prisoners. As Attorney General, I do not have day-to-day responsibility for the management of prisons. That is the responsibility of the Minister for Justice. That is the division in responsibility between the Attorney General and the Minister for Justice. I presume that the Department of Justice would have acted on the decision I made - that is, that this person would not be released on parole. I presume that the department would have acted on that and put him back into a secure classification. I do not become aware of that situation because the Department of Justice does not report to me in respect of prisoners. I think that is the answer to the member’s question. Mr M.J. Birney : Two weeks ago in The Australian you questioned why this fellow was being held in a medium-security prison in Bunbury. Why did you not question it at the time the Parole Board advised you he was there in 2004? Mr J.A. McGINTY : I have already answered that matter. When a recommendation is put to me by the Parole Board, and I say a person should not be released on parole - as I said in the Keating case - he should not be engaged in the prerelease program with that objective. The only reason Keating was in Bunbury was the administrative action taken by the Department of Justice as a precursor to his release on parole. Once that ceased to exist, he should have gone back to his normal classification, which is that of maximum security. I do not know why it did not occur. That was the very point I made in the interview with The Australian from which the member has just quoted. This is a person who was not going to be released on parole. His classification should have reverted, because the whole purpose of the Department of Justice’s putting him into a medium security prison was as a lead-up to his release on parole. Once that ceased to exist, his classification should have reverted.
Mr J.A. McGINTY replied: (1)-(3) I am not sure that part of the question is correct. I do not recollect a question being raised or a recommendation being received from the Parole Board in late 2004. The member has said that now on two occasions. I think he will find that the last time Keating was recommended to me was in the first half of 2004. He was also recommended to me for consideration for release on parole, from memory, in either 2002 or 2003. I gave those details yesterday in answer to a question. The specific answer to the question is that during my term as Attorney General, Keating was housed in three prisons. I made that point in response to the member’s question yesterday. I referred to Casuarina, Albany and Bunbury. The Parole Board and the prisons system thought that Keating was a person who should be prepared for release into the community. The Parole Board recommended that to me on two occasions. I rejected it. I said that I did not think it was an appropriate thing to do. I also made the point yesterday that Keating’s move between the prisons was done without reference to either the Minister for Justice or me. It was done as part of the prisoner classification system, which I understand will be looked into as part of the review announced by the Minister for Justice into the way prisoners are handled in Western Australia. Mr R.F. Johnson : In reference to seeking your approval for Keating to undertake the prerelease parole program in 2004, my information was that it was late 2004, but you say it was early 2004, but that is immaterial. My point is that as part of seeking your approval for Keating to be on the parole program, you were given advice regarding what prison he was in. It was a medium-security prison. Why didn’t you have him transferred back to a maximum-security prison after you described him as one of the worst criminals in the state? That is what I am trying to get an answer to. You have not answered it in the last two days. Mr J.A. McGINTY : I am sorry. Perhaps I can answer it by telling the member now. My job as the Attorney General is to decide on the recommendations that come from the Parole Board on whether people should be released on parole. I did that by sending back advice saying that the prisoner, in my view, should not be considered for release on parole, particularly because of his horrendous behaviour and his subsequent behaviour in prison. It gives me no satisfaction to have been proved right on this occasion in light of what occurred at Bunbury Regional Prison a couple of weeks ago. I sent back my note stating that this was not a person who should be considered for parole. It is then up to the Department of Justice to act on the matter. If somebody’s security rating has been lowered in preparation for release on parole, and when that recommendation is rejected, the normal course is for the Department of Justice to say that the person will not be released on parole. The purpose of reducing the security classification and moving to a new prison no longer exists; therefore, that person should be shifted back to the old arrangement. That has occurred in respect of a number of other prisoners. As Attorney General, I do not have day-to-day responsibility for the management of prisons. That is the responsibility of the Minister for Justice. That is the division in responsibility between the Attorney General and the Minister for Justice. I presume that the Department of Justice would have acted on the decision I made - that is, that this person would not be released on parole. I presume that the department would have acted on that and put him back into a secure classification. I do not become aware of that situation because the Department of Justice does not report to me in respect of prisoners. I think that is the answer to the member’s question. Mr M.J. Birney : Two weeks ago in The Australian you questioned why this fellow was being held in a medium-security prison in Bunbury. Why did you not question it at the time the Parole Board advised you he was there in 2004? Mr J.A. McGINTY : I have already answered that matter. When a recommendation is put to me by the Parole Board, and I say a person should not be released on parole - as I said in the Keating case - he should not be engaged in the prerelease program with that objective. The only reason Keating was in Bunbury was the administrative action taken by the Department of Justice as a precursor to his release on parole. Once that ceased to exist, he should have gone back to his normal classification, which is that of maximum security. I do not know why it did not occur. That was the very point I made in the interview with The Australian from which the member has just quoted. This is a person who was not going to be released on parole. His classification should have reverted, because the whole purpose of the Department of Justice’s putting him into a medium security prison was as a lead-up to his release on parole. Once that ceased to exist, his classification should have reverted.
