❓ Opposition questions the Attorney General about the consultation process for a bill removing references to God from oaths. The Attorney General defends the bill's intention and claims reliance on a Chief Justice report indicating support from religious leaders, while admitting the initial assessment was incorrect and promising amendments.
AnsweredQoN 165Legislative Assembly
Asked
6 April 2004
Member
QuestionView source ↗
I refer the Attorney General to his proposal to remove any reference to God from oaths taken in Western Australia. Dr G.I. Gallop: You are a bit behind the times! The SPEAKER: Order, members! Mr C.J. BARNETT: The Premier laughed at the issue last week, so I am not surprised he is laughing at it today. The Premier can keep laughing at God if he wants to, if that is his attitude. I refer the Premier - Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order, members! Mr C.J. BARNETT: That is the way government members treated the issue last week, so they should keep laughing. People are watching and listening. I refer the Attorney General to his proposal to delete any reference to God from oaths taken in Western Australia; and, while I thank him for listening to the strong objections of the Liberal Party and religious leaders, I nevertheless ask - (1) Can the Attorney General confirm that he did not undertake any consultation with any religious leaders before introducing into Parliament the Oaths, Affidavits and Statutory Declarations Bill 2003? (2) Will the Attorney General now admit that he misled this House when he claimed that the religious leaders of Perth were consulted and they supported the recommendation of the Chief Justice? Mr J.A. McGINTY
AnswerView source ↗
(1)-(2) The intention of the legislation was to extend to all Western Australians the capacity to swear an oath based upon their religious beliefs. A range of people cannot currently do that because of the nature of the oath that is involved. Ms S.E. Walker: That is not true. The SPEAKER: Order, member for Nedlands! Mr J.A. McGINTY: I repeat that there are some Western Australian citizens who cannot swear an oath based upon their religious beliefs, because - Mr P.G. Pendal: They can make an affirmation. The SPEAKER: Order, members! Mr J.A. McGINTY: That is right. They can make an affirmation. They cannot swear on the basis of their religious beliefs. Several members interjected. Mr J.A. McGINTY: A little bit of wax out of the ears for everyone over there! Listening time! I will repeat it again, because obviously nobody heard it the first time - members opposite did not: The intention behind this legislation was to extend to all Western Australians the capacity to swear an oath based upon their religious beliefs. A range of Western Australian citizens, who nonetheless hold religious beliefs, currently cannot do that, but would like to, I am sure, be able to swear an oath when they go to court to give evidence based upon their religious beliefs. That was the motivation. I do not know that anyone in this House would object to that. I received a written report, which I have tabled in this House. Ms S.E. Walker: You did not do your homework. The SPEAKER: Order, members! Mr R.F. Johnson interjected. The SPEAKER: Order! I call the member for Nedlands and the member for Hillarys to order for the first time. Mr J.A. McGINTY: I received a written report from the Chief Justice of Western Australia on this very issue. Mr P.D. Omodei: Did you consult with the clergy? The SPEAKER: Order! I call the member for Warren-Blackwood to order for the second time Mr P.D. Omodei: That still does not answer the question. The SPEAKER: Order! I call the member for Warren-Blackwood to order for the third time. Mr J.A. McGINTY: I received a written report from the Chief Justice of Western Australia recommending the changes. He said in that report that he had consulted with religious leaders, that he had consulted with ethnic community leaders and that he had consulted with the judiciary. To the extent of that consultation, there was support - in some cases strong support - for the recommendation that came forward. I make this point very clear: it was brought forward with an honest intention to expand the range of people who could swear according to their religious beliefs. It was brought forward on the basis of a recommendation from the Chief Justice. We were advised and believed that it had the support of ethnic communities, the judiciary and the religious leaders. That is what the report said. Mr P.D. Omodei: That is not what the report said. Mr J.A. McGINTY: I have already tabled the report. It transpired that when the legislation was brought forward, most religious leaders said they did not support the change being made. When that became apparent, we very quickly responded and said that if it did not have the support of the people who were directly affected by it, we did not wish to proceed. It was brought forward only on the basis that this was a consensus position recommended to me by the Chief Justice of Western Australia, with support from those other groups. In light of this new development, I have spoken to officers of both the Anglican and Catholic Archbishops and have advised them that we intend to adopt a position that is consistent with their stated position and will bring in an amendment - as I announced over the weekend - that will result in something very similar to what is contained in the commonwealth Evidence Act. That will achieve the objective that we set out to achieve, which is to enable all Western Australians to swear an oath based upon their religious beliefs, if they have religious beliefs, but also retain the capacity for people to swear by Almighty God if that is their wish. I believe the amendment that we will bring forward will meet the issues that have been raised by the religious communities, as well as the objective that we set out to achieve in the first place.
Dr G.I. Gallop: You are a bit behind the times! The SPEAKER: Order, members! Mr C.J. BARNETT: The Premier laughed at the issue last week, so I am not surprised he is laughing at it today. The Premier can keep laughing at God if he wants to, if that is his attitude. I refer the Premier - Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order, members! Mr C.J. BARNETT: That is the way government members treated the issue last week, so they should keep laughing. People are watching and listening. I refer the Attorney General to his proposal to delete any reference to God from oaths taken in Western Australia; and, while I thank him for listening to the strong objections of the Liberal Party and religious leaders, I nevertheless ask - (1) Can the Attorney General confirm that he did not undertake any consultation with any religious leaders before introducing into Parliament the Oaths, Affidavits and Statutory Declarations Bill 2003? (2) Will the Attorney General now admit that he misled this House when he claimed that the religious leaders of Perth were consulted and they supported the recommendation of the Chief Justice? Mr J.A. McGINTY replied: (1)-(2) The intention of the legislation was to extend to all Western Australians the capacity to swear an oath based upon their religious beliefs. A range of people cannot currently do that because of the nature of the oath that is involved. Ms S.E. Walker: That is not true. The SPEAKER: Order, member for Nedlands! Mr J.A. McGINTY: I repeat that there are some Western Australian citizens who cannot swear an oath based upon their religious beliefs, because - Mr P.G. Pendal: They can make an affirmation. The SPEAKER: Order, members! Mr J.A. McGINTY: That is right. They can make an affirmation. They cannot swear on the basis of their religious beliefs. Several members interjected. Mr J.A. McGINTY: A little bit of wax out of the ears for everyone over there! Listening time! I will repeat it again, because obviously nobody heard it the first time - members opposite did not: The intention behind this legislation was to extend to all Western Australians the capacity to swear an oath based upon their religious beliefs. A range of Western Australian citizens, who nonetheless hold religious beliefs, currently cannot do that, but would like to, I am sure, be able to swear an oath when they go to court to give evidence based upon their religious beliefs. That was the motivation. I do not know that anyone in this House would object to that. I received a written report, which I have tabled in this House. Ms S.E. Walker: You did not do your homework. The SPEAKER: Order, members! Mr R.F. Johnson interjected. The SPEAKER: Order! I call the member for Nedlands and the member for Hillarys to order for the first time. Mr J.A. McGINTY: I received a written report from the Chief Justice of Western Australia on this very issue. Mr P.D. Omodei: Did you consult with the clergy? The SPEAKER: Order! I call the member for Warren-Blackwood to order for the second time Mr P.D. Omodei: That still does not answer the question. The SPEAKER: Order! I call the member for Warren-Blackwood to order for the third time. Mr J.A. McGINTY: I received a written report from the Chief Justice of Western Australia recommending the changes. He said in that report that he had consulted with religious leaders, that he had consulted with ethnic community leaders and that he had consulted with the judiciary. To the extent of that consultation, there was support - in some cases strong support - for the recommendation that came forward. I make this point very clear: it was brought forward with an honest intention to expand the range of people who could swear according to their religious beliefs. It was brought forward on the basis of a recommendation from the Chief Justice. We were advised and believed that it had the support of ethnic communities, the judiciary and the religious leaders. That is what the report said. Mr P.D. Omodei: That is not what the report said. Mr J.A. McGINTY: I have already tabled the report. It transpired that when the legislation was brought forward, most religious leaders said they did not support the change being made. When that became apparent, we very quickly responded and said that if it did not have the support of the people who were directly affected by it, we did not wish to proceed. It was brought forward only on the basis that this was a consensus position recommended to me by the Chief Justice of Western Australia, with support from those other groups. In light of this new development, I have spoken to officers of both the Anglican and Catholic Archbishops and have advised them that we intend to adopt a position that is consistent with their stated position and will bring in an amendment - as I announced over the weekend - that will result in something very similar to what is contained in the commonwealth Evidence Act. That will achieve the objective that we set out to achieve, which is to enable all Western Australians to swear an oath based upon their religious beliefs, if they have religious beliefs, but also retain the capacity for people to swear by Almighty God if that is their wish. I believe the amendment that we will bring forward will meet the issues that have been raised by the religious communities, as well as the objective that we set out to achieve in the first place.
The SPEAKER: Order, members! Mr C.J. BARNETT: The Premier laughed at the issue last week, so I am not surprised he is laughing at it today. The Premier can keep laughing at God if he wants to, if that is his attitude. I refer the Premier - Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order, members! Mr C.J. BARNETT: That is the way government members treated the issue last week, so they should keep laughing. People are watching and listening. I refer the Attorney General to his proposal to delete any reference to God from oaths taken in Western Australia; and, while I thank him for listening to the strong objections of the Liberal Party and religious leaders, I nevertheless ask - (1) Can the Attorney General confirm that he did not undertake any consultation with any religious leaders before introducing into Parliament the Oaths, Affidavits and Statutory Declarations Bill 2003? (2) Will the Attorney General now admit that he misled this House when he claimed that the religious leaders of Perth were consulted and they supported the recommendation of the Chief Justice? Mr J.A. McGINTY replied: (1)-(2) The intention of the legislation was to extend to all Western Australians the capacity to swear an oath based upon their religious beliefs. A range of people cannot currently do that because of the nature of the oath that is involved. Ms S.E. Walker: That is not true. The SPEAKER: Order, member for Nedlands! Mr J.A. McGINTY: I repeat that there are some Western Australian citizens who cannot swear an oath based upon their religious beliefs, because - Mr P.G. Pendal: They can make an affirmation. The SPEAKER: Order, members! Mr J.A. McGINTY: That is right. They can make an affirmation. They cannot swear on the basis of their religious beliefs. Several members interjected. Mr J.A. McGINTY: A little bit of wax out of the ears for everyone over there! Listening time! I will repeat it again, because obviously nobody heard it the first time - members opposite did not: The intention behind this legislation was to extend to all Western Australians the capacity to swear an oath based upon their religious beliefs. A range of Western Australian citizens, who nonetheless hold religious beliefs, currently cannot do that, but would like to, I am sure, be able to swear an oath when they go to court to give evidence based upon their religious beliefs. That was the motivation. I do not know that anyone in this House would object to that. I received a written report, which I have tabled in this House. Ms S.E. Walker: You did not do your homework. The SPEAKER: Order, members! Mr R.F. Johnson interjected. The SPEAKER: Order! I call the member for Nedlands and the member for Hillarys to order for the first time. Mr J.A. McGINTY: I received a written report from the Chief Justice of Western Australia on this very issue. Mr P.D. Omodei: Did you consult with the clergy? The SPEAKER: Order! I call the member for Warren-Blackwood to order for the second time Mr P.D. Omodei: That still does not answer the question. The SPEAKER: Order! I call the member for Warren-Blackwood to order for the third time. Mr J.A. McGINTY: I received a written report from the Chief Justice of Western Australia recommending the changes. He said in that report that he had consulted with religious leaders, that he had consulted with ethnic community leaders and that he had consulted with the judiciary. To the extent of that consultation, there was support - in some cases strong support - for the recommendation that came forward. I make this point very clear: it was brought forward with an honest intention to expand the range of people who could swear according to their religious beliefs. It was brought forward on the basis of a recommendation from the Chief Justice. We were advised and believed that it had the support of ethnic communities, the judiciary and the religious leaders. That is what the report said. Mr P.D. Omodei: That is not what the report said. Mr J.A. McGINTY: I have already tabled the report. It transpired that when the legislation was brought forward, most religious leaders said they did not support the change being made. When that became apparent, we very quickly responded and said that if it did not have the support of the people who were directly affected by it, we did not wish to proceed. It was brought forward only on the basis that this was a consensus position recommended to me by the Chief Justice of Western Australia, with support from those other groups. In light of this new development, I have spoken to officers of both the Anglican and Catholic Archbishops and have advised them that we intend to adopt a position that is consistent with their stated position and will bring in an amendment - as I announced over the weekend - that will result in something very similar to what is contained in the commonwealth Evidence Act. That will achieve the objective that we set out to achieve, which is to enable all Western Australians to swear an oath based upon their religious beliefs, if they have religious beliefs, but also retain the capacity for people to swear by Almighty God if that is their wish. I believe the amendment that we will bring forward will meet the issues that have been raised by the religious communities, as well as the objective that we set out to achieve in the first place.
Mr C.J. BARNETT: The Premier laughed at the issue last week, so I am not surprised he is laughing at it today. The Premier can keep laughing at God if he wants to, if that is his attitude. I refer the Premier - Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order, members! Mr C.J. BARNETT: That is the way government members treated the issue last week, so they should keep laughing. People are watching and listening. I refer the Attorney General to his proposal to delete any reference to God from oaths taken in Western Australia; and, while I thank him for listening to the strong objections of the Liberal Party and religious leaders, I nevertheless ask - (1) Can the Attorney General confirm that he did not undertake any consultation with any religious leaders before introducing into Parliament the Oaths, Affidavits and Statutory Declarations Bill 2003? (2) Will the Attorney General now admit that he misled this House when he claimed that the religious leaders of Perth were consulted and they supported the recommendation of the Chief Justice? Mr J.A. McGINTY replied: (1)-(2) The intention of the legislation was to extend to all Western Australians the capacity to swear an oath based upon their religious beliefs. A range of people cannot currently do that because of the nature of the oath that is involved. Ms S.E. Walker: That is not true. The SPEAKER: Order, member for Nedlands! Mr J.A. McGINTY: I repeat that there are some Western Australian citizens who cannot swear an oath based upon their religious beliefs, because - Mr P.G. Pendal: They can make an affirmation. The SPEAKER: Order, members! Mr J.A. McGINTY: That is right. They can make an affirmation. They cannot swear on the basis of their religious beliefs. Several members interjected. Mr J.A. McGINTY: A little bit of wax out of the ears for everyone over there! Listening time! I will repeat it again, because obviously nobody heard it the first time - members opposite did not: The intention behind this legislation was to extend to all Western Australians the capacity to swear an oath based upon their religious beliefs. A range of Western Australian citizens, who nonetheless hold religious beliefs, currently cannot do that, but would like to, I am sure, be able to swear an oath when they go to court to give evidence based upon their religious beliefs. That was the motivation. I do not know that anyone in this House would object to that. I received a written report, which I have tabled in this House. Ms S.E. Walker: You did not do your homework. The SPEAKER: Order, members! Mr R.F. Johnson interjected. The SPEAKER: Order! I call the member for Nedlands and the member for Hillarys to order for the first time. Mr J.A. McGINTY: I received a written report from the Chief Justice of Western Australia on this very issue. Mr P.D. Omodei: Did you consult with the clergy? The SPEAKER: Order! I call the member for Warren-Blackwood to order for the second time Mr P.D. Omodei: That still does not answer the question. The SPEAKER: Order! I call the member for Warren-Blackwood to order for the third time. Mr J.A. McGINTY: I received a written report from the Chief Justice of Western Australia recommending the changes. He said in that report that he had consulted with religious leaders, that he had consulted with ethnic community leaders and that he had consulted with the judiciary. To the extent of that consultation, there was support - in some cases strong support - for the recommendation that came forward. I make this point very clear: it was brought forward with an honest intention to expand the range of people who could swear according to their religious beliefs. It was brought forward on the basis of a recommendation from the Chief Justice. We were advised and believed that it had the support of ethnic communities, the judiciary and the religious leaders. That is what the report said. Mr P.D. Omodei: That is not what the report said. Mr J.A. McGINTY: I have already tabled the report. It transpired that when the legislation was brought forward, most religious leaders said they did not support the change being made. When that became apparent, we very quickly responded and said that if it did not have the support of the people who were directly affected by it, we did not wish to proceed. It was brought forward only on the basis that this was a consensus position recommended to me by the Chief Justice of Western Australia, with support from those other groups. In light of this new development, I have spoken to officers of both the Anglican and Catholic Archbishops and have advised them that we intend to adopt a position that is consistent with their stated position and will bring in an amendment - as I announced over the weekend - that will result in something very similar to what is contained in the commonwealth Evidence Act. That will achieve the objective that we set out to achieve, which is to enable all Western Australians to swear an oath based upon their religious beliefs, if they have religious beliefs, but also retain the capacity for people to swear by Almighty God if that is their wish. I believe the amendment that we will bring forward will meet the issues that have been raised by the religious communities, as well as the objective that we set out to achieve in the first place.
Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order, members! Mr C.J. BARNETT: That is the way government members treated the issue last week, so they should keep laughing. People are watching and listening. I refer the Attorney General to his proposal to delete any reference to God from oaths taken in Western Australia; and, while I thank him for listening to the strong objections of the Liberal Party and religious leaders, I nevertheless ask - (1) Can the Attorney General confirm that he did not undertake any consultation with any religious leaders before introducing into Parliament the Oaths, Affidavits and Statutory Declarations Bill 2003? (2) Will the Attorney General now admit that he misled this House when he claimed that the religious leaders of Perth were consulted and they supported the recommendation of the Chief Justice? Mr J.A. McGINTY replied: (1)-(2) The intention of the legislation was to extend to all Western Australians the capacity to swear an oath based upon their religious beliefs. A range of people cannot currently do that because of the nature of the oath that is involved. Ms S.E. Walker: That is not true. The SPEAKER: Order, member for Nedlands! Mr J.A. McGINTY: I repeat that there are some Western Australian citizens who cannot swear an oath based upon their religious beliefs, because - Mr P.G. Pendal: They can make an affirmation. The SPEAKER: Order, members! Mr J.A. McGINTY: That is right. They can make an affirmation. They cannot swear on the basis of their religious beliefs. Several members interjected. Mr J.A. McGINTY: A little bit of wax out of the ears for everyone over there! Listening time! I will repeat it again, because obviously nobody heard it the first time - members opposite did not: The intention behind this legislation was to extend to all Western Australians the capacity to swear an oath based upon their religious beliefs. A range of Western Australian citizens, who nonetheless hold religious beliefs, currently cannot do that, but would like to, I am sure, be able to swear an oath when they go to court to give evidence based upon their religious beliefs. That was the motivation. I do not know that anyone in this House would object to that. I received a written report, which I have tabled in this House. Ms S.E. Walker: You did not do your homework. The SPEAKER: Order, members! Mr R.F. Johnson interjected. The SPEAKER: Order! I call the member for Nedlands and the member for Hillarys to order for the first time. Mr J.A. McGINTY: I received a written report from the Chief Justice of Western Australia on this very issue. Mr P.D. Omodei: Did you consult with the clergy? The SPEAKER: Order! I call the member for Warren-Blackwood to order for the second time Mr P.D. Omodei: That still does not answer the question. The SPEAKER: Order! I call the member for Warren-Blackwood to order for the third time. Mr J.A. McGINTY: I received a written report from the Chief Justice of Western Australia recommending the changes. He said in that report that he had consulted with religious leaders, that he had consulted with ethnic community leaders and that he had consulted with the judiciary. To the extent of that consultation, there was support - in some cases strong support - for the recommendation that came forward. I make this point very clear: it was brought forward with an honest intention to expand the range of people who could swear according to their religious beliefs. It was brought forward on the basis of a recommendation from the Chief Justice. We were advised and believed that it had the support of ethnic communities, the judiciary and the religious leaders. That is what the report said. Mr P.D. Omodei: That is not what the report said. Mr J.A. McGINTY: I have already tabled the report. It transpired that when the legislation was brought forward, most religious leaders said they did not support the change being made. When that became apparent, we very quickly responded and said that if it did not have the support of the people who were directly affected by it, we did not wish to proceed. It was brought forward only on the basis that this was a consensus position recommended to me by the Chief Justice of Western Australia, with support from those other groups. In light of this new development, I have spoken to officers of both the Anglican and Catholic Archbishops and have advised them that we intend to adopt a position that is consistent with their stated position and will bring in an amendment - as I announced over the weekend - that will result in something very similar to what is contained in the commonwealth Evidence Act. That will achieve the objective that we set out to achieve, which is to enable all Western Australians to swear an oath based upon their religious beliefs, if they have religious beliefs, but also retain the capacity for people to swear by Almighty God if that is their wish. I believe the amendment that we will bring forward will meet the issues that have been raised by the religious communities, as well as the objective that we set out to achieve in the first place.
The SPEAKER: Order, members! Mr C.J. BARNETT: That is the way government members treated the issue last week, so they should keep laughing. People are watching and listening. I refer the Attorney General to his proposal to delete any reference to God from oaths taken in Western Australia; and, while I thank him for listening to the strong objections of the Liberal Party and religious leaders, I nevertheless ask - (1) Can the Attorney General confirm that he did not undertake any consultation with any religious leaders before introducing into Parliament the Oaths, Affidavits and Statutory Declarations Bill 2003? (2) Will the Attorney General now admit that he misled this House when he claimed that the religious leaders of Perth were consulted and they supported the recommendation of the Chief Justice? Mr J.A. McGINTY replied: (1)-(2) The intention of the legislation was to extend to all Western Australians the capacity to swear an oath based upon their religious beliefs. A range of people cannot currently do that because of the nature of the oath that is involved. Ms S.E. Walker: That is not true. The SPEAKER: Order, member for Nedlands! Mr J.A. McGINTY: I repeat that there are some Western Australian citizens who cannot swear an oath based upon their religious beliefs, because - Mr P.G. Pendal: They can make an affirmation. The SPEAKER: Order, members! Mr J.A. McGINTY: That is right. They can make an affirmation. They cannot swear on the basis of their religious beliefs. Several members interjected. Mr J.A. McGINTY: A little bit of wax out of the ears for everyone over there! Listening time! I will repeat it again, because obviously nobody heard it the first time - members opposite did not: The intention behind this legislation was to extend to all Western Australians the capacity to swear an oath based upon their religious beliefs. A range of Western Australian citizens, who nonetheless hold religious beliefs, currently cannot do that, but would like to, I am sure, be able to swear an oath when they go to court to give evidence based upon their religious beliefs. That was the motivation. I do not know that anyone in this House would object to that. I received a written report, which I have tabled in this House. Ms S.E. Walker: You did not do your homework. The SPEAKER: Order, members! Mr R.F. Johnson interjected. The SPEAKER: Order! I call the member for Nedlands and the member for Hillarys to order for the first time. Mr J.A. McGINTY: I received a written report from the Chief Justice of Western Australia on this very issue. Mr P.D. Omodei: Did you consult with the clergy? The SPEAKER: Order! I call the member for Warren-Blackwood to order for the second time Mr P.D. Omodei: That still does not answer the question. The SPEAKER: Order! I call the member for Warren-Blackwood to order for the third time. Mr J.A. McGINTY: I received a written report from the Chief Justice of Western Australia recommending the changes. He said in that report that he had consulted with religious leaders, that he had consulted with ethnic community leaders and that he had consulted with the judiciary. To the extent of that consultation, there was support - in some cases strong support - for the recommendation that came forward. I make this point very clear: it was brought forward with an honest intention to expand the range of people who could swear according to their religious beliefs. It was brought forward on the basis of a recommendation from the Chief Justice. We were advised and believed that it had the support of ethnic communities, the judiciary and the religious leaders. That is what the report said. Mr P.D. Omodei: That is not what the report said. Mr J.A. McGINTY: I have already tabled the report. It transpired that when the legislation was brought forward, most religious leaders said they did not support the change being made. When that became apparent, we very quickly responded and said that if it did not have the support of the people who were directly affected by it, we did not wish to proceed. It was brought forward only on the basis that this was a consensus position recommended to me by the Chief Justice of Western Australia, with support from those other groups. In light of this new development, I have spoken to officers of both the Anglican and Catholic Archbishops and have advised them that we intend to adopt a position that is consistent with their stated position and will bring in an amendment - as I announced over the weekend - that will result in something very similar to what is contained in the commonwealth Evidence Act. That will achieve the objective that we set out to achieve, which is to enable all Western Australians to swear an oath based upon their religious beliefs, if they have religious beliefs, but also retain the capacity for people to swear by Almighty God if that is their wish. I believe the amendment that we will bring forward will meet the issues that have been raised by the religious communities, as well as the objective that we set out to achieve in the first place.
Mr C.J. BARNETT: That is the way government members treated the issue last week, so they should keep laughing. People are watching and listening. I refer the Attorney General to his proposal to delete any reference to God from oaths taken in Western Australia; and, while I thank him for listening to the strong objections of the Liberal Party and religious leaders, I nevertheless ask - (1) Can the Attorney General confirm that he did not undertake any consultation with any religious leaders before introducing into Parliament the Oaths, Affidavits and Statutory Declarations Bill 2003? (2) Will the Attorney General now admit that he misled this House when he claimed that the religious leaders of Perth were consulted and they supported the recommendation of the Chief Justice? Mr J.A. McGINTY replied: (1)-(2) The intention of the legislation was to extend to all Western Australians the capacity to swear an oath based upon their religious beliefs. A range of people cannot currently do that because of the nature of the oath that is involved. Ms S.E. Walker: That is not true. The SPEAKER: Order, member for Nedlands! Mr J.A. McGINTY: I repeat that there are some Western Australian citizens who cannot swear an oath based upon their religious beliefs, because - Mr P.G. Pendal: They can make an affirmation. The SPEAKER: Order, members! Mr J.A. McGINTY: That is right. They can make an affirmation. They cannot swear on the basis of their religious beliefs. Several members interjected. Mr J.A. McGINTY: A little bit of wax out of the ears for everyone over there! Listening time! I will repeat it again, because obviously nobody heard it the first time - members opposite did not: The intention behind this legislation was to extend to all Western Australians the capacity to swear an oath based upon their religious beliefs. A range of Western Australian citizens, who nonetheless hold religious beliefs, currently cannot do that, but would like to, I am sure, be able to swear an oath when they go to court to give evidence based upon their religious beliefs. That was the motivation. I do not know that anyone in this House would object to that. I received a written report, which I have tabled in this House. Ms S.E. Walker: You did not do your homework. The SPEAKER: Order, members! Mr R.F. Johnson interjected. The SPEAKER: Order! I call the member for Nedlands and the member for Hillarys to order for the first time. Mr J.A. McGINTY: I received a written report from the Chief Justice of Western Australia on this very issue. Mr P.D. Omodei: Did you consult with the clergy? The SPEAKER: Order! I call the member for Warren-Blackwood to order for the second time Mr P.D. Omodei: That still does not answer the question. The SPEAKER: Order! I call the member for Warren-Blackwood to order for the third time. Mr J.A. McGINTY: I received a written report from the Chief Justice of Western Australia recommending the changes. He said in that report that he had consulted with religious leaders, that he had consulted with ethnic community leaders and that he had consulted with the judiciary. To the extent of that consultation, there was support - in some cases strong support - for the recommendation that came forward. I make this point very clear: it was brought forward with an honest intention to expand the range of people who could swear according to their religious beliefs. It was brought forward on the basis of a recommendation from the Chief Justice. We were advised and believed that it had the support of ethnic communities, the judiciary and the religious leaders. That is what the report said. Mr P.D. Omodei: That is not what the report said. Mr J.A. McGINTY: I have already tabled the report. It transpired that when the legislation was brought forward, most religious leaders said they did not support the change being made. When that became apparent, we very quickly responded and said that if it did not have the support of the people who were directly affected by it, we did not wish to proceed. It was brought forward only on the basis that this was a consensus position recommended to me by the Chief Justice of Western Australia, with support from those other groups. In light of this new development, I have spoken to officers of both the Anglican and Catholic Archbishops and have advised them that we intend to adopt a position that is consistent with their stated position and will bring in an amendment - as I announced over the weekend - that will result in something very similar to what is contained in the commonwealth Evidence Act. That will achieve the objective that we set out to achieve, which is to enable all Western Australians to swear an oath based upon their religious beliefs, if they have religious beliefs, but also retain the capacity for people to swear by Almighty God if that is their wish. I believe the amendment that we will bring forward will meet the issues that have been raised by the religious communities, as well as the objective that we set out to achieve in the first place.
(1) Can the Attorney General confirm that he did not undertake any consultation with any religious leaders before introducing into Parliament the Oaths, Affidavits and Statutory Declarations Bill 2003? (2) Will the Attorney General now admit that he misled this House when he claimed that the religious leaders of Perth were consulted and they supported the recommendation of the Chief Justice? Mr J.A. McGINTY replied: (1)-(2) The intention of the legislation was to extend to all Western Australians the capacity to swear an oath based upon their religious beliefs. A range of people cannot currently do that because of the nature of the oath that is involved. Ms S.E. Walker: That is not true. The SPEAKER: Order, member for Nedlands! Mr J.A. McGINTY: I repeat that there are some Western Australian citizens who cannot swear an oath based upon their religious beliefs, because - Mr P.G. Pendal: They can make an affirmation. The SPEAKER: Order, members! Mr J.A. McGINTY: That is right. They can make an affirmation. They cannot swear on the basis of their religious beliefs. Several members interjected. Mr J.A. McGINTY: A little bit of wax out of the ears for everyone over there! Listening time! I will repeat it again, because obviously nobody heard it the first time - members opposite did not: The intention behind this legislation was to extend to all Western Australians the capacity to swear an oath based upon their religious beliefs. A range of Western Australian citizens, who nonetheless hold religious beliefs, currently cannot do that, but would like to, I am sure, be able to swear an oath when they go to court to give evidence based upon their religious beliefs. That was the motivation. I do not know that anyone in this House would object to that. I received a written report, which I have tabled in this House. Ms S.E. Walker: You did not do your homework. The SPEAKER: Order, members! Mr R.F. Johnson interjected. The SPEAKER: Order! I call the member for Nedlands and the member for Hillarys to order for the first time. Mr J.A. McGINTY: I received a written report from the Chief Justice of Western Australia on this very issue. Mr P.D. Omodei: Did you consult with the clergy? The SPEAKER: Order! I call the member for Warren-Blackwood to order for the second time Mr P.D. Omodei: That still does not answer the question. The SPEAKER: Order! I call the member for Warren-Blackwood to order for the third time. Mr J.A. McGINTY: I received a written report from the Chief Justice of Western Australia recommending the changes. He said in that report that he had consulted with religious leaders, that he had consulted with ethnic community leaders and that he had consulted with the judiciary. To the extent of that consultation, there was support - in some cases strong support - for the recommendation that came forward. I make this point very clear: it was brought forward with an honest intention to expand the range of people who could swear according to their religious beliefs. It was brought forward on the basis of a recommendation from the Chief Justice. We were advised and believed that it had the support of ethnic communities, the judiciary and the religious leaders. That is what the report said. Mr P.D. Omodei: That is not what the report said. Mr J.A. McGINTY: I have already tabled the report. It transpired that when the legislation was brought forward, most religious leaders said they did not support the change being made. When that became apparent, we very quickly responded and said that if it did not have the support of the people who were directly affected by it, we did not wish to proceed. It was brought forward only on the basis that this was a consensus position recommended to me by the Chief Justice of Western Australia, with support from those other groups. In light of this new development, I have spoken to officers of both the Anglican and Catholic Archbishops and have advised them that we intend to adopt a position that is consistent with their stated position and will bring in an amendment - as I announced over the weekend - that will result in something very similar to what is contained in the commonwealth Evidence Act. That will achieve the objective that we set out to achieve, which is to enable all Western Australians to swear an oath based upon their religious beliefs, if they have religious beliefs, but also retain the capacity for people to swear by Almighty God if that is their wish. I believe the amendment that we will bring forward will meet the issues that have been raised by the religious communities, as well as the objective that we set out to achieve in the first place.
(2) Will the Attorney General now admit that he misled this House when he claimed that the religious leaders of Perth were consulted and they supported the recommendation of the Chief Justice? Mr J.A. McGINTY replied: (1)-(2) The intention of the legislation was to extend to all Western Australians the capacity to swear an oath based upon their religious beliefs. A range of people cannot currently do that because of the nature of the oath that is involved. Ms S.E. Walker: That is not true. The SPEAKER: Order, member for Nedlands! Mr J.A. McGINTY: I repeat that there are some Western Australian citizens who cannot swear an oath based upon their religious beliefs, because - Mr P.G. Pendal: They can make an affirmation. The SPEAKER: Order, members! Mr J.A. McGINTY: That is right. They can make an affirmation. They cannot swear on the basis of their religious beliefs. Several members interjected. Mr J.A. McGINTY: A little bit of wax out of the ears for everyone over there! Listening time! I will repeat it again, because obviously nobody heard it the first time - members opposite did not: The intention behind this legislation was to extend to all Western Australians the capacity to swear an oath based upon their religious beliefs. A range of Western Australian citizens, who nonetheless hold religious beliefs, currently cannot do that, but would like to, I am sure, be able to swear an oath when they go to court to give evidence based upon their religious beliefs. That was the motivation. I do not know that anyone in this House would object to that. I received a written report, which I have tabled in this House. Ms S.E. Walker: You did not do your homework. The SPEAKER: Order, members! Mr R.F. Johnson interjected. The SPEAKER: Order! I call the member for Nedlands and the member for Hillarys to order for the first time. Mr J.A. McGINTY: I received a written report from the Chief Justice of Western Australia on this very issue. Mr P.D. Omodei: Did you consult with the clergy? The SPEAKER: Order! I call the member for Warren-Blackwood to order for the second time Mr P.D. Omodei: That still does not answer the question. The SPEAKER: Order! I call the member for Warren-Blackwood to order for the third time. Mr J.A. McGINTY: I received a written report from the Chief Justice of Western Australia recommending the changes. He said in that report that he had consulted with religious leaders, that he had consulted with ethnic community leaders and that he had consulted with the judiciary. To the extent of that consultation, there was support - in some cases strong support - for the recommendation that came forward. I make this point very clear: it was brought forward with an honest intention to expand the range of people who could swear according to their religious beliefs. It was brought forward on the basis of a recommendation from the Chief Justice. We were advised and believed that it had the support of ethnic communities, the judiciary and the religious leaders. That is what the report said. Mr P.D. Omodei: That is not what the report said. Mr J.A. McGINTY: I have already tabled the report. It transpired that when the legislation was brought forward, most religious leaders said they did not support the change being made. When that became apparent, we very quickly responded and said that if it did not have the support of the people who were directly affected by it, we did not wish to proceed. It was brought forward only on the basis that this was a consensus position recommended to me by the Chief Justice of Western Australia, with support from those other groups. In light of this new development, I have spoken to officers of both the Anglican and Catholic Archbishops and have advised them that we intend to adopt a position that is consistent with their stated position and will bring in an amendment - as I announced over the weekend - that will result in something very similar to what is contained in the commonwealth Evidence Act. That will achieve the objective that we set out to achieve, which is to enable all Western Australians to swear an oath based upon their religious beliefs, if they have religious beliefs, but also retain the capacity for people to swear by Almighty God if that is their wish. I believe the amendment that we will bring forward will meet the issues that have been raised by the religious communities, as well as the objective that we set out to achieve in the first place.
Mr J.A. McGINTY replied: (1)-(2) The intention of the legislation was to extend to all Western Australians the capacity to swear an oath based upon their religious beliefs. A range of people cannot currently do that because of the nature of the oath that is involved. Ms S.E. Walker: That is not true. The SPEAKER: Order, member for Nedlands! Mr J.A. McGINTY: I repeat that there are some Western Australian citizens who cannot swear an oath based upon their religious beliefs, because - Mr P.G. Pendal: They can make an affirmation. The SPEAKER: Order, members! Mr J.A. McGINTY: That is right. They can make an affirmation. They cannot swear on the basis of their religious beliefs. Several members interjected. Mr J.A. McGINTY: A little bit of wax out of the ears for everyone over there! Listening time! I will repeat it again, because obviously nobody heard it the first time - members opposite did not: The intention behind this legislation was to extend to all Western Australians the capacity to swear an oath based upon their religious beliefs. A range of Western Australian citizens, who nonetheless hold religious beliefs, currently cannot do that, but would like to, I am sure, be able to swear an oath when they go to court to give evidence based upon their religious beliefs. That was the motivation. I do not know that anyone in this House would object to that. I received a written report, which I have tabled in this House. Ms S.E. Walker: You did not do your homework. The SPEAKER: Order, members! Mr R.F. Johnson interjected. The SPEAKER: Order! I call the member for Nedlands and the member for Hillarys to order for the first time. Mr J.A. McGINTY: I received a written report from the Chief Justice of Western Australia on this very issue. Mr P.D. Omodei: Did you consult with the clergy? The SPEAKER: Order! I call the member for Warren-Blackwood to order for the second time Mr P.D. Omodei: That still does not answer the question. The SPEAKER: Order! I call the member for Warren-Blackwood to order for the third time. Mr J.A. McGINTY: I received a written report from the Chief Justice of Western Australia recommending the changes. He said in that report that he had consulted with religious leaders, that he had consulted with ethnic community leaders and that he had consulted with the judiciary. To the extent of that consultation, there was support - in some cases strong support - for the recommendation that came forward. I make this point very clear: it was brought forward with an honest intention to expand the range of people who could swear according to their religious beliefs. It was brought forward on the basis of a recommendation from the Chief Justice. We were advised and believed that it had the support of ethnic communities, the judiciary and the religious leaders. That is what the report said. Mr P.D. Omodei: That is not what the report said. Mr J.A. McGINTY: I have already tabled the report. It transpired that when the legislation was brought forward, most religious leaders said they did not support the change being made. When that became apparent, we very quickly responded and said that if it did not have the support of the people who were directly affected by it, we did not wish to proceed. It was brought forward only on the basis that this was a consensus position recommended to me by the Chief Justice of Western Australia, with support from those other groups. In light of this new development, I have spoken to officers of both the Anglican and Catholic Archbishops and have advised them that we intend to adopt a position that is consistent with their stated position and will bring in an amendment - as I announced over the weekend - that will result in something very similar to what is contained in the commonwealth Evidence Act. That will achieve the objective that we set out to achieve, which is to enable all Western Australians to swear an oath based upon their religious beliefs, if they have religious beliefs, but also retain the capacity for people to swear by Almighty God if that is their wish. I believe the amendment that we will bring forward will meet the issues that have been raised by the religious communities, as well as the objective that we set out to achieve in the first place.
(1)-(2) The intention of the legislation was to extend to all Western Australians the capacity to swear an oath based upon their religious beliefs. A range of people cannot currently do that because of the nature of the oath that is involved. Ms S.E. Walker: That is not true. The SPEAKER: Order, member for Nedlands! Mr J.A. McGINTY: I repeat that there are some Western Australian citizens who cannot swear an oath based upon their religious beliefs, because - Mr P.G. Pendal: They can make an affirmation. The SPEAKER: Order, members! Mr J.A. McGINTY: That is right. They can make an affirmation. They cannot swear on the basis of their religious beliefs. Several members interjected. Mr J.A. McGINTY: A little bit of wax out of the ears for everyone over there! Listening time! I will repeat it again, because obviously nobody heard it the first time - members opposite did not: The intention behind this legislation was to extend to all Western Australians the capacity to swear an oath based upon their religious beliefs. A range of Western Australian citizens, who nonetheless hold religious beliefs, currently cannot do that, but would like to, I am sure, be able to swear an oath when they go to court to give evidence based upon their religious beliefs. That was the motivation. I do not know that anyone in this House would object to that. I received a written report, which I have tabled in this House. Ms S.E. Walker: You did not do your homework. The SPEAKER: Order, members! Mr R.F. Johnson interjected. The SPEAKER: Order! I call the member for Nedlands and the member for Hillarys to order for the first time. Mr J.A. McGINTY: I received a written report from the Chief Justice of Western Australia on this very issue. Mr P.D. Omodei: Did you consult with the clergy? The SPEAKER: Order! I call the member for Warren-Blackwood to order for the second time Mr P.D. Omodei: That still does not answer the question. The SPEAKER: Order! I call the member for Warren-Blackwood to order for the third time. Mr J.A. McGINTY: I received a written report from the Chief Justice of Western Australia recommending the changes. He said in that report that he had consulted with religious leaders, that he had consulted with ethnic community leaders and that he had consulted with the judiciary. To the extent of that consultation, there was support - in some cases strong support - for the recommendation that came forward. I make this point very clear: it was brought forward with an honest intention to expand the range of people who could swear according to their religious beliefs. It was brought forward on the basis of a recommendation from the Chief Justice. We were advised and believed that it had the support of ethnic communities, the judiciary and the religious leaders. That is what the report said. Mr P.D. Omodei: That is not what the report said. Mr J.A. McGINTY: I have already tabled the report. It transpired that when the legislation was brought forward, most religious leaders said they did not support the change being made. When that became apparent, we very quickly responded and said that if it did not have the support of the people who were directly affected by it, we did not wish to proceed. It was brought forward only on the basis that this was a consensus position recommended to me by the Chief Justice of Western Australia, with support from those other groups. In light of this new development, I have spoken to officers of both the Anglican and Catholic Archbishops and have advised them that we intend to adopt a position that is consistent with their stated position and will bring in an amendment - as I announced over the weekend - that will result in something very similar to what is contained in the commonwealth Evidence Act. That will achieve the objective that we set out to achieve, which is to enable all Western Australians to swear an oath based upon their religious beliefs, if they have religious beliefs, but also retain the capacity for people to swear by Almighty God if that is their wish. I believe the amendment that we will bring forward will meet the issues that have been raised by the religious communities, as well as the objective that we set out to achieve in the first place.
Ms S.E. Walker: That is not true. The SPEAKER: Order, member for Nedlands! Mr J.A. McGINTY: I repeat that there are some Western Australian citizens who cannot swear an oath based upon their religious beliefs, because - Mr P.G. Pendal: They can make an affirmation. The SPEAKER: Order, members! Mr J.A. McGINTY: That is right. They can make an affirmation. They cannot swear on the basis of their religious beliefs. Several members interjected. Mr J.A. McGINTY: A little bit of wax out of the ears for everyone over there! Listening time! I will repeat it again, because obviously nobody heard it the first time - members opposite did not: The intention behind this legislation was to extend to all Western Australians the capacity to swear an oath based upon their religious beliefs. A range of Western Australian citizens, who nonetheless hold religious beliefs, currently cannot do that, but would like to, I am sure, be able to swear an oath when they go to court to give evidence based upon their religious beliefs. That was the motivation. I do not know that anyone in this House would object to that. I received a written report, which I have tabled in this House. Ms S.E. Walker: You did not do your homework. The SPEAKER: Order, members! Mr R.F. Johnson interjected. The SPEAKER: Order! I call the member for Nedlands and the member for Hillarys to order for the first time. Mr J.A. McGINTY: I received a written report from the Chief Justice of Western Australia on this very issue. Mr P.D. Omodei: Did you consult with the clergy? The SPEAKER: Order! I call the member for Warren-Blackwood to order for the second time Mr P.D. Omodei: That still does not answer the question. The SPEAKER: Order! I call the member for Warren-Blackwood to order for the third time. Mr J.A. McGINTY: I received a written report from the Chief Justice of Western Australia recommending the changes. He said in that report that he had consulted with religious leaders, that he had consulted with ethnic community leaders and that he had consulted with the judiciary. To the extent of that consultation, there was support - in some cases strong support - for the recommendation that came forward. I make this point very clear: it was brought forward with an honest intention to expand the range of people who could swear according to their religious beliefs. It was brought forward on the basis of a recommendation from the Chief Justice. We were advised and believed that it had the support of ethnic communities, the judiciary and the religious leaders. That is what the report said. Mr P.D. Omodei: That is not what the report said. Mr J.A. McGINTY: I have already tabled the report. It transpired that when the legislation was brought forward, most religious leaders said they did not support the change being made. When that became apparent, we very quickly responded and said that if it did not have the support of the people who were directly affected by it, we did not wish to proceed. It was brought forward only on the basis that this was a consensus position recommended to me by the Chief Justice of Western Australia, with support from those other groups. In light of this new development, I have spoken to officers of both the Anglican and Catholic Archbishops and have advised them that we intend to adopt a position that is consistent with their stated position and will bring in an amendment - as I announced over the weekend - that will result in something very similar to what is contained in the commonwealth Evidence Act. That will achieve the objective that we set out to achieve, which is to enable all Western Australians to swear an oath based upon their religious beliefs, if they have religious beliefs, but also retain the capacity for people to swear by Almighty God if that is their wish. I believe the amendment that we will bring forward will meet the issues that have been raised by the religious communities, as well as the objective that we set out to achieve in the first place.
The SPEAKER: Order, member for Nedlands! Mr J.A. McGINTY: I repeat that there are some Western Australian citizens who cannot swear an oath based upon their religious beliefs, because - Mr P.G. Pendal: They can make an affirmation. The SPEAKER: Order, members! Mr J.A. McGINTY: That is right. They can make an affirmation. They cannot swear on the basis of their religious beliefs. Several members interjected. Mr J.A. McGINTY: A little bit of wax out of the ears for everyone over there! Listening time! I will repeat it again, because obviously nobody heard it the first time - members opposite did not: The intention behind this legislation was to extend to all Western Australians the capacity to swear an oath based upon their religious beliefs. A range of Western Australian citizens, who nonetheless hold religious beliefs, currently cannot do that, but would like to, I am sure, be able to swear an oath when they go to court to give evidence based upon their religious beliefs. That was the motivation. I do not know that anyone in this House would object to that. I received a written report, which I have tabled in this House. Ms S.E. Walker: You did not do your homework. The SPEAKER: Order, members! Mr R.F. Johnson interjected. The SPEAKER: Order! I call the member for Nedlands and the member for Hillarys to order for the first time. Mr J.A. McGINTY: I received a written report from the Chief Justice of Western Australia on this very issue. Mr P.D. Omodei: Did you consult with the clergy? The SPEAKER: Order! I call the member for Warren-Blackwood to order for the second time Mr P.D. Omodei: That still does not answer the question. The SPEAKER: Order! I call the member for Warren-Blackwood to order for the third time. Mr J.A. McGINTY: I received a written report from the Chief Justice of Western Australia recommending the changes. He said in that report that he had consulted with religious leaders, that he had consulted with ethnic community leaders and that he had consulted with the judiciary. To the extent of that consultation, there was support - in some cases strong support - for the recommendation that came forward. I make this point very clear: it was brought forward with an honest intention to expand the range of people who could swear according to their religious beliefs. It was brought forward on the basis of a recommendation from the Chief Justice. We were advised and believed that it had the support of ethnic communities, the judiciary and the religious leaders. That is what the report said. Mr P.D. Omodei: That is not what the report said. Mr J.A. McGINTY: I have already tabled the report. It transpired that when the legislation was brought forward, most religious leaders said they did not support the change being made. When that became apparent, we very quickly responded and said that if it did not have the support of the people who were directly affected by it, we did not wish to proceed. It was brought forward only on the basis that this was a consensus position recommended to me by the Chief Justice of Western Australia, with support from those other groups. In light of this new development, I have spoken to officers of both the Anglican and Catholic Archbishops and have advised them that we intend to adopt a position that is consistent with their stated position and will bring in an amendment - as I announced over the weekend - that will result in something very similar to what is contained in the commonwealth Evidence Act. That will achieve the objective that we set out to achieve, which is to enable all Western Australians to swear an oath based upon their religious beliefs, if they have religious beliefs, but also retain the capacity for people to swear by Almighty God if that is their wish. I believe the amendment that we will bring forward will meet the issues that have been raised by the religious communities, as well as the objective that we set out to achieve in the first place.
Mr J.A. McGINTY: I repeat that there are some Western Australian citizens who cannot swear an oath based upon their religious beliefs, because - Mr P.G. Pendal: They can make an affirmation. The SPEAKER: Order, members! Mr J.A. McGINTY: That is right. They can make an affirmation. They cannot swear on the basis of their religious beliefs. Several members interjected. Mr J.A. McGINTY: A little bit of wax out of the ears for everyone over there! Listening time! I will repeat it again, because obviously nobody heard it the first time - members opposite did not: The intention behind this legislation was to extend to all Western Australians the capacity to swear an oath based upon their religious beliefs. A range of Western Australian citizens, who nonetheless hold religious beliefs, currently cannot do that, but would like to, I am sure, be able to swear an oath when they go to court to give evidence based upon their religious beliefs. That was the motivation. I do not know that anyone in this House would object to that. I received a written report, which I have tabled in this House. Ms S.E. Walker: You did not do your homework. The SPEAKER: Order, members! Mr R.F. Johnson interjected. The SPEAKER: Order! I call the member for Nedlands and the member for Hillarys to order for the first time. Mr J.A. McGINTY: I received a written report from the Chief Justice of Western Australia on this very issue. Mr P.D. Omodei: Did you consult with the clergy? The SPEAKER: Order! I call the member for Warren-Blackwood to order for the second time Mr P.D. Omodei: That still does not answer the question. The SPEAKER: Order! I call the member for Warren-Blackwood to order for the third time. Mr J.A. McGINTY: I received a written report from the Chief Justice of Western Australia recommending the changes. He said in that report that he had consulted with religious leaders, that he had consulted with ethnic community leaders and that he had consulted with the judiciary. To the extent of that consultation, there was support - in some cases strong support - for the recommendation that came forward. I make this point very clear: it was brought forward with an honest intention to expand the range of people who could swear according to their religious beliefs. It was brought forward on the basis of a recommendation from the Chief Justice. We were advised and believed that it had the support of ethnic communities, the judiciary and the religious leaders. That is what the report said. Mr P.D. Omodei: That is not what the report said. Mr J.A. McGINTY: I have already tabled the report. It transpired that when the legislation was brought forward, most religious leaders said they did not support the change being made. When that became apparent, we very quickly responded and said that if it did not have the support of the people who were directly affected by it, we did not wish to proceed. It was brought forward only on the basis that this was a consensus position recommended to me by the Chief Justice of Western Australia, with support from those other groups. In light of this new development, I have spoken to officers of both the Anglican and Catholic Archbishops and have advised them that we intend to adopt a position that is consistent with their stated position and will bring in an amendment - as I announced over the weekend - that will result in something very similar to what is contained in the commonwealth Evidence Act. That will achieve the objective that we set out to achieve, which is to enable all Western Australians to swear an oath based upon their religious beliefs, if they have religious beliefs, but also retain the capacity for people to swear by Almighty God if that is their wish. I believe the amendment that we will bring forward will meet the issues that have been raised by the religious communities, as well as the objective that we set out to achieve in the first place.
Mr P.G. Pendal: They can make an affirmation. The SPEAKER: Order, members! Mr J.A. McGINTY: That is right. They can make an affirmation. They cannot swear on the basis of their religious beliefs. Several members interjected. Mr J.A. McGINTY: A little bit of wax out of the ears for everyone over there! Listening time! I will repeat it again, because obviously nobody heard it the first time - members opposite did not: The intention behind this legislation was to extend to all Western Australians the capacity to swear an oath based upon their religious beliefs. A range of Western Australian citizens, who nonetheless hold religious beliefs, currently cannot do that, but would like to, I am sure, be able to swear an oath when they go to court to give evidence based upon their religious beliefs. That was the motivation. I do not know that anyone in this House would object to that. I received a written report, which I have tabled in this House. Ms S.E. Walker: You did not do your homework. The SPEAKER: Order, members! Mr R.F. Johnson interjected. The SPEAKER: Order! I call the member for Nedlands and the member for Hillarys to order for the first time. Mr J.A. McGINTY: I received a written report from the Chief Justice of Western Australia on this very issue. Mr P.D. Omodei: Did you consult with the clergy? The SPEAKER: Order! I call the member for Warren-Blackwood to order for the second time Mr P.D. Omodei: That still does not answer the question. The SPEAKER: Order! I call the member for Warren-Blackwood to order for the third time. Mr J.A. McGINTY: I received a written report from the Chief Justice of Western Australia recommending the changes. He said in that report that he had consulted with religious leaders, that he had consulted with ethnic community leaders and that he had consulted with the judiciary. To the extent of that consultation, there was support - in some cases strong support - for the recommendation that came forward. I make this point very clear: it was brought forward with an honest intention to expand the range of people who could swear according to their religious beliefs. It was brought forward on the basis of a recommendation from the Chief Justice. We were advised and believed that it had the support of ethnic communities, the judiciary and the religious leaders. That is what the report said. Mr P.D. Omodei: That is not what the report said. Mr J.A. McGINTY: I have already tabled the report. It transpired that when the legislation was brought forward, most religious leaders said they did not support the change being made. When that became apparent, we very quickly responded and said that if it did not have the support of the people who were directly affected by it, we did not wish to proceed. It was brought forward only on the basis that this was a consensus position recommended to me by the Chief Justice of Western Australia, with support from those other groups. In light of this new development, I have spoken to officers of both the Anglican and Catholic Archbishops and have advised them that we intend to adopt a position that is consistent with their stated position and will bring in an amendment - as I announced over the weekend - that will result in something very similar to what is contained in the commonwealth Evidence Act. That will achieve the objective that we set out to achieve, which is to enable all Western Australians to swear an oath based upon their religious beliefs, if they have religious beliefs, but also retain the capacity for people to swear by Almighty God if that is their wish. I believe the amendment that we will bring forward will meet the issues that have been raised by the religious communities, as well as the objective that we set out to achieve in the first place.