(1)-(3) I am not sure that part of the question is correct. I do not recollect a question being raised or a recommendation being received from the Parole Board in late 2004. The member has said that now on two occasions. I think he will find that the last time Keating was recommended to me was in the first half of 2004. He was also recommended to me for consideration for release on parole, from memory, in either 2002 or 2003. I gave those details yesterday in answer to a question. The specific answer to the question is that during my term as Attorney General, Keating was housed in three prisons. I made that point in response to the member’s question yesterday. I referred to Casuarina, Albany and Bunbury. The Parole Board and the prisons system thought that Keating was a person who should be prepared for release into the community. The Parole Board recommended that to me on two occasions. I rejected it. I said that I did not think it was an appropriate thing to do. I also made the point yesterday that Keating’s move between the prisons was done without reference to either the Minister for Justice or me. It was done as part of the prisoner classification system, which I understand will be looked into as part of the review announced by the Minister for Justice into the way prisoners are handled in Western Australia. Mr R.F. Johnson : In reference to seeking your approval for Keating to undertake the prerelease parole program in 2004, my information was that it was late 2004, but you say it was early 2004, but that is immaterial. My point is that as part of seeking your approval for Keating to be on the parole program, you were given advice regarding what prison he was in. It was a medium-security prison. Why didn’t you have him transferred back to a maximum-security prison after you described him as one of the worst criminals in the state? That is what I am trying to get an answer to. You have not answered it in the last two days. Mr J.A. McGINTY : I am sorry. Perhaps I can answer it by telling the member now. My job as the Attorney General is to decide on the recommendations that come from the Parole Board on whether people should be released on parole. I did that by sending back advice saying that the prisoner, in my view, should not be considered for release on parole, particularly because of his horrendous behaviour and his subsequent behaviour in prison. It gives me no satisfaction to have been proved right on this occasion in light of what occurred at Bunbury Regional Prison a couple of weeks ago. I sent back my note stating that this was not a person who should be considered for parole. It is then up to the Department of Justice to act on the matter. If somebody’s security rating has been lowered in preparation for release on parole, and when that recommendation is rejected, the normal course is for the Department of Justice to say that the person will not be released on parole. The purpose of reducing the security classification and moving to a new prison no longer exists; therefore, that person should be shifted back to the old arrangement. That has occurred in respect of a number of other prisoners. As Attorney General, I do not have day-to-day responsibility for the management of prisons. That is the responsibility of the Minister for Justice. That is the division in responsibility between the Attorney General and the Minister for Justice. I presume that the Department of Justice would have acted on the decision I made - that is, that this person would not be released on parole. I presume that the department would have acted on that and put him back into a secure classification. I do not become aware of that situation because the Department of Justice does not report to me in respect of prisoners. I think that is the answer to the member’s question. Mr M.J. Birney : Two weeks ago in The Australian you questioned why this fellow was being held in a medium-security prison in Bunbury. Why did you not question it at the time the Parole Board advised you he was there in 2004? Mr J.A. McGINTY : I have already answered that matter. When a recommendation is put to me by the Parole Board, and I say a person should not be released on parole - as I said in the Keating case - he should not be engaged in the prerelease program with that objective. The only reason Keating was in Bunbury was the administrative action taken by the Department of Justice as a precursor to his release on parole. Once that ceased to exist, he should have gone back to his normal classification, which is that of maximum security. I do not know why it did not occur. That was the very point I made in the interview with The Australian from which the member has just quoted. This is a person who was not going to be released on parole. His classification should have reverted, because the whole purpose of the Department of Justice’s putting him into a medium security prison was as a lead-up to his release on parole. Once that ceased to exist, his classification should have reverted.