The SPEAKER: Order, members! Mr J.A. McGINTY: That is right. They can make an affirmation. They cannot swear on the basis of their religious beliefs. Several members interjected. Mr J.A. McGINTY: A little bit of wax out of the ears for everyone over there! Listening time! I will repeat it again, because obviously nobody heard it the first time - members opposite did not: The intention behind this legislation was to extend to all Western Australians the capacity to swear an oath based upon their religious beliefs. A range of Western Australian citizens, who nonetheless hold religious beliefs, currently cannot do that, but would like to, I am sure, be able to swear an oath when they go to court to give evidence based upon their religious beliefs. That was the motivation. I do not know that anyone in this House would object to that. I received a written report, which I have tabled in this House. Ms S.E. Walker: You did not do your homework. The SPEAKER: Order, members! Mr R.F. Johnson interjected. The SPEAKER: Order! I call the member for Nedlands and the member for Hillarys to order for the first time. Mr J.A. McGINTY: I received a written report from the Chief Justice of Western Australia on this very issue. Mr P.D. Omodei: Did you consult with the clergy? The SPEAKER: Order! I call the member for Warren-Blackwood to order for the second time Mr P.D. Omodei: That still does not answer the question. The SPEAKER: Order! I call the member for Warren-Blackwood to order for the third time. Mr J.A. McGINTY: I received a written report from the Chief Justice of Western Australia recommending the changes. He said in that report that he had consulted with religious leaders, that he had consulted with ethnic community leaders and that he had consulted with the judiciary. To the extent of that consultation, there was support - in some cases strong support - for the recommendation that came forward. I make this point very clear: it was brought forward with an honest intention to expand the range of people who could swear according to their religious beliefs. It was brought forward on the basis of a recommendation from the Chief Justice. We were advised and believed that it had the support of ethnic communities, the judiciary and the religious leaders. That is what the report said. Mr P.D. Omodei: That is not what the report said. Mr J.A. McGINTY: I have already tabled the report. It transpired that when the legislation was brought forward, most religious leaders said they did not support the change being made. When that became apparent, we very quickly responded and said that if it did not have the support of the people who were directly affected by it, we did not wish to proceed. It was brought forward only on the basis that this was a consensus position recommended to me by the Chief Justice of Western Australia, with support from those other groups. In light of this new development, I have spoken to officers of both the Anglican and Catholic Archbishops and have advised them that we intend to adopt a position that is consistent with their stated position and will bring in an amendment - as I announced over the weekend - that will result in something very similar to what is contained in the commonwealth Evidence Act. That will achieve the objective that we set out to achieve, which is to enable all Western Australians to swear an oath based upon their religious beliefs, if they have religious beliefs, but also retain the capacity for people to swear by Almighty God if that is their wish. I believe the amendment that we will bring forward will meet the issues that have been raised by the religious communities, as well as the objective that we set out to achieve in the first place.
Mr J.A. McGINTY: That is right. They can make an affirmation. They cannot swear on the basis of their religious beliefs. Several members interjected. Mr J.A. McGINTY: A little bit of wax out of the ears for everyone over there! Listening time! I will repeat it again, because obviously nobody heard it the first time - members opposite did not: The intention behind this legislation was to extend to all Western Australians the capacity to swear an oath based upon their religious beliefs. A range of Western Australian citizens, who nonetheless hold religious beliefs, currently cannot do that, but would like to, I am sure, be able to swear an oath when they go to court to give evidence based upon their religious beliefs. That was the motivation. I do not know that anyone in this House would object to that. I received a written report, which I have tabled in this House. Ms S.E. Walker: You did not do your homework. The SPEAKER: Order, members! Mr R.F. Johnson interjected. The SPEAKER: Order! I call the member for Nedlands and the member for Hillarys to order for the first time. Mr J.A. McGINTY: I received a written report from the Chief Justice of Western Australia on this very issue. Mr P.D. Omodei: Did you consult with the clergy? The SPEAKER: Order! I call the member for Warren-Blackwood to order for the second time Mr P.D. Omodei: That still does not answer the question. The SPEAKER: Order! I call the member for Warren-Blackwood to order for the third time. Mr J.A. McGINTY: I received a written report from the Chief Justice of Western Australia recommending the changes. He said in that report that he had consulted with religious leaders, that he had consulted with ethnic community leaders and that he had consulted with the judiciary. To the extent of that consultation, there was support - in some cases strong support - for the recommendation that came forward. I make this point very clear: it was brought forward with an honest intention to expand the range of people who could swear according to their religious beliefs. It was brought forward on the basis of a recommendation from the Chief Justice. We were advised and believed that it had the support of ethnic communities, the judiciary and the religious leaders. That is what the report said. Mr P.D. Omodei: That is not what the report said. Mr J.A. McGINTY: I have already tabled the report. It transpired that when the legislation was brought forward, most religious leaders said they did not support the change being made. When that became apparent, we very quickly responded and said that if it did not have the support of the people who were directly affected by it, we did not wish to proceed. It was brought forward only on the basis that this was a consensus position recommended to me by the Chief Justice of Western Australia, with support from those other groups. In light of this new development, I have spoken to officers of both the Anglican and Catholic Archbishops and have advised them that we intend to adopt a position that is consistent with their stated position and will bring in an amendment - as I announced over the weekend - that will result in something very similar to what is contained in the commonwealth Evidence Act. That will achieve the objective that we set out to achieve, which is to enable all Western Australians to swear an oath based upon their religious beliefs, if they have religious beliefs, but also retain the capacity for people to swear by Almighty God if that is their wish. I believe the amendment that we will bring forward will meet the issues that have been raised by the religious communities, as well as the objective that we set out to achieve in the first place.
Several members interjected. Mr J.A. McGINTY: A little bit of wax out of the ears for everyone over there! Listening time! I will repeat it again, because obviously nobody heard it the first time - members opposite did not: The intention behind this legislation was to extend to all Western Australians the capacity to swear an oath based upon their religious beliefs. A range of Western Australian citizens, who nonetheless hold religious beliefs, currently cannot do that, but would like to, I am sure, be able to swear an oath when they go to court to give evidence based upon their religious beliefs. That was the motivation. I do not know that anyone in this House would object to that. I received a written report, which I have tabled in this House. Ms S.E. Walker: You did not do your homework. The SPEAKER: Order, members! Mr R.F. Johnson interjected. The SPEAKER: Order! I call the member for Nedlands and the member for Hillarys to order for the first time. Mr J.A. McGINTY: I received a written report from the Chief Justice of Western Australia on this very issue. Mr P.D. Omodei: Did you consult with the clergy? The SPEAKER: Order! I call the member for Warren-Blackwood to order for the second time Mr P.D. Omodei: That still does not answer the question. The SPEAKER: Order! I call the member for Warren-Blackwood to order for the third time. Mr J.A. McGINTY: I received a written report from the Chief Justice of Western Australia recommending the changes. He said in that report that he had consulted with religious leaders, that he had consulted with ethnic community leaders and that he had consulted with the judiciary. To the extent of that consultation, there was support - in some cases strong support - for the recommendation that came forward. I make this point very clear: it was brought forward with an honest intention to expand the range of people who could swear according to their religious beliefs. It was brought forward on the basis of a recommendation from the Chief Justice. We were advised and believed that it had the support of ethnic communities, the judiciary and the religious leaders. That is what the report said. Mr P.D. Omodei: That is not what the report said. Mr J.A. McGINTY: I have already tabled the report. It transpired that when the legislation was brought forward, most religious leaders said they did not support the change being made. When that became apparent, we very quickly responded and said that if it did not have the support of the people who were directly affected by it, we did not wish to proceed. It was brought forward only on the basis that this was a consensus position recommended to me by the Chief Justice of Western Australia, with support from those other groups. In light of this new development, I have spoken to officers of both the Anglican and Catholic Archbishops and have advised them that we intend to adopt a position that is consistent with their stated position and will bring in an amendment - as I announced over the weekend - that will result in something very similar to what is contained in the commonwealth Evidence Act. That will achieve the objective that we set out to achieve, which is to enable all Western Australians to swear an oath based upon their religious beliefs, if they have religious beliefs, but also retain the capacity for people to swear by Almighty God if that is their wish. I believe the amendment that we will bring forward will meet the issues that have been raised by the religious communities, as well as the objective that we set out to achieve in the first place.
Mr J.A. McGINTY: A little bit of wax out of the ears for everyone over there! Listening time! I will repeat it again, because obviously nobody heard it the first time - members opposite did not: The intention behind this legislation was to extend to all Western Australians the capacity to swear an oath based upon their religious beliefs. A range of Western Australian citizens, who nonetheless hold religious beliefs, currently cannot do that, but would like to, I am sure, be able to swear an oath when they go to court to give evidence based upon their religious beliefs. That was the motivation. I do not know that anyone in this House would object to that. I received a written report, which I have tabled in this House. Ms S.E. Walker: You did not do your homework. The SPEAKER: Order, members! Mr R.F. Johnson interjected. The SPEAKER: Order! I call the member for Nedlands and the member for Hillarys to order for the first time. Mr J.A. McGINTY: I received a written report from the Chief Justice of Western Australia on this very issue. Mr P.D. Omodei: Did you consult with the clergy? The SPEAKER: Order! I call the member for Warren-Blackwood to order for the second time Mr P.D. Omodei: That still does not answer the question. The SPEAKER: Order! I call the member for Warren-Blackwood to order for the third time. Mr J.A. McGINTY: I received a written report from the Chief Justice of Western Australia recommending the changes. He said in that report that he had consulted with religious leaders, that he had consulted with ethnic community leaders and that he had consulted with the judiciary. To the extent of that consultation, there was support - in some cases strong support - for the recommendation that came forward. I make this point very clear: it was brought forward with an honest intention to expand the range of people who could swear according to their religious beliefs. It was brought forward on the basis of a recommendation from the Chief Justice. We were advised and believed that it had the support of ethnic communities, the judiciary and the religious leaders. That is what the report said. Mr P.D. Omodei: That is not what the report said. Mr J.A. McGINTY: I have already tabled the report. It transpired that when the legislation was brought forward, most religious leaders said they did not support the change being made. When that became apparent, we very quickly responded and said that if it did not have the support of the people who were directly affected by it, we did not wish to proceed. It was brought forward only on the basis that this was a consensus position recommended to me by the Chief Justice of Western Australia, with support from those other groups. In light of this new development, I have spoken to officers of both the Anglican and Catholic Archbishops and have advised them that we intend to adopt a position that is consistent with their stated position and will bring in an amendment - as I announced over the weekend - that will result in something very similar to what is contained in the commonwealth Evidence Act. That will achieve the objective that we set out to achieve, which is to enable all Western Australians to swear an oath based upon their religious beliefs, if they have religious beliefs, but also retain the capacity for people to swear by Almighty God if that is their wish. I believe the amendment that we will bring forward will meet the issues that have been raised by the religious communities, as well as the objective that we set out to achieve in the first place.
Ms S.E. Walker: You did not do your homework. The SPEAKER: Order, members! Mr R.F. Johnson interjected. The SPEAKER: Order! I call the member for Nedlands and the member for Hillarys to order for the first time. Mr J.A. McGINTY: I received a written report from the Chief Justice of Western Australia on this very issue. Mr P.D. Omodei: Did you consult with the clergy? The SPEAKER: Order! I call the member for Warren-Blackwood to order for the second time Mr P.D. Omodei: That still does not answer the question. The SPEAKER: Order! I call the member for Warren-Blackwood to order for the third time. Mr J.A. McGINTY: I received a written report from the Chief Justice of Western Australia recommending the changes. He said in that report that he had consulted with religious leaders, that he had consulted with ethnic community leaders and that he had consulted with the judiciary. To the extent of that consultation, there was support - in some cases strong support - for the recommendation that came forward. I make this point very clear: it was brought forward with an honest intention to expand the range of people who could swear according to their religious beliefs. It was brought forward on the basis of a recommendation from the Chief Justice. We were advised and believed that it had the support of ethnic communities, the judiciary and the religious leaders. That is what the report said. Mr P.D. Omodei: That is not what the report said. Mr J.A. McGINTY: I have already tabled the report. It transpired that when the legislation was brought forward, most religious leaders said they did not support the change being made. When that became apparent, we very quickly responded and said that if it did not have the support of the people who were directly affected by it, we did not wish to proceed. It was brought forward only on the basis that this was a consensus position recommended to me by the Chief Justice of Western Australia, with support from those other groups. In light of this new development, I have spoken to officers of both the Anglican and Catholic Archbishops and have advised them that we intend to adopt a position that is consistent with their stated position and will bring in an amendment - as I announced over the weekend - that will result in something very similar to what is contained in the commonwealth Evidence Act. That will achieve the objective that we set out to achieve, which is to enable all Western Australians to swear an oath based upon their religious beliefs, if they have religious beliefs, but also retain the capacity for people to swear by Almighty God if that is their wish. I believe the amendment that we will bring forward will meet the issues that have been raised by the religious communities, as well as the objective that we set out to achieve in the first place.
The SPEAKER: Order, members! Mr R.F. Johnson interjected. The SPEAKER: Order! I call the member for Nedlands and the member for Hillarys to order for the first time. Mr J.A. McGINTY: I received a written report from the Chief Justice of Western Australia on this very issue. Mr P.D. Omodei: Did you consult with the clergy? The SPEAKER: Order! I call the member for Warren-Blackwood to order for the second time Mr P.D. Omodei: That still does not answer the question. The SPEAKER: Order! I call the member for Warren-Blackwood to order for the third time. Mr J.A. McGINTY: I received a written report from the Chief Justice of Western Australia recommending the changes. He said in that report that he had consulted with religious leaders, that he had consulted with ethnic community leaders and that he had consulted with the judiciary. To the extent of that consultation, there was support - in some cases strong support - for the recommendation that came forward. I make this point very clear: it was brought forward with an honest intention to expand the range of people who could swear according to their religious beliefs. It was brought forward on the basis of a recommendation from the Chief Justice. We were advised and believed that it had the support of ethnic communities, the judiciary and the religious leaders. That is what the report said. Mr P.D. Omodei: That is not what the report said. Mr J.A. McGINTY: I have already tabled the report. It transpired that when the legislation was brought forward, most religious leaders said they did not support the change being made. When that became apparent, we very quickly responded and said that if it did not have the support of the people who were directly affected by it, we did not wish to proceed. It was brought forward only on the basis that this was a consensus position recommended to me by the Chief Justice of Western Australia, with support from those other groups. In light of this new development, I have spoken to officers of both the Anglican and Catholic Archbishops and have advised them that we intend to adopt a position that is consistent with their stated position and will bring in an amendment - as I announced over the weekend - that will result in something very similar to what is contained in the commonwealth Evidence Act. That will achieve the objective that we set out to achieve, which is to enable all Western Australians to swear an oath based upon their religious beliefs, if they have religious beliefs, but also retain the capacity for people to swear by Almighty God if that is their wish. I believe the amendment that we will bring forward will meet the issues that have been raised by the religious communities, as well as the objective that we set out to achieve in the first place.
Mr R.F. Johnson interjected. The SPEAKER: Order! I call the member for Nedlands and the member for Hillarys to order for the first time. Mr J.A. McGINTY: I received a written report from the Chief Justice of Western Australia on this very issue. Mr P.D. Omodei: Did you consult with the clergy? The SPEAKER: Order! I call the member for Warren-Blackwood to order for the second time Mr P.D. Omodei: That still does not answer the question. The SPEAKER: Order! I call the member for Warren-Blackwood to order for the third time. Mr J.A. McGINTY: I received a written report from the Chief Justice of Western Australia recommending the changes. He said in that report that he had consulted with religious leaders, that he had consulted with ethnic community leaders and that he had consulted with the judiciary. To the extent of that consultation, there was support - in some cases strong support - for the recommendation that came forward. I make this point very clear: it was brought forward with an honest intention to expand the range of people who could swear according to their religious beliefs. It was brought forward on the basis of a recommendation from the Chief Justice. We were advised and believed that it had the support of ethnic communities, the judiciary and the religious leaders. That is what the report said. Mr P.D. Omodei: That is not what the report said. Mr J.A. McGINTY: I have already tabled the report. It transpired that when the legislation was brought forward, most religious leaders said they did not support the change being made. When that became apparent, we very quickly responded and said that if it did not have the support of the people who were directly affected by it, we did not wish to proceed. It was brought forward only on the basis that this was a consensus position recommended to me by the Chief Justice of Western Australia, with support from those other groups. In light of this new development, I have spoken to officers of both the Anglican and Catholic Archbishops and have advised them that we intend to adopt a position that is consistent with their stated position and will bring in an amendment - as I announced over the weekend - that will result in something very similar to what is contained in the commonwealth Evidence Act. That will achieve the objective that we set out to achieve, which is to enable all Western Australians to swear an oath based upon their religious beliefs, if they have religious beliefs, but also retain the capacity for people to swear by Almighty God if that is their wish. I believe the amendment that we will bring forward will meet the issues that have been raised by the religious communities, as well as the objective that we set out to achieve in the first place.
The SPEAKER: Order! I call the member for Nedlands and the member for Hillarys to order for the first time. Mr J.A. McGINTY: I received a written report from the Chief Justice of Western Australia on this very issue. Mr P.D. Omodei: Did you consult with the clergy? The SPEAKER: Order! I call the member for Warren-Blackwood to order for the second time Mr P.D. Omodei: That still does not answer the question. The SPEAKER: Order! I call the member for Warren-Blackwood to order for the third time. Mr J.A. McGINTY: I received a written report from the Chief Justice of Western Australia recommending the changes. He said in that report that he had consulted with religious leaders, that he had consulted with ethnic community leaders and that he had consulted with the judiciary. To the extent of that consultation, there was support - in some cases strong support - for the recommendation that came forward. I make this point very clear: it was brought forward with an honest intention to expand the range of people who could swear according to their religious beliefs. It was brought forward on the basis of a recommendation from the Chief Justice. We were advised and believed that it had the support of ethnic communities, the judiciary and the religious leaders. That is what the report said. Mr P.D. Omodei: That is not what the report said. Mr J.A. McGINTY: I have already tabled the report. It transpired that when the legislation was brought forward, most religious leaders said they did not support the change being made. When that became apparent, we very quickly responded and said that if it did not have the support of the people who were directly affected by it, we did not wish to proceed. It was brought forward only on the basis that this was a consensus position recommended to me by the Chief Justice of Western Australia, with support from those other groups. In light of this new development, I have spoken to officers of both the Anglican and Catholic Archbishops and have advised them that we intend to adopt a position that is consistent with their stated position and will bring in an amendment - as I announced over the weekend - that will result in something very similar to what is contained in the commonwealth Evidence Act. That will achieve the objective that we set out to achieve, which is to enable all Western Australians to swear an oath based upon their religious beliefs, if they have religious beliefs, but also retain the capacity for people to swear by Almighty God if that is their wish. I believe the amendment that we will bring forward will meet the issues that have been raised by the religious communities, as well as the objective that we set out to achieve in the first place.
Mr J.A. McGINTY: I received a written report from the Chief Justice of Western Australia on this very issue. Mr P.D. Omodei: Did you consult with the clergy? The SPEAKER: Order! I call the member for Warren-Blackwood to order for the second time Mr P.D. Omodei: That still does not answer the question. The SPEAKER: Order! I call the member for Warren-Blackwood to order for the third time. Mr J.A. McGINTY: I received a written report from the Chief Justice of Western Australia recommending the changes. He said in that report that he had consulted with religious leaders, that he had consulted with ethnic community leaders and that he had consulted with the judiciary. To the extent of that consultation, there was support - in some cases strong support - for the recommendation that came forward. I make this point very clear: it was brought forward with an honest intention to expand the range of people who could swear according to their religious beliefs. It was brought forward on the basis of a recommendation from the Chief Justice. We were advised and believed that it had the support of ethnic communities, the judiciary and the religious leaders. That is what the report said. Mr P.D. Omodei: That is not what the report said. Mr J.A. McGINTY: I have already tabled the report. It transpired that when the legislation was brought forward, most religious leaders said they did not support the change being made. When that became apparent, we very quickly responded and said that if it did not have the support of the people who were directly affected by it, we did not wish to proceed. It was brought forward only on the basis that this was a consensus position recommended to me by the Chief Justice of Western Australia, with support from those other groups. In light of this new development, I have spoken to officers of both the Anglican and Catholic Archbishops and have advised them that we intend to adopt a position that is consistent with their stated position and will bring in an amendment - as I announced over the weekend - that will result in something very similar to what is contained in the commonwealth Evidence Act. That will achieve the objective that we set out to achieve, which is to enable all Western Australians to swear an oath based upon their religious beliefs, if they have religious beliefs, but also retain the capacity for people to swear by Almighty God if that is their wish. I believe the amendment that we will bring forward will meet the issues that have been raised by the religious communities, as well as the objective that we set out to achieve in the first place.
Mr P.D. Omodei: Did you consult with the clergy? The SPEAKER: Order! I call the member for Warren-Blackwood to order for the second time Mr P.D. Omodei: That still does not answer the question. The SPEAKER: Order! I call the member for Warren-Blackwood to order for the third time. Mr J.A. McGINTY: I received a written report from the Chief Justice of Western Australia recommending the changes. He said in that report that he had consulted with religious leaders, that he had consulted with ethnic community leaders and that he had consulted with the judiciary. To the extent of that consultation, there was support - in some cases strong support - for the recommendation that came forward. I make this point very clear: it was brought forward with an honest intention to expand the range of people who could swear according to their religious beliefs. It was brought forward on the basis of a recommendation from the Chief Justice. We were advised and believed that it had the support of ethnic communities, the judiciary and the religious leaders. That is what the report said. Mr P.D. Omodei: That is not what the report said. Mr J.A. McGINTY: I have already tabled the report. It transpired that when the legislation was brought forward, most religious leaders said they did not support the change being made. When that became apparent, we very quickly responded and said that if it did not have the support of the people who were directly affected by it, we did not wish to proceed. It was brought forward only on the basis that this was a consensus position recommended to me by the Chief Justice of Western Australia, with support from those other groups. In light of this new development, I have spoken to officers of both the Anglican and Catholic Archbishops and have advised them that we intend to adopt a position that is consistent with their stated position and will bring in an amendment - as I announced over the weekend - that will result in something very similar to what is contained in the commonwealth Evidence Act. That will achieve the objective that we set out to achieve, which is to enable all Western Australians to swear an oath based upon their religious beliefs, if they have religious beliefs, but also retain the capacity for people to swear by Almighty God if that is their wish. I believe the amendment that we will bring forward will meet the issues that have been raised by the religious communities, as well as the objective that we set out to achieve in the first place.
The SPEAKER: Order! I call the member for Warren-Blackwood to order for the second time Mr P.D. Omodei: That still does not answer the question. The SPEAKER: Order! I call the member for Warren-Blackwood to order for the third time. Mr J.A. McGINTY: I received a written report from the Chief Justice of Western Australia recommending the changes. He said in that report that he had consulted with religious leaders, that he had consulted with ethnic community leaders and that he had consulted with the judiciary. To the extent of that consultation, there was support - in some cases strong support - for the recommendation that came forward. I make this point very clear: it was brought forward with an honest intention to expand the range of people who could swear according to their religious beliefs. It was brought forward on the basis of a recommendation from the Chief Justice. We were advised and believed that it had the support of ethnic communities, the judiciary and the religious leaders. That is what the report said. Mr P.D. Omodei: That is not what the report said. Mr J.A. McGINTY: I have already tabled the report. It transpired that when the legislation was brought forward, most religious leaders said they did not support the change being made. When that became apparent, we very quickly responded and said that if it did not have the support of the people who were directly affected by it, we did not wish to proceed. It was brought forward only on the basis that this was a consensus position recommended to me by the Chief Justice of Western Australia, with support from those other groups. In light of this new development, I have spoken to officers of both the Anglican and Catholic Archbishops and have advised them that we intend to adopt a position that is consistent with their stated position and will bring in an amendment - as I announced over the weekend - that will result in something very similar to what is contained in the commonwealth Evidence Act. That will achieve the objective that we set out to achieve, which is to enable all Western Australians to swear an oath based upon their religious beliefs, if they have religious beliefs, but also retain the capacity for people to swear by Almighty God if that is their wish. I believe the amendment that we will bring forward will meet the issues that have been raised by the religious communities, as well as the objective that we set out to achieve in the first place.
Mr P.D. Omodei: That still does not answer the question. The SPEAKER: Order! I call the member for Warren-Blackwood to order for the third time. Mr J.A. McGINTY: I received a written report from the Chief Justice of Western Australia recommending the changes. He said in that report that he had consulted with religious leaders, that he had consulted with ethnic community leaders and that he had consulted with the judiciary. To the extent of that consultation, there was support - in some cases strong support - for the recommendation that came forward. I make this point very clear: it was brought forward with an honest intention to expand the range of people who could swear according to their religious beliefs. It was brought forward on the basis of a recommendation from the Chief Justice. We were advised and believed that it had the support of ethnic communities, the judiciary and the religious leaders. That is what the report said. Mr P.D. Omodei: That is not what the report said. Mr J.A. McGINTY: I have already tabled the report. It transpired that when the legislation was brought forward, most religious leaders said they did not support the change being made. When that became apparent, we very quickly responded and said that if it did not have the support of the people who were directly affected by it, we did not wish to proceed. It was brought forward only on the basis that this was a consensus position recommended to me by the Chief Justice of Western Australia, with support from those other groups. In light of this new development, I have spoken to officers of both the Anglican and Catholic Archbishops and have advised them that we intend to adopt a position that is consistent with their stated position and will bring in an amendment - as I announced over the weekend - that will result in something very similar to what is contained in the commonwealth Evidence Act. That will achieve the objective that we set out to achieve, which is to enable all Western Australians to swear an oath based upon their religious beliefs, if they have religious beliefs, but also retain the capacity for people to swear by Almighty God if that is their wish. I believe the amendment that we will bring forward will meet the issues that have been raised by the religious communities, as well as the objective that we set out to achieve in the first place.
The SPEAKER: Order! I call the member for Warren-Blackwood to order for the third time. Mr J.A. McGINTY: I received a written report from the Chief Justice of Western Australia recommending the changes. He said in that report that he had consulted with religious leaders, that he had consulted with ethnic community leaders and that he had consulted with the judiciary. To the extent of that consultation, there was support - in some cases strong support - for the recommendation that came forward. I make this point very clear: it was brought forward with an honest intention to expand the range of people who could swear according to their religious beliefs. It was brought forward on the basis of a recommendation from the Chief Justice. We were advised and believed that it had the support of ethnic communities, the judiciary and the religious leaders. That is what the report said. Mr P.D. Omodei: That is not what the report said. Mr J.A. McGINTY: I have already tabled the report. It transpired that when the legislation was brought forward, most religious leaders said they did not support the change being made. When that became apparent, we very quickly responded and said that if it did not have the support of the people who were directly affected by it, we did not wish to proceed. It was brought forward only on the basis that this was a consensus position recommended to me by the Chief Justice of Western Australia, with support from those other groups. In light of this new development, I have spoken to officers of both the Anglican and Catholic Archbishops and have advised them that we intend to adopt a position that is consistent with their stated position and will bring in an amendment - as I announced over the weekend - that will result in something very similar to what is contained in the commonwealth Evidence Act. That will achieve the objective that we set out to achieve, which is to enable all Western Australians to swear an oath based upon their religious beliefs, if they have religious beliefs, but also retain the capacity for people to swear by Almighty God if that is their wish. I believe the amendment that we will bring forward will meet the issues that have been raised by the religious communities, as well as the objective that we set out to achieve in the first place.
Mr J.A. McGINTY: I received a written report from the Chief Justice of Western Australia recommending the changes. He said in that report that he had consulted with religious leaders, that he had consulted with ethnic community leaders and that he had consulted with the judiciary. To the extent of that consultation, there was support - in some cases strong support - for the recommendation that came forward. I make this point very clear: it was brought forward with an honest intention to expand the range of people who could swear according to their religious beliefs. It was brought forward on the basis of a recommendation from the Chief Justice. We were advised and believed that it had the support of ethnic communities, the judiciary and the religious leaders. That is what the report said. Mr P.D. Omodei: That is not what the report said. Mr J.A. McGINTY: I have already tabled the report. It transpired that when the legislation was brought forward, most religious leaders said they did not support the change being made. When that became apparent, we very quickly responded and said that if it did not have the support of the people who were directly affected by it, we did not wish to proceed. It was brought forward only on the basis that this was a consensus position recommended to me by the Chief Justice of Western Australia, with support from those other groups. In light of this new development, I have spoken to officers of both the Anglican and Catholic Archbishops and have advised them that we intend to adopt a position that is consistent with their stated position and will bring in an amendment - as I announced over the weekend - that will result in something very similar to what is contained in the commonwealth Evidence Act. That will achieve the objective that we set out to achieve, which is to enable all Western Australians to swear an oath based upon their religious beliefs, if they have religious beliefs, but also retain the capacity for people to swear by Almighty God if that is their wish. I believe the amendment that we will bring forward will meet the issues that have been raised by the religious communities, as well as the objective that we set out to achieve in the first place.
Mr P.D. Omodei: That is not what the report said. Mr J.A. McGINTY: I have already tabled the report. It transpired that when the legislation was brought forward, most religious leaders said they did not support the change being made. When that became apparent, we very quickly responded and said that if it did not have the support of the people who were directly affected by it, we did not wish to proceed. It was brought forward only on the basis that this was a consensus position recommended to me by the Chief Justice of Western Australia, with support from those other groups. In light of this new development, I have spoken to officers of both the Anglican and Catholic Archbishops and have advised them that we intend to adopt a position that is consistent with their stated position and will bring in an amendment - as I announced over the weekend - that will result in something very similar to what is contained in the commonwealth Evidence Act. That will achieve the objective that we set out to achieve, which is to enable all Western Australians to swear an oath based upon their religious beliefs, if they have religious beliefs, but also retain the capacity for people to swear by Almighty God if that is their wish. I believe the amendment that we will bring forward will meet the issues that have been raised by the religious communities, as well as the objective that we set out to achieve in the first place.
Mr J.A. McGINTY: I have already tabled the report. It transpired that when the legislation was brought forward, most religious leaders said they did not support the change being made. When that became apparent, we very quickly responded and said that if it did not have the support of the people who were directly affected by it, we did not wish to proceed. It was brought forward only on the basis that this was a consensus position recommended to me by the Chief Justice of Western Australia, with support from those other groups. In light of this new development, I have spoken to officers of both the Anglican and Catholic Archbishops and have advised them that we intend to adopt a position that is consistent with their stated position and will bring in an amendment - as I announced over the weekend - that will result in something very similar to what is contained in the commonwealth Evidence Act. That will achieve the objective that we set out to achieve, which is to enable all Western Australians to swear an oath based upon their religious beliefs, if they have religious beliefs, but also retain the capacity for people to swear by Almighty God if that is their wish. I believe the amendment that we will bring forward will meet the issues that have been raised by the religious communities, as well as the objective that we set out to achieve in the first place.
Dr G.I. Gallop: You are a bit behind the times! The SPEAKER: Order, members! Mr C.J. BARNETT: The Premier laughed at the issue last week, so I am not surprised he is laughing at it today. The Premier can keep laughing at God if he wants to, if that is his attitude. I refer the Premier - Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order, members! Mr C.J. BARNETT: That is the way government members treated the issue last week, so they should keep laughing. People are watching and listening. I refer the Attorney General to his proposal to delete any reference to God from oaths taken in Western Australia; and, while I thank him for listening to the strong objections of the Liberal Party and religious leaders, I nevertheless ask - (1) Can the Attorney General confirm that he did not undertake any consultation with any religious leaders before introducing into Parliament the Oaths, Affidavits and Statutory Declarations Bill 2003? (2) Will the Attorney General now admit that he misled this House when he claimed that the religious leaders of Perth were consulted and they supported the recommendation of the Chief Justice? Mr J.A. McGINTY replied: (1)-(2) The intention of the legislation was to extend to all Western Australians the capacity to swear an oath based upon their religious beliefs. A range of people cannot currently do that because of the nature of the oath that is involved. Ms S.E. Walker: That is not true. The SPEAKER: Order, member for Nedlands! Mr J.A. McGINTY: I repeat that there are some Western Australian citizens who cannot swear an oath based upon their religious beliefs, because - Mr P.G. Pendal: They can make an affirmation. The SPEAKER: Order, members! Mr J.A. McGINTY: That is right. They can make an affirmation. They cannot swear on the basis of their religious beliefs. Several members interjected. Mr J.A. McGINTY: A little bit of wax out of the ears for everyone over there! Listening time! I will repeat it again, because obviously nobody heard it the first time - members opposite did not: The intention behind this legislation was to extend to all Western Australians the capacity to swear an oath based upon their religious beliefs. A range of Western Australian citizens, who nonetheless hold religious beliefs, currently cannot do that, but would like to, I am sure, be able to swear an oath when they go to court to give evidence based upon their religious beliefs. That was the motivation. I do not know that anyone in this House would object to that. I received a written report, which I have tabled in this House. Ms S.E. Walker: You did not do your homework. The SPEAKER: Order, members! Mr R.F. Johnson interjected. The SPEAKER: Order! I call the member for Nedlands and the member for Hillarys to order for the first time. Mr J.A. McGINTY: I received a written report from the Chief Justice of Western Australia on this very issue. Mr P.D. Omodei: Did you consult with the clergy? The SPEAKER: Order! I call the member for Warren-Blackwood to order for the second time Mr P.D. Omodei: That still does not answer the question. The SPEAKER: Order! I call the member for Warren-Blackwood to order for the third time. Mr J.A. McGINTY: I received a written report from the Chief Justice of Western Australia recommending the changes. He said in that report that he had consulted with religious leaders, that he had consulted with ethnic community leaders and that he had consulted with the judiciary. To the extent of that consultation, there was support - in some cases strong support - for the recommendation that came forward. I make this point very clear: it was brought forward with an honest intention to expand the range of people who could swear according to their religious beliefs. It was brought forward on the basis of a recommendation from the Chief Justice. We were advised and believed that it had the support of ethnic communities, the judiciary and the religious leaders. That is what the report said. Mr P.D. Omodei: That is not what the report said. Mr J.A. McGINTY: I have already tabled the report. It transpired that when the legislation was brought forward, most religious leaders said they did not support the change being made. When that became apparent, we very quickly responded and said that if it did not have the support of the people who were directly affected by it, we did not wish to proceed. It was brought forward only on the basis that this was a consensus position recommended to me by the Chief Justice of Western Australia, with support from those other groups. In light of this new development, I have spoken to officers of both the Anglican and Catholic Archbishops and have advised them that we intend to adopt a position that is consistent with their stated position and will bring in an amendment - as I announced over the weekend - that will result in something very similar to what is contained in the commonwealth Evidence Act. That will achieve the objective that we set out to achieve, which is to enable all Western Australians to swear an oath based upon their religious beliefs, if they have religious beliefs, but also retain the capacity for people to swear by Almighty God if that is their wish. I believe the amendment that we will bring forward will meet the issues that have been raised by the religious communities, as well as the objective that we set out to achieve in the first place.