The specific answer to the question is that during my term as Attorney General, Keating was housed in three prisons. I made that point in response to the member’s question yesterday. I referred to Casuarina, Albany and Bunbury. The Parole Board and the prisons system thought that Keating was a person who should be prepared for release into the community. The Parole Board recommended that to me on two occasions. I rejected it. I said that I did not think it was an appropriate thing to do. I also made the point yesterday that Keating’s move between the prisons was done without reference to either the Minister for Justice or me. It was done as part of the prisoner classification system, which I understand will be looked into as part of the review announced by the Minister for Justice into the way prisoners are handled in Western Australia. Mr R.F. Johnson : In reference to seeking your approval for Keating to undertake the prerelease parole program in 2004, my information was that it was late 2004, but you say it was early 2004, but that is immaterial. My point is that as part of seeking your approval for Keating to be on the parole program, you were given advice regarding what prison he was in. It was a medium-security prison. Why didn’t you have him transferred back to a maximum-security prison after you described him as one of the worst criminals in the state? That is what I am trying to get an answer to. You have not answered it in the last two days. Mr J.A. McGINTY : I am sorry. Perhaps I can answer it by telling the member now. My job as the Attorney General is to decide on the recommendations that come from the Parole Board on whether people should be released on parole. I did that by sending back advice saying that the prisoner, in my view, should not be considered for release on parole, particularly because of his horrendous behaviour and his subsequent behaviour in prison. It gives me no satisfaction to have been proved right on this occasion in light of what occurred at Bunbury Regional Prison a couple of weeks ago. I sent back my note stating that this was not a person who should be considered for parole. It is then up to the Department of Justice to act on the matter. If somebody’s security rating has been lowered in preparation for release on parole, and when that recommendation is rejected, the normal course is for the Department of Justice to say that the person will not be released on parole. The purpose of reducing the security classification and moving to a new prison no longer exists; therefore, that person should be shifted back to the old arrangement. That has occurred in respect of a number of other prisoners. As Attorney General, I do not have day-to-day responsibility for the management of prisons. That is the responsibility of the Minister for Justice. That is the division in responsibility between the Attorney General and the Minister for Justice. I presume that the Department of Justice would have acted on the decision I made - that is, that this person would not be released on parole. I presume that the department would have acted on that and put him back into a secure classification. I do not become aware of that situation because the Department of Justice does not report to me in respect of prisoners. I think that is the answer to the member’s question. Mr M.J. Birney : Two weeks ago in The Australian you questioned why this fellow was being held in a medium-security prison in Bunbury. Why did you not question it at the time the Parole Board advised you he was there in 2004? Mr J.A. McGINTY : I have already answered that matter. When a recommendation is put to me by the Parole Board, and I say a person should not be released on parole - as I said in the Keating case - he should not be engaged in the prerelease program with that objective. The only reason Keating was in Bunbury was the administrative action taken by the Department of Justice as a precursor to his release on parole. Once that ceased to exist, he should have gone back to his normal classification, which is that of maximum security. I do not know why it did not occur. That was the very point I made in the interview with The Australian from which the member has just quoted. This is a person who was not going to be released on parole. His classification should have reverted, because the whole purpose of the Department of Justice’s putting him into a medium security prison was as a lead-up to his release on parole. Once that ceased to exist, his classification should have reverted.
Mr R.F. Johnson : In reference to seeking your approval for Keating to undertake the prerelease parole program in 2004, my information was that it was late 2004, but you say it was early 2004, but that is immaterial. My point is that as part of seeking your approval for Keating to be on the parole program, you were given advice regarding what prison he was in. It was a medium-security prison. Why didn’t you have him transferred back to a maximum-security prison after you described him as one of the worst criminals in the state? That is what I am trying to get an answer to. You have not answered it in the last two days. Mr J.A. McGINTY : I am sorry. Perhaps I can answer it by telling the member now. My job as the Attorney General is to decide on the recommendations that come from the Parole Board on whether people should be released on parole. I did that by sending back advice saying that the prisoner, in my view, should not be considered for release on parole, particularly because of his horrendous behaviour and his subsequent behaviour in prison. It gives me no satisfaction to have been proved right on this occasion in light of what occurred at Bunbury Regional Prison a couple of weeks ago. I sent back my note stating that this was not a person who should be considered for parole. It is then up to the Department of Justice to act on the matter. If somebody’s security rating has been lowered in preparation for release on parole, and when that recommendation is rejected, the normal course is for the Department of Justice to say that the person will not be released on parole. The purpose of reducing the security classification and moving to a new prison no longer exists; therefore, that person should be shifted back to the old arrangement. That has occurred in respect of a number of other prisoners. As Attorney General, I do not have day-to-day responsibility for the management of prisons. That is the responsibility of the Minister for Justice. That is the division in responsibility between the Attorney General and the Minister for Justice. I presume that the Department of Justice would have acted on the decision I made - that is, that this person would not be released on parole. I presume that the department would have acted on that and put him back into a secure classification. I do not become aware of that situation because the Department of Justice does not report to me in respect of prisoners. I think that is the answer to the member’s question. Mr M.J. Birney : Two weeks ago in The Australian you questioned why this fellow was being held in a medium-security prison in Bunbury. Why did you not question it at the time the Parole Board advised you he was there in 2004? Mr J.A. McGINTY : I have already answered that matter. When a recommendation is put to me by the Parole Board, and I say a person should not be released on parole - as I said in the Keating case - he should not be engaged in the prerelease program with that objective. The only reason Keating was in Bunbury was the administrative action taken by the Department of Justice as a precursor to his release on parole. Once that ceased to exist, he should have gone back to his normal classification, which is that of maximum security. I do not know why it did not occur. That was the very point I made in the interview with The Australian from which the member has just quoted. This is a person who was not going to be released on parole. His classification should have reverted, because the whole purpose of the Department of Justice’s putting him into a medium security prison was as a lead-up to his release on parole. Once that ceased to exist, his classification should have reverted.