The SPEAKER: Order, members! Mr C.J. BARNETT: The Premier laughed at the issue last week, so I am not surprised he is laughing at it today. The Premier can keep laughing at God if he wants to, if that is his attitude. I refer the Premier - Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order, members! Mr C.J. BARNETT: That is the way government members treated the issue last week, so they should keep laughing. People are watching and listening. I refer the Attorney General to his proposal to delete any reference to God from oaths taken in Western Australia; and, while I thank him for listening to the strong objections of the Liberal Party and religious leaders, I nevertheless ask - (1) Can the Attorney General confirm that he did not undertake any consultation with any religious leaders before introducing into Parliament the Oaths, Affidavits and Statutory Declarations Bill 2003? (2) Will the Attorney General now admit that he misled this House when he claimed that the religious leaders of Perth were consulted and they supported the recommendation of the Chief Justice? Mr J.A. McGINTY replied: (1)-(2) The intention of the legislation was to extend to all Western Australians the capacity to swear an oath based upon their religious beliefs. A range of people cannot currently do that because of the nature of the oath that is involved. Ms S.E. Walker: That is not true. The SPEAKER: Order, member for Nedlands! Mr J.A. McGINTY: I repeat that there are some Western Australian citizens who cannot swear an oath based upon their religious beliefs, because - Mr P.G. Pendal: They can make an affirmation. The SPEAKER: Order, members! Mr J.A. McGINTY: That is right. They can make an affirmation. They cannot swear on the basis of their religious beliefs. Several members interjected. Mr J.A. McGINTY: A little bit of wax out of the ears for everyone over there! Listening time! I will repeat it again, because obviously nobody heard it the first time - members opposite did not: The intention behind this legislation was to extend to all Western Australians the capacity to swear an oath based upon their religious beliefs. A range of Western Australian citizens, who nonetheless hold religious beliefs, currently cannot do that, but would like to, I am sure, be able to swear an oath when they go to court to give evidence based upon their religious beliefs. That was the motivation. I do not know that anyone in this House would object to that. I received a written report, which I have tabled in this House. Ms S.E. Walker: You did not do your homework. The SPEAKER: Order, members! Mr R.F. Johnson interjected. The SPEAKER: Order! I call the member for Nedlands and the member for Hillarys to order for the first time. Mr J.A. McGINTY: I received a written report from the Chief Justice of Western Australia on this very issue. Mr P.D. Omodei: Did you consult with the clergy? The SPEAKER: Order! I call the member for Warren-Blackwood to order for the second time Mr P.D. Omodei: That still does not answer the question. The SPEAKER: Order! I call the member for Warren-Blackwood to order for the third time. Mr J.A. McGINTY: I received a written report from the Chief Justice of Western Australia recommending the changes. He said in that report that he had consulted with religious leaders, that he had consulted with ethnic community leaders and that he had consulted with the judiciary. To the extent of that consultation, there was support - in some cases strong support - for the recommendation that came forward. I make this point very clear: it was brought forward with an honest intention to expand the range of people who could swear according to their religious beliefs. It was brought forward on the basis of a recommendation from the Chief Justice. We were advised and believed that it had the support of ethnic communities, the judiciary and the religious leaders. That is what the report said. Mr P.D. Omodei: That is not what the report said. Mr J.A. McGINTY: I have already tabled the report. It transpired that when the legislation was brought forward, most religious leaders said they did not support the change being made. When that became apparent, we very quickly responded and said that if it did not have the support of the people who were directly affected by it, we did not wish to proceed. It was brought forward only on the basis that this was a consensus position recommended to me by the Chief Justice of Western Australia, with support from those other groups. In light of this new development, I have spoken to officers of both the Anglican and Catholic Archbishops and have advised them that we intend to adopt a position that is consistent with their stated position and will bring in an amendment - as I announced over the weekend - that will result in something very similar to what is contained in the commonwealth Evidence Act. That will achieve the objective that we set out to achieve, which is to enable all Western Australians to swear an oath based upon their religious beliefs, if they have religious beliefs, but also retain the capacity for people to swear by Almighty God if that is their wish. I believe the amendment that we will bring forward will meet the issues that have been raised by the religious communities, as well as the objective that we set out to achieve in the first place.
Mr C.J. BARNETT: The Premier laughed at the issue last week, so I am not surprised he is laughing at it today. The Premier can keep laughing at God if he wants to, if that is his attitude. I refer the Premier - Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order, members! Mr C.J. BARNETT: That is the way government members treated the issue last week, so they should keep laughing. People are watching and listening. I refer the Attorney General to his proposal to delete any reference to God from oaths taken in Western Australia; and, while I thank him for listening to the strong objections of the Liberal Party and religious leaders, I nevertheless ask - (1) Can the Attorney General confirm that he did not undertake any consultation with any religious leaders before introducing into Parliament the Oaths, Affidavits and Statutory Declarations Bill 2003? (2) Will the Attorney General now admit that he misled this House when he claimed that the religious leaders of Perth were consulted and they supported the recommendation of the Chief Justice? Mr J.A. McGINTY replied: (1)-(2) The intention of the legislation was to extend to all Western Australians the capacity to swear an oath based upon their religious beliefs. A range of people cannot currently do that because of the nature of the oath that is involved. Ms S.E. Walker: That is not true. The SPEAKER: Order, member for Nedlands! Mr J.A. McGINTY: I repeat that there are some Western Australian citizens who cannot swear an oath based upon their religious beliefs, because - Mr P.G. Pendal: They can make an affirmation. The SPEAKER: Order, members! Mr J.A. McGINTY: That is right. They can make an affirmation. They cannot swear on the basis of their religious beliefs. Several members interjected. Mr J.A. McGINTY: A little bit of wax out of the ears for everyone over there! Listening time! I will repeat it again, because obviously nobody heard it the first time - members opposite did not: The intention behind this legislation was to extend to all Western Australians the capacity to swear an oath based upon their religious beliefs. A range of Western Australian citizens, who nonetheless hold religious beliefs, currently cannot do that, but would like to, I am sure, be able to swear an oath when they go to court to give evidence based upon their religious beliefs. That was the motivation. I do not know that anyone in this House would object to that. I received a written report, which I have tabled in this House. Ms S.E. Walker: You did not do your homework. The SPEAKER: Order, members! Mr R.F. Johnson interjected. The SPEAKER: Order! I call the member for Nedlands and the member for Hillarys to order for the first time. Mr J.A. McGINTY: I received a written report from the Chief Justice of Western Australia on this very issue. Mr P.D. Omodei: Did you consult with the clergy? The SPEAKER: Order! I call the member for Warren-Blackwood to order for the second time Mr P.D. Omodei: That still does not answer the question. The SPEAKER: Order! I call the member for Warren-Blackwood to order for the third time. Mr J.A. McGINTY: I received a written report from the Chief Justice of Western Australia recommending the changes. He said in that report that he had consulted with religious leaders, that he had consulted with ethnic community leaders and that he had consulted with the judiciary. To the extent of that consultation, there was support - in some cases strong support - for the recommendation that came forward. I make this point very clear: it was brought forward with an honest intention to expand the range of people who could swear according to their religious beliefs. It was brought forward on the basis of a recommendation from the Chief Justice. We were advised and believed that it had the support of ethnic communities, the judiciary and the religious leaders. That is what the report said. Mr P.D. Omodei: That is not what the report said. Mr J.A. McGINTY: I have already tabled the report. It transpired that when the legislation was brought forward, most religious leaders said they did not support the change being made. When that became apparent, we very quickly responded and said that if it did not have the support of the people who were directly affected by it, we did not wish to proceed. It was brought forward only on the basis that this was a consensus position recommended to me by the Chief Justice of Western Australia, with support from those other groups. In light of this new development, I have spoken to officers of both the Anglican and Catholic Archbishops and have advised them that we intend to adopt a position that is consistent with their stated position and will bring in an amendment - as I announced over the weekend - that will result in something very similar to what is contained in the commonwealth Evidence Act. That will achieve the objective that we set out to achieve, which is to enable all Western Australians to swear an oath based upon their religious beliefs, if they have religious beliefs, but also retain the capacity for people to swear by Almighty God if that is their wish. I believe the amendment that we will bring forward will meet the issues that have been raised by the religious communities, as well as the objective that we set out to achieve in the first place.
Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order, members! Mr C.J. BARNETT: That is the way government members treated the issue last week, so they should keep laughing. People are watching and listening. I refer the Attorney General to his proposal to delete any reference to God from oaths taken in Western Australia; and, while I thank him for listening to the strong objections of the Liberal Party and religious leaders, I nevertheless ask - (1) Can the Attorney General confirm that he did not undertake any consultation with any religious leaders before introducing into Parliament the Oaths, Affidavits and Statutory Declarations Bill 2003? (2) Will the Attorney General now admit that he misled this House when he claimed that the religious leaders of Perth were consulted and they supported the recommendation of the Chief Justice? Mr J.A. McGINTY replied: (1)-(2) The intention of the legislation was to extend to all Western Australians the capacity to swear an oath based upon their religious beliefs. A range of people cannot currently do that because of the nature of the oath that is involved. Ms S.E. Walker: That is not true. The SPEAKER: Order, member for Nedlands! Mr J.A. McGINTY: I repeat that there are some Western Australian citizens who cannot swear an oath based upon their religious beliefs, because - Mr P.G. Pendal: They can make an affirmation. The SPEAKER: Order, members! Mr J.A. McGINTY: That is right. They can make an affirmation. They cannot swear on the basis of their religious beliefs. Several members interjected. Mr J.A. McGINTY: A little bit of wax out of the ears for everyone over there! Listening time! I will repeat it again, because obviously nobody heard it the first time - members opposite did not: The intention behind this legislation was to extend to all Western Australians the capacity to swear an oath based upon their religious beliefs. A range of Western Australian citizens, who nonetheless hold religious beliefs, currently cannot do that, but would like to, I am sure, be able to swear an oath when they go to court to give evidence based upon their religious beliefs. That was the motivation. I do not know that anyone in this House would object to that. I received a written report, which I have tabled in this House. Ms S.E. Walker: You did not do your homework. The SPEAKER: Order, members! Mr R.F. Johnson interjected. The SPEAKER: Order! I call the member for Nedlands and the member for Hillarys to order for the first time. Mr J.A. McGINTY: I received a written report from the Chief Justice of Western Australia on this very issue. Mr P.D. Omodei: Did you consult with the clergy? The SPEAKER: Order! I call the member for Warren-Blackwood to order for the second time Mr P.D. Omodei: That still does not answer the question. The SPEAKER: Order! I call the member for Warren-Blackwood to order for the third time. Mr J.A. McGINTY: I received a written report from the Chief Justice of Western Australia recommending the changes. He said in that report that he had consulted with religious leaders, that he had consulted with ethnic community leaders and that he had consulted with the judiciary. To the extent of that consultation, there was support - in some cases strong support - for the recommendation that came forward. I make this point very clear: it was brought forward with an honest intention to expand the range of people who could swear according to their religious beliefs. It was brought forward on the basis of a recommendation from the Chief Justice. We were advised and believed that it had the support of ethnic communities, the judiciary and the religious leaders. That is what the report said. Mr P.D. Omodei: That is not what the report said. Mr J.A. McGINTY: I have already tabled the report. It transpired that when the legislation was brought forward, most religious leaders said they did not support the change being made. When that became apparent, we very quickly responded and said that if it did not have the support of the people who were directly affected by it, we did not wish to proceed. It was brought forward only on the basis that this was a consensus position recommended to me by the Chief Justice of Western Australia, with support from those other groups. In light of this new development, I have spoken to officers of both the Anglican and Catholic Archbishops and have advised them that we intend to adopt a position that is consistent with their stated position and will bring in an amendment - as I announced over the weekend - that will result in something very similar to what is contained in the commonwealth Evidence Act. That will achieve the objective that we set out to achieve, which is to enable all Western Australians to swear an oath based upon their religious beliefs, if they have religious beliefs, but also retain the capacity for people to swear by Almighty God if that is their wish. I believe the amendment that we will bring forward will meet the issues that have been raised by the religious communities, as well as the objective that we set out to achieve in the first place.
The SPEAKER: Order, members! Mr C.J. BARNETT: That is the way government members treated the issue last week, so they should keep laughing. People are watching and listening. I refer the Attorney General to his proposal to delete any reference to God from oaths taken in Western Australia; and, while I thank him for listening to the strong objections of the Liberal Party and religious leaders, I nevertheless ask - (1) Can the Attorney General confirm that he did not undertake any consultation with any religious leaders before introducing into Parliament the Oaths, Affidavits and Statutory Declarations Bill 2003? (2) Will the Attorney General now admit that he misled this House when he claimed that the religious leaders of Perth were consulted and they supported the recommendation of the Chief Justice? Mr J.A. McGINTY replied: (1)-(2) The intention of the legislation was to extend to all Western Australians the capacity to swear an oath based upon their religious beliefs. A range of people cannot currently do that because of the nature of the oath that is involved. Ms S.E. Walker: That is not true. The SPEAKER: Order, member for Nedlands! Mr J.A. McGINTY: I repeat that there are some Western Australian citizens who cannot swear an oath based upon their religious beliefs, because - Mr P.G. Pendal: They can make an affirmation. The SPEAKER: Order, members! Mr J.A. McGINTY: That is right. They can make an affirmation. They cannot swear on the basis of their religious beliefs. Several members interjected. Mr J.A. McGINTY: A little bit of wax out of the ears for everyone over there! Listening time! I will repeat it again, because obviously nobody heard it the first time - members opposite did not: The intention behind this legislation was to extend to all Western Australians the capacity to swear an oath based upon their religious beliefs. A range of Western Australian citizens, who nonetheless hold religious beliefs, currently cannot do that, but would like to, I am sure, be able to swear an oath when they go to court to give evidence based upon their religious beliefs. That was the motivation. I do not know that anyone in this House would object to that. I received a written report, which I have tabled in this House. Ms S.E. Walker: You did not do your homework. The SPEAKER: Order, members! Mr R.F. Johnson interjected. The SPEAKER: Order! I call the member for Nedlands and the member for Hillarys to order for the first time. Mr J.A. McGINTY: I received a written report from the Chief Justice of Western Australia on this very issue. Mr P.D. Omodei: Did you consult with the clergy? The SPEAKER: Order! I call the member for Warren-Blackwood to order for the second time Mr P.D. Omodei: That still does not answer the question. The SPEAKER: Order! I call the member for Warren-Blackwood to order for the third time. Mr J.A. McGINTY: I received a written report from the Chief Justice of Western Australia recommending the changes. He said in that report that he had consulted with religious leaders, that he had consulted with ethnic community leaders and that he had consulted with the judiciary. To the extent of that consultation, there was support - in some cases strong support - for the recommendation that came forward. I make this point very clear: it was brought forward with an honest intention to expand the range of people who could swear according to their religious beliefs. It was brought forward on the basis of a recommendation from the Chief Justice. We were advised and believed that it had the support of ethnic communities, the judiciary and the religious leaders. That is what the report said. Mr P.D. Omodei: That is not what the report said. Mr J.A. McGINTY: I have already tabled the report. It transpired that when the legislation was brought forward, most religious leaders said they did not support the change being made. When that became apparent, we very quickly responded and said that if it did not have the support of the people who were directly affected by it, we did not wish to proceed. It was brought forward only on the basis that this was a consensus position recommended to me by the Chief Justice of Western Australia, with support from those other groups. In light of this new development, I have spoken to officers of both the Anglican and Catholic Archbishops and have advised them that we intend to adopt a position that is consistent with their stated position and will bring in an amendment - as I announced over the weekend - that will result in something very similar to what is contained in the commonwealth Evidence Act. That will achieve the objective that we set out to achieve, which is to enable all Western Australians to swear an oath based upon their religious beliefs, if they have religious beliefs, but also retain the capacity for people to swear by Almighty God if that is their wish. I believe the amendment that we will bring forward will meet the issues that have been raised by the religious communities, as well as the objective that we set out to achieve in the first place.