Mr J.A. McGINTY : I am sorry. Perhaps I can answer it by telling the member now. My job as the Attorney General is to decide on the recommendations that come from the Parole Board on whether people should be released on parole. I did that by sending back advice saying that the prisoner, in my view, should not be considered for release on parole, particularly because of his horrendous behaviour and his subsequent behaviour in prison. It gives me no satisfaction to have been proved right on this occasion in light of what occurred at Bunbury Regional Prison a couple of weeks ago. I sent back my note stating that this was not a person who should be considered for parole. It is then up to the Department of Justice to act on the matter. If somebody’s security rating has been lowered in preparation for release on parole, and when that recommendation is rejected, the normal course is for the Department of Justice to say that the person will not be released on parole. The purpose of reducing the security classification and moving to a new prison no longer exists; therefore, that person should be shifted back to the old arrangement. That has occurred in respect of a number of other prisoners. As Attorney General, I do not have day-to-day responsibility for the management of prisons. That is the responsibility of the Minister for Justice. That is the division in responsibility between the Attorney General and the Minister for Justice. I presume that the Department of Justice would have acted on the decision I made - that is, that this person would not be released on parole. I presume that the department would have acted on that and put him back into a secure classification. I do not become aware of that situation because the Department of Justice does not report to me in respect of prisoners. I think that is the answer to the member’s question. Mr M.J. Birney : Two weeks ago in The Australian you questioned why this fellow was being held in a medium-security prison in Bunbury. Why did you not question it at the time the Parole Board advised you he was there in 2004? Mr J.A. McGINTY : I have already answered that matter. When a recommendation is put to me by the Parole Board, and I say a person should not be released on parole - as I said in the Keating case - he should not be engaged in the prerelease program with that objective. The only reason Keating was in Bunbury was the administrative action taken by the Department of Justice as a precursor to his release on parole. Once that ceased to exist, he should have gone back to his normal classification, which is that of maximum security. I do not know why it did not occur. That was the very point I made in the interview with The Australian from which the member has just quoted. This is a person who was not going to be released on parole. His classification should have reverted, because the whole purpose of the Department of Justice’s putting him into a medium security prison was as a lead-up to his release on parole. Once that ceased to exist, his classification should have reverted.
Mr M.J. Birney : Two weeks ago in The Australian you questioned why this fellow was being held in a medium-security prison in Bunbury. Why did you not question it at the time the Parole Board advised you he was there in 2004? Mr J.A. McGINTY : I have already answered that matter. When a recommendation is put to me by the Parole Board, and I say a person should not be released on parole - as I said in the Keating case - he should not be engaged in the prerelease program with that objective. The only reason Keating was in Bunbury was the administrative action taken by the Department of Justice as a precursor to his release on parole. Once that ceased to exist, he should have gone back to his normal classification, which is that of maximum security. I do not know why it did not occur. That was the very point I made in the interview with The Australian from which the member has just quoted. This is a person who was not going to be released on parole. His classification should have reverted, because the whole purpose of the Department of Justice’s putting him into a medium security prison was as a lead-up to his release on parole. Once that ceased to exist, his classification should have reverted.
Mr J.A. McGINTY : I have already answered that matter. When a recommendation is put to me by the Parole Board, and I say a person should not be released on parole - as I said in the Keating case - he should not be engaged in the prerelease program with that objective. The only reason Keating was in Bunbury was the administrative action taken by the Department of Justice as a precursor to his release on parole. Once that ceased to exist, he should have gone back to his normal classification, which is that of maximum security. I do not know why it did not occur. That was the very point I made in the interview with The Australian from which the member has just quoted. This is a person who was not going to be released on parole. His classification should have reverted, because the whole purpose of the Department of Justice’s putting him into a medium security prison was as a lead-up to his release on parole. Once that ceased to exist, his classification should have reverted.
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.