Mr C.J. BARNETT: That is the way government members treated the issue last week, so they should keep laughing. People are watching and listening. I refer the Attorney General to his proposal to delete any reference to God from oaths taken in Western Australia; and, while I thank him for listening to the strong objections of the Liberal Party and religious leaders, I nevertheless ask - (1) Can the Attorney General confirm that he did not undertake any consultation with any religious leaders before introducing into Parliament the Oaths, Affidavits and Statutory Declarations Bill 2003? (2) Will the Attorney General now admit that he misled this House when he claimed that the religious leaders of Perth were consulted and they supported the recommendation of the Chief Justice? Mr J.A. McGINTY replied: (1)-(2) The intention of the legislation was to extend to all Western Australians the capacity to swear an oath based upon their religious beliefs. A range of people cannot currently do that because of the nature of the oath that is involved. Ms S.E. Walker: That is not true. The SPEAKER: Order, member for Nedlands! Mr J.A. McGINTY: I repeat that there are some Western Australian citizens who cannot swear an oath based upon their religious beliefs, because - Mr P.G. Pendal: They can make an affirmation. The SPEAKER: Order, members! Mr J.A. McGINTY: That is right. They can make an affirmation. They cannot swear on the basis of their religious beliefs. Several members interjected. Mr J.A. McGINTY: A little bit of wax out of the ears for everyone over there! Listening time! I will repeat it again, because obviously nobody heard it the first time - members opposite did not: The intention behind this legislation was to extend to all Western Australians the capacity to swear an oath based upon their religious beliefs. A range of Western Australian citizens, who nonetheless hold religious beliefs, currently cannot do that, but would like to, I am sure, be able to swear an oath when they go to court to give evidence based upon their religious beliefs. That was the motivation. I do not know that anyone in this House would object to that. I received a written report, which I have tabled in this House. Ms S.E. Walker: You did not do your homework. The SPEAKER: Order, members! Mr R.F. Johnson interjected. The SPEAKER: Order! I call the member for Nedlands and the member for Hillarys to order for the first time. Mr J.A. McGINTY: I received a written report from the Chief Justice of Western Australia on this very issue. Mr P.D. Omodei: Did you consult with the clergy? The SPEAKER: Order! I call the member for Warren-Blackwood to order for the second time Mr P.D. Omodei: That still does not answer the question. The SPEAKER: Order! I call the member for Warren-Blackwood to order for the third time. Mr J.A. McGINTY: I received a written report from the Chief Justice of Western Australia recommending the changes. He said in that report that he had consulted with religious leaders, that he had consulted with ethnic community leaders and that he had consulted with the judiciary. To the extent of that consultation, there was support - in some cases strong support - for the recommendation that came forward. I make this point very clear: it was brought forward with an honest intention to expand the range of people who could swear according to their religious beliefs. It was brought forward on the basis of a recommendation from the Chief Justice. We were advised and believed that it had the support of ethnic communities, the judiciary and the religious leaders. That is what the report said. Mr P.D. Omodei: That is not what the report said. Mr J.A. McGINTY: I have already tabled the report. It transpired that when the legislation was brought forward, most religious leaders said they did not support the change being made. When that became apparent, we very quickly responded and said that if it did not have the support of the people who were directly affected by it, we did not wish to proceed. It was brought forward only on the basis that this was a consensus position recommended to me by the Chief Justice of Western Australia, with support from those other groups. In light of this new development, I have spoken to officers of both the Anglican and Catholic Archbishops and have advised them that we intend to adopt a position that is consistent with their stated position and will bring in an amendment - as I announced over the weekend - that will result in something very similar to what is contained in the commonwealth Evidence Act. That will achieve the objective that we set out to achieve, which is to enable all Western Australians to swear an oath based upon their religious beliefs, if they have religious beliefs, but also retain the capacity for people to swear by Almighty God if that is their wish. I believe the amendment that we will bring forward will meet the issues that have been raised by the religious communities, as well as the objective that we set out to achieve in the first place.
(1) Can the Attorney General confirm that he did not undertake any consultation with any religious leaders before introducing into Parliament the Oaths, Affidavits and Statutory Declarations Bill 2003? (2) Will the Attorney General now admit that he misled this House when he claimed that the religious leaders of Perth were consulted and they supported the recommendation of the Chief Justice? Mr J.A. McGINTY replied: (1)-(2) The intention of the legislation was to extend to all Western Australians the capacity to swear an oath based upon their religious beliefs. A range of people cannot currently do that because of the nature of the oath that is involved. Ms S.E. Walker: That is not true. The SPEAKER: Order, member for Nedlands! Mr J.A. McGINTY: I repeat that there are some Western Australian citizens who cannot swear an oath based upon their religious beliefs, because - Mr P.G. Pendal: They can make an affirmation. The SPEAKER: Order, members! Mr J.A. McGINTY: That is right. They can make an affirmation. They cannot swear on the basis of their religious beliefs. Several members interjected. Mr J.A. McGINTY: A little bit of wax out of the ears for everyone over there! Listening time! I will repeat it again, because obviously nobody heard it the first time - members opposite did not: The intention behind this legislation was to extend to all Western Australians the capacity to swear an oath based upon their religious beliefs. A range of Western Australian citizens, who nonetheless hold religious beliefs, currently cannot do that, but would like to, I am sure, be able to swear an oath when they go to court to give evidence based upon their religious beliefs. That was the motivation. I do not know that anyone in this House would object to that. I received a written report, which I have tabled in this House. Ms S.E. Walker: You did not do your homework. The SPEAKER: Order, members! Mr R.F. Johnson interjected. The SPEAKER: Order! I call the member for Nedlands and the member for Hillarys to order for the first time. Mr J.A. McGINTY: I received a written report from the Chief Justice of Western Australia on this very issue. Mr P.D. Omodei: Did you consult with the clergy? The SPEAKER: Order! I call the member for Warren-Blackwood to order for the second time Mr P.D. Omodei: That still does not answer the question. The SPEAKER: Order! I call the member for Warren-Blackwood to order for the third time. Mr J.A. McGINTY: I received a written report from the Chief Justice of Western Australia recommending the changes. He said in that report that he had consulted with religious leaders, that he had consulted with ethnic community leaders and that he had consulted with the judiciary. To the extent of that consultation, there was support - in some cases strong support - for the recommendation that came forward. I make this point very clear: it was brought forward with an honest intention to expand the range of people who could swear according to their religious beliefs. It was brought forward on the basis of a recommendation from the Chief Justice. We were advised and believed that it had the support of ethnic communities, the judiciary and the religious leaders. That is what the report said. Mr P.D. Omodei: That is not what the report said. Mr J.A. McGINTY: I have already tabled the report. It transpired that when the legislation was brought forward, most religious leaders said they did not support the change being made. When that became apparent, we very quickly responded and said that if it did not have the support of the people who were directly affected by it, we did not wish to proceed. It was brought forward only on the basis that this was a consensus position recommended to me by the Chief Justice of Western Australia, with support from those other groups. In light of this new development, I have spoken to officers of both the Anglican and Catholic Archbishops and have advised them that we intend to adopt a position that is consistent with their stated position and will bring in an amendment - as I announced over the weekend - that will result in something very similar to what is contained in the commonwealth Evidence Act. That will achieve the objective that we set out to achieve, which is to enable all Western Australians to swear an oath based upon their religious beliefs, if they have religious beliefs, but also retain the capacity for people to swear by Almighty God if that is their wish. I believe the amendment that we will bring forward will meet the issues that have been raised by the religious communities, as well as the objective that we set out to achieve in the first place.
(2) Will the Attorney General now admit that he misled this House when he claimed that the religious leaders of Perth were consulted and they supported the recommendation of the Chief Justice? Mr J.A. McGINTY replied: (1)-(2) The intention of the legislation was to extend to all Western Australians the capacity to swear an oath based upon their religious beliefs. A range of people cannot currently do that because of the nature of the oath that is involved. Ms S.E. Walker: That is not true. The SPEAKER: Order, member for Nedlands! Mr J.A. McGINTY: I repeat that there are some Western Australian citizens who cannot swear an oath based upon their religious beliefs, because - Mr P.G. Pendal: They can make an affirmation. The SPEAKER: Order, members! Mr J.A. McGINTY: That is right. They can make an affirmation. They cannot swear on the basis of their religious beliefs. Several members interjected. Mr J.A. McGINTY: A little bit of wax out of the ears for everyone over there! Listening time! I will repeat it again, because obviously nobody heard it the first time - members opposite did not: The intention behind this legislation was to extend to all Western Australians the capacity to swear an oath based upon their religious beliefs. A range of Western Australian citizens, who nonetheless hold religious beliefs, currently cannot do that, but would like to, I am sure, be able to swear an oath when they go to court to give evidence based upon their religious beliefs. That was the motivation. I do not know that anyone in this House would object to that. I received a written report, which I have tabled in this House. Ms S.E. Walker: You did not do your homework. The SPEAKER: Order, members! Mr R.F. Johnson interjected. The SPEAKER: Order! I call the member for Nedlands and the member for Hillarys to order for the first time. Mr J.A. McGINTY: I received a written report from the Chief Justice of Western Australia on this very issue. Mr P.D. Omodei: Did you consult with the clergy? The SPEAKER: Order! I call the member for Warren-Blackwood to order for the second time Mr P.D. Omodei: That still does not answer the question. The SPEAKER: Order! I call the member for Warren-Blackwood to order for the third time. Mr J.A. McGINTY: I received a written report from the Chief Justice of Western Australia recommending the changes. He said in that report that he had consulted with religious leaders, that he had consulted with ethnic community leaders and that he had consulted with the judiciary. To the extent of that consultation, there was support - in some cases strong support - for the recommendation that came forward. I make this point very clear: it was brought forward with an honest intention to expand the range of people who could swear according to their religious beliefs. It was brought forward on the basis of a recommendation from the Chief Justice. We were advised and believed that it had the support of ethnic communities, the judiciary and the religious leaders. That is what the report said. Mr P.D. Omodei: That is not what the report said. Mr J.A. McGINTY: I have already tabled the report. It transpired that when the legislation was brought forward, most religious leaders said they did not support the change being made. When that became apparent, we very quickly responded and said that if it did not have the support of the people who were directly affected by it, we did not wish to proceed. It was brought forward only on the basis that this was a consensus position recommended to me by the Chief Justice of Western Australia, with support from those other groups. In light of this new development, I have spoken to officers of both the Anglican and Catholic Archbishops and have advised them that we intend to adopt a position that is consistent with their stated position and will bring in an amendment - as I announced over the weekend - that will result in something very similar to what is contained in the commonwealth Evidence Act. That will achieve the objective that we set out to achieve, which is to enable all Western Australians to swear an oath based upon their religious beliefs, if they have religious beliefs, but also retain the capacity for people to swear by Almighty God if that is their wish. I believe the amendment that we will bring forward will meet the issues that have been raised by the religious communities, as well as the objective that we set out to achieve in the first place.
Mr J.A. McGINTY replied: (1)-(2) The intention of the legislation was to extend to all Western Australians the capacity to swear an oath based upon their religious beliefs. A range of people cannot currently do that because of the nature of the oath that is involved. Ms S.E. Walker: That is not true. The SPEAKER: Order, member for Nedlands! Mr J.A. McGINTY: I repeat that there are some Western Australian citizens who cannot swear an oath based upon their religious beliefs, because - Mr P.G. Pendal: They can make an affirmation. The SPEAKER: Order, members! Mr J.A. McGINTY: That is right. They can make an affirmation. They cannot swear on the basis of their religious beliefs. Several members interjected. Mr J.A. McGINTY: A little bit of wax out of the ears for everyone over there! Listening time! I will repeat it again, because obviously nobody heard it the first time - members opposite did not: The intention behind this legislation was to extend to all Western Australians the capacity to swear an oath based upon their religious beliefs. A range of Western Australian citizens, who nonetheless hold religious beliefs, currently cannot do that, but would like to, I am sure, be able to swear an oath when they go to court to give evidence based upon their religious beliefs. That was the motivation. I do not know that anyone in this House would object to that. I received a written report, which I have tabled in this House. Ms S.E. Walker: You did not do your homework. The SPEAKER: Order, members! Mr R.F. Johnson interjected. The SPEAKER: Order! I call the member for Nedlands and the member for Hillarys to order for the first time. Mr J.A. McGINTY: I received a written report from the Chief Justice of Western Australia on this very issue. Mr P.D. Omodei: Did you consult with the clergy? The SPEAKER: Order! I call the member for Warren-Blackwood to order for the second time Mr P.D. Omodei: That still does not answer the question. The SPEAKER: Order! I call the member for Warren-Blackwood to order for the third time. Mr J.A. McGINTY: I received a written report from the Chief Justice of Western Australia recommending the changes. He said in that report that he had consulted with religious leaders, that he had consulted with ethnic community leaders and that he had consulted with the judiciary. To the extent of that consultation, there was support - in some cases strong support - for the recommendation that came forward. I make this point very clear: it was brought forward with an honest intention to expand the range of people who could swear according to their religious beliefs. It was brought forward on the basis of a recommendation from the Chief Justice. We were advised and believed that it had the support of ethnic communities, the judiciary and the religious leaders. That is what the report said. Mr P.D. Omodei: That is not what the report said. Mr J.A. McGINTY: I have already tabled the report. It transpired that when the legislation was brought forward, most religious leaders said they did not support the change being made. When that became apparent, we very quickly responded and said that if it did not have the support of the people who were directly affected by it, we did not wish to proceed. It was brought forward only on the basis that this was a consensus position recommended to me by the Chief Justice of Western Australia, with support from those other groups. In light of this new development, I have spoken to officers of both the Anglican and Catholic Archbishops and have advised them that we intend to adopt a position that is consistent with their stated position and will bring in an amendment - as I announced over the weekend - that will result in something very similar to what is contained in the commonwealth Evidence Act. That will achieve the objective that we set out to achieve, which is to enable all Western Australians to swear an oath based upon their religious beliefs, if they have religious beliefs, but also retain the capacity for people to swear by Almighty God if that is their wish. I believe the amendment that we will bring forward will meet the issues that have been raised by the religious communities, as well as the objective that we set out to achieve in the first place.
(1)-(2) The intention of the legislation was to extend to all Western Australians the capacity to swear an oath based upon their religious beliefs. A range of people cannot currently do that because of the nature of the oath that is involved. Ms S.E. Walker: That is not true. The SPEAKER: Order, member for Nedlands! Mr J.A. McGINTY: I repeat that there are some Western Australian citizens who cannot swear an oath based upon their religious beliefs, because - Mr P.G. Pendal: They can make an affirmation. The SPEAKER: Order, members! Mr J.A. McGINTY: That is right. They can make an affirmation. They cannot swear on the basis of their religious beliefs. Several members interjected. Mr J.A. McGINTY: A little bit of wax out of the ears for everyone over there! Listening time! I will repeat it again, because obviously nobody heard it the first time - members opposite did not: The intention behind this legislation was to extend to all Western Australians the capacity to swear an oath based upon their religious beliefs. A range of Western Australian citizens, who nonetheless hold religious beliefs, currently cannot do that, but would like to, I am sure, be able to swear an oath when they go to court to give evidence based upon their religious beliefs. That was the motivation. I do not know that anyone in this House would object to that. I received a written report, which I have tabled in this House. Ms S.E. Walker: You did not do your homework. The SPEAKER: Order, members! Mr R.F. Johnson interjected. The SPEAKER: Order! I call the member for Nedlands and the member for Hillarys to order for the first time. Mr J.A. McGINTY: I received a written report from the Chief Justice of Western Australia on this very issue. Mr P.D. Omodei: Did you consult with the clergy? The SPEAKER: Order! I call the member for Warren-Blackwood to order for the second time Mr P.D. Omodei: That still does not answer the question. The SPEAKER: Order! I call the member for Warren-Blackwood to order for the third time. Mr J.A. McGINTY: I received a written report from the Chief Justice of Western Australia recommending the changes. He said in that report that he had consulted with religious leaders, that he had consulted with ethnic community leaders and that he had consulted with the judiciary. To the extent of that consultation, there was support - in some cases strong support - for the recommendation that came forward. I make this point very clear: it was brought forward with an honest intention to expand the range of people who could swear according to their religious beliefs. It was brought forward on the basis of a recommendation from the Chief Justice. We were advised and believed that it had the support of ethnic communities, the judiciary and the religious leaders. That is what the report said. Mr P.D. Omodei: That is not what the report said. Mr J.A. McGINTY: I have already tabled the report. It transpired that when the legislation was brought forward, most religious leaders said they did not support the change being made. When that became apparent, we very quickly responded and said that if it did not have the support of the people who were directly affected by it, we did not wish to proceed. It was brought forward only on the basis that this was a consensus position recommended to me by the Chief Justice of Western Australia, with support from those other groups. In light of this new development, I have spoken to officers of both the Anglican and Catholic Archbishops and have advised them that we intend to adopt a position that is consistent with their stated position and will bring in an amendment - as I announced over the weekend - that will result in something very similar to what is contained in the commonwealth Evidence Act. That will achieve the objective that we set out to achieve, which is to enable all Western Australians to swear an oath based upon their religious beliefs, if they have religious beliefs, but also retain the capacity for people to swear by Almighty God if that is their wish. I believe the amendment that we will bring forward will meet the issues that have been raised by the religious communities, as well as the objective that we set out to achieve in the first place.
Ms S.E. Walker: That is not true. The SPEAKER: Order, member for Nedlands! Mr J.A. McGINTY: I repeat that there are some Western Australian citizens who cannot swear an oath based upon their religious beliefs, because - Mr P.G. Pendal: They can make an affirmation. The SPEAKER: Order, members! Mr J.A. McGINTY: That is right. They can make an affirmation. They cannot swear on the basis of their religious beliefs. Several members interjected. Mr J.A. McGINTY: A little bit of wax out of the ears for everyone over there! Listening time! I will repeat it again, because obviously nobody heard it the first time - members opposite did not: The intention behind this legislation was to extend to all Western Australians the capacity to swear an oath based upon their religious beliefs. A range of Western Australian citizens, who nonetheless hold religious beliefs, currently cannot do that, but would like to, I am sure, be able to swear an oath when they go to court to give evidence based upon their religious beliefs. That was the motivation. I do not know that anyone in this House would object to that. I received a written report, which I have tabled in this House. Ms S.E. Walker: You did not do your homework. The SPEAKER: Order, members! Mr R.F. Johnson interjected. The SPEAKER: Order! I call the member for Nedlands and the member for Hillarys to order for the first time. Mr J.A. McGINTY: I received a written report from the Chief Justice of Western Australia on this very issue. Mr P.D. Omodei: Did you consult with the clergy? The SPEAKER: Order! I call the member for Warren-Blackwood to order for the second time Mr P.D. Omodei: That still does not answer the question. The SPEAKER: Order! I call the member for Warren-Blackwood to order for the third time. Mr J.A. McGINTY: I received a written report from the Chief Justice of Western Australia recommending the changes. He said in that report that he had consulted with religious leaders, that he had consulted with ethnic community leaders and that he had consulted with the judiciary. To the extent of that consultation, there was support - in some cases strong support - for the recommendation that came forward. I make this point very clear: it was brought forward with an honest intention to expand the range of people who could swear according to their religious beliefs. It was brought forward on the basis of a recommendation from the Chief Justice. We were advised and believed that it had the support of ethnic communities, the judiciary and the religious leaders. That is what the report said. Mr P.D. Omodei: That is not what the report said. Mr J.A. McGINTY: I have already tabled the report. It transpired that when the legislation was brought forward, most religious leaders said they did not support the change being made. When that became apparent, we very quickly responded and said that if it did not have the support of the people who were directly affected by it, we did not wish to proceed. It was brought forward only on the basis that this was a consensus position recommended to me by the Chief Justice of Western Australia, with support from those other groups. In light of this new development, I have spoken to officers of both the Anglican and Catholic Archbishops and have advised them that we intend to adopt a position that is consistent with their stated position and will bring in an amendment - as I announced over the weekend - that will result in something very similar to what is contained in the commonwealth Evidence Act. That will achieve the objective that we set out to achieve, which is to enable all Western Australians to swear an oath based upon their religious beliefs, if they have religious beliefs, but also retain the capacity for people to swear by Almighty God if that is their wish. I believe the amendment that we will bring forward will meet the issues that have been raised by the religious communities, as well as the objective that we set out to achieve in the first place.
The SPEAKER: Order, member for Nedlands! Mr J.A. McGINTY: I repeat that there are some Western Australian citizens who cannot swear an oath based upon their religious beliefs, because - Mr P.G. Pendal: They can make an affirmation. The SPEAKER: Order, members! Mr J.A. McGINTY: That is right. They can make an affirmation. They cannot swear on the basis of their religious beliefs. Several members interjected. Mr J.A. McGINTY: A little bit of wax out of the ears for everyone over there! Listening time! I will repeat it again, because obviously nobody heard it the first time - members opposite did not: The intention behind this legislation was to extend to all Western Australians the capacity to swear an oath based upon their religious beliefs. A range of Western Australian citizens, who nonetheless hold religious beliefs, currently cannot do that, but would like to, I am sure, be able to swear an oath when they go to court to give evidence based upon their religious beliefs. That was the motivation. I do not know that anyone in this House would object to that. I received a written report, which I have tabled in this House. Ms S.E. Walker: You did not do your homework. The SPEAKER: Order, members! Mr R.F. Johnson interjected. The SPEAKER: Order! I call the member for Nedlands and the member for Hillarys to order for the first time. Mr J.A. McGINTY: I received a written report from the Chief Justice of Western Australia on this very issue. Mr P.D. Omodei: Did you consult with the clergy? The SPEAKER: Order! I call the member for Warren-Blackwood to order for the second time Mr P.D. Omodei: That still does not answer the question. The SPEAKER: Order! I call the member for Warren-Blackwood to order for the third time. Mr J.A. McGINTY: I received a written report from the Chief Justice of Western Australia recommending the changes. He said in that report that he had consulted with religious leaders, that he had consulted with ethnic community leaders and that he had consulted with the judiciary. To the extent of that consultation, there was support - in some cases strong support - for the recommendation that came forward. I make this point very clear: it was brought forward with an honest intention to expand the range of people who could swear according to their religious beliefs. It was brought forward on the basis of a recommendation from the Chief Justice. We were advised and believed that it had the support of ethnic communities, the judiciary and the religious leaders. That is what the report said. Mr P.D. Omodei: That is not what the report said. Mr J.A. McGINTY: I have already tabled the report. It transpired that when the legislation was brought forward, most religious leaders said they did not support the change being made. When that became apparent, we very quickly responded and said that if it did not have the support of the people who were directly affected by it, we did not wish to proceed. It was brought forward only on the basis that this was a consensus position recommended to me by the Chief Justice of Western Australia, with support from those other groups. In light of this new development, I have spoken to officers of both the Anglican and Catholic Archbishops and have advised them that we intend to adopt a position that is consistent with their stated position and will bring in an amendment - as I announced over the weekend - that will result in something very similar to what is contained in the commonwealth Evidence Act. That will achieve the objective that we set out to achieve, which is to enable all Western Australians to swear an oath based upon their religious beliefs, if they have religious beliefs, but also retain the capacity for people to swear by Almighty God if that is their wish. I believe the amendment that we will bring forward will meet the issues that have been raised by the religious communities, as well as the objective that we set out to achieve in the first place.
Mr J.A. McGINTY: I repeat that there are some Western Australian citizens who cannot swear an oath based upon their religious beliefs, because - Mr P.G. Pendal: They can make an affirmation. The SPEAKER: Order, members! Mr J.A. McGINTY: That is right. They can make an affirmation. They cannot swear on the basis of their religious beliefs. Several members interjected. Mr J.A. McGINTY: A little bit of wax out of the ears for everyone over there! Listening time! I will repeat it again, because obviously nobody heard it the first time - members opposite did not: The intention behind this legislation was to extend to all Western Australians the capacity to swear an oath based upon their religious beliefs. A range of Western Australian citizens, who nonetheless hold religious beliefs, currently cannot do that, but would like to, I am sure, be able to swear an oath when they go to court to give evidence based upon their religious beliefs. That was the motivation. I do not know that anyone in this House would object to that. I received a written report, which I have tabled in this House. Ms S.E. Walker: You did not do your homework. The SPEAKER: Order, members! Mr R.F. Johnson interjected. The SPEAKER: Order! I call the member for Nedlands and the member for Hillarys to order for the first time. Mr J.A. McGINTY: I received a written report from the Chief Justice of Western Australia on this very issue. Mr P.D. Omodei: Did you consult with the clergy? The SPEAKER: Order! I call the member for Warren-Blackwood to order for the second time Mr P.D. Omodei: That still does not answer the question. The SPEAKER: Order! I call the member for Warren-Blackwood to order for the third time. Mr J.A. McGINTY: I received a written report from the Chief Justice of Western Australia recommending the changes. He said in that report that he had consulted with religious leaders, that he had consulted with ethnic community leaders and that he had consulted with the judiciary. To the extent of that consultation, there was support - in some cases strong support - for the recommendation that came forward. I make this point very clear: it was brought forward with an honest intention to expand the range of people who could swear according to their religious beliefs. It was brought forward on the basis of a recommendation from the Chief Justice. We were advised and believed that it had the support of ethnic communities, the judiciary and the religious leaders. That is what the report said. Mr P.D. Omodei: That is not what the report said. Mr J.A. McGINTY: I have already tabled the report. It transpired that when the legislation was brought forward, most religious leaders said they did not support the change being made. When that became apparent, we very quickly responded and said that if it did not have the support of the people who were directly affected by it, we did not wish to proceed. It was brought forward only on the basis that this was a consensus position recommended to me by the Chief Justice of Western Australia, with support from those other groups. In light of this new development, I have spoken to officers of both the Anglican and Catholic Archbishops and have advised them that we intend to adopt a position that is consistent with their stated position and will bring in an amendment - as I announced over the weekend - that will result in something very similar to what is contained in the commonwealth Evidence Act. That will achieve the objective that we set out to achieve, which is to enable all Western Australians to swear an oath based upon their religious beliefs, if they have religious beliefs, but also retain the capacity for people to swear by Almighty God if that is their wish. I believe the amendment that we will bring forward will meet the issues that have been raised by the religious communities, as well as the objective that we set out to achieve in the first place.
Mr P.G. Pendal: They can make an affirmation. The SPEAKER: Order, members! Mr J.A. McGINTY: That is right. They can make an affirmation. They cannot swear on the basis of their religious beliefs. Several members interjected. Mr J.A. McGINTY: A little bit of wax out of the ears for everyone over there! Listening time! I will repeat it again, because obviously nobody heard it the first time - members opposite did not: The intention behind this legislation was to extend to all Western Australians the capacity to swear an oath based upon their religious beliefs. A range of Western Australian citizens, who nonetheless hold religious beliefs, currently cannot do that, but would like to, I am sure, be able to swear an oath when they go to court to give evidence based upon their religious beliefs. That was the motivation. I do not know that anyone in this House would object to that. I received a written report, which I have tabled in this House. Ms S.E. Walker: You did not do your homework. The SPEAKER: Order, members! Mr R.F. Johnson interjected. The SPEAKER: Order! I call the member for Nedlands and the member for Hillarys to order for the first time. Mr J.A. McGINTY: I received a written report from the Chief Justice of Western Australia on this very issue. Mr P.D. Omodei: Did you consult with the clergy? The SPEAKER: Order! I call the member for Warren-Blackwood to order for the second time Mr P.D. Omodei: That still does not answer the question. The SPEAKER: Order! I call the member for Warren-Blackwood to order for the third time. Mr J.A. McGINTY: I received a written report from the Chief Justice of Western Australia recommending the changes. He said in that report that he had consulted with religious leaders, that he had consulted with ethnic community leaders and that he had consulted with the judiciary. To the extent of that consultation, there was support - in some cases strong support - for the recommendation that came forward. I make this point very clear: it was brought forward with an honest intention to expand the range of people who could swear according to their religious beliefs. It was brought forward on the basis of a recommendation from the Chief Justice. We were advised and believed that it had the support of ethnic communities, the judiciary and the religious leaders. That is what the report said. Mr P.D. Omodei: That is not what the report said. Mr J.A. McGINTY: I have already tabled the report. It transpired that when the legislation was brought forward, most religious leaders said they did not support the change being made. When that became apparent, we very quickly responded and said that if it did not have the support of the people who were directly affected by it, we did not wish to proceed. It was brought forward only on the basis that this was a consensus position recommended to me by the Chief Justice of Western Australia, with support from those other groups. In light of this new development, I have spoken to officers of both the Anglican and Catholic Archbishops and have advised them that we intend to adopt a position that is consistent with their stated position and will bring in an amendment - as I announced over the weekend - that will result in something very similar to what is contained in the commonwealth Evidence Act. That will achieve the objective that we set out to achieve, which is to enable all Western Australians to swear an oath based upon their religious beliefs, if they have religious beliefs, but also retain the capacity for people to swear by Almighty God if that is their wish. I believe the amendment that we will bring forward will meet the issues that have been raised by the religious communities, as well as the objective that we set out to achieve in the first place.
The SPEAKER: Order, members! Mr J.A. McGINTY: That is right. They can make an affirmation. They cannot swear on the basis of their religious beliefs. Several members interjected. Mr J.A. McGINTY: A little bit of wax out of the ears for everyone over there! Listening time! I will repeat it again, because obviously nobody heard it the first time - members opposite did not: The intention behind this legislation was to extend to all Western Australians the capacity to swear an oath based upon their religious beliefs. A range of Western Australian citizens, who nonetheless hold religious beliefs, currently cannot do that, but would like to, I am sure, be able to swear an oath when they go to court to give evidence based upon their religious beliefs. That was the motivation. I do not know that anyone in this House would object to that. I received a written report, which I have tabled in this House. Ms S.E. Walker: You did not do your homework. The SPEAKER: Order, members! Mr R.F. Johnson interjected. The SPEAKER: Order! I call the member for Nedlands and the member for Hillarys to order for the first time. Mr J.A. McGINTY: I received a written report from the Chief Justice of Western Australia on this very issue. Mr P.D. Omodei: Did you consult with the clergy? The SPEAKER: Order! I call the member for Warren-Blackwood to order for the second time Mr P.D. Omodei: That still does not answer the question. The SPEAKER: Order! I call the member for Warren-Blackwood to order for the third time. Mr J.A. McGINTY: I received a written report from the Chief Justice of Western Australia recommending the changes. He said in that report that he had consulted with religious leaders, that he had consulted with ethnic community leaders and that he had consulted with the judiciary. To the extent of that consultation, there was support - in some cases strong support - for the recommendation that came forward. I make this point very clear: it was brought forward with an honest intention to expand the range of people who could swear according to their religious beliefs. It was brought forward on the basis of a recommendation from the Chief Justice. We were advised and believed that it had the support of ethnic communities, the judiciary and the religious leaders. That is what the report said. Mr P.D. Omodei: That is not what the report said. Mr J.A. McGINTY: I have already tabled the report. It transpired that when the legislation was brought forward, most religious leaders said they did not support the change being made. When that became apparent, we very quickly responded and said that if it did not have the support of the people who were directly affected by it, we did not wish to proceed. It was brought forward only on the basis that this was a consensus position recommended to me by the Chief Justice of Western Australia, with support from those other groups. In light of this new development, I have spoken to officers of both the Anglican and Catholic Archbishops and have advised them that we intend to adopt a position that is consistent with their stated position and will bring in an amendment - as I announced over the weekend - that will result in something very similar to what is contained in the commonwealth Evidence Act. That will achieve the objective that we set out to achieve, which is to enable all Western Australians to swear an oath based upon their religious beliefs, if they have religious beliefs, but also retain the capacity for people to swear by Almighty God if that is their wish. I believe the amendment that we will bring forward will meet the issues that have been raised by the religious communities, as well as the objective that we set out to achieve in the first place.
Mr J.A. McGINTY: That is right. They can make an affirmation. They cannot swear on the basis of their religious beliefs. Several members interjected. Mr J.A. McGINTY: A little bit of wax out of the ears for everyone over there! Listening time! I will repeat it again, because obviously nobody heard it the first time - members opposite did not: The intention behind this legislation was to extend to all Western Australians the capacity to swear an oath based upon their religious beliefs. A range of Western Australian citizens, who nonetheless hold religious beliefs, currently cannot do that, but would like to, I am sure, be able to swear an oath when they go to court to give evidence based upon their religious beliefs. That was the motivation. I do not know that anyone in this House would object to that. I received a written report, which I have tabled in this House. Ms S.E. Walker: You did not do your homework. The SPEAKER: Order, members! Mr R.F. Johnson interjected. The SPEAKER: Order! I call the member for Nedlands and the member for Hillarys to order for the first time. Mr J.A. McGINTY: I received a written report from the Chief Justice of Western Australia on this very issue. Mr P.D. Omodei: Did you consult with the clergy? The SPEAKER: Order! I call the member for Warren-Blackwood to order for the second time Mr P.D. Omodei: That still does not answer the question. The SPEAKER: Order! I call the member for Warren-Blackwood to order for the third time. Mr J.A. McGINTY: I received a written report from the Chief Justice of Western Australia recommending the changes. He said in that report that he had consulted with religious leaders, that he had consulted with ethnic community leaders and that he had consulted with the judiciary. To the extent of that consultation, there was support - in some cases strong support - for the recommendation that came forward. I make this point very clear: it was brought forward with an honest intention to expand the range of people who could swear according to their religious beliefs. It was brought forward on the basis of a recommendation from the Chief Justice. We were advised and believed that it had the support of ethnic communities, the judiciary and the religious leaders. That is what the report said. Mr P.D. Omodei: That is not what the report said. Mr J.A. McGINTY: I have already tabled the report. It transpired that when the legislation was brought forward, most religious leaders said they did not support the change being made. When that became apparent, we very quickly responded and said that if it did not have the support of the people who were directly affected by it, we did not wish to proceed. It was brought forward only on the basis that this was a consensus position recommended to me by the Chief Justice of Western Australia, with support from those other groups. In light of this new development, I have spoken to officers of both the Anglican and Catholic Archbishops and have advised them that we intend to adopt a position that is consistent with their stated position and will bring in an amendment - as I announced over the weekend - that will result in something very similar to what is contained in the commonwealth Evidence Act. That will achieve the objective that we set out to achieve, which is to enable all Western Australians to swear an oath based upon their religious beliefs, if they have religious beliefs, but also retain the capacity for people to swear by Almighty God if that is their wish. I believe the amendment that we will bring forward will meet the issues that have been raised by the religious communities, as well as the objective that we set out to achieve in the first place.
Several members interjected. Mr J.A. McGINTY: A little bit of wax out of the ears for everyone over there! Listening time! I will repeat it again, because obviously nobody heard it the first time - members opposite did not: The intention behind this legislation was to extend to all Western Australians the capacity to swear an oath based upon their religious beliefs. A range of Western Australian citizens, who nonetheless hold religious beliefs, currently cannot do that, but would like to, I am sure, be able to swear an oath when they go to court to give evidence based upon their religious beliefs. That was the motivation. I do not know that anyone in this House would object to that. I received a written report, which I have tabled in this House. Ms S.E. Walker: You did not do your homework. The SPEAKER: Order, members! Mr R.F. Johnson interjected. The SPEAKER: Order! I call the member for Nedlands and the member for Hillarys to order for the first time. Mr J.A. McGINTY: I received a written report from the Chief Justice of Western Australia on this very issue. Mr P.D. Omodei: Did you consult with the clergy? The SPEAKER: Order! I call the member for Warren-Blackwood to order for the second time Mr P.D. Omodei: That still does not answer the question. The SPEAKER: Order! I call the member for Warren-Blackwood to order for the third time. Mr J.A. McGINTY: I received a written report from the Chief Justice of Western Australia recommending the changes. He said in that report that he had consulted with religious leaders, that he had consulted with ethnic community leaders and that he had consulted with the judiciary. To the extent of that consultation, there was support - in some cases strong support - for the recommendation that came forward. I make this point very clear: it was brought forward with an honest intention to expand the range of people who could swear according to their religious beliefs. It was brought forward on the basis of a recommendation from the Chief Justice. We were advised and believed that it had the support of ethnic communities, the judiciary and the religious leaders. That is what the report said. Mr P.D. Omodei: That is not what the report said. Mr J.A. McGINTY: I have already tabled the report. It transpired that when the legislation was brought forward, most religious leaders said they did not support the change being made. When that became apparent, we very quickly responded and said that if it did not have the support of the people who were directly affected by it, we did not wish to proceed. It was brought forward only on the basis that this was a consensus position recommended to me by the Chief Justice of Western Australia, with support from those other groups. In light of this new development, I have spoken to officers of both the Anglican and Catholic Archbishops and have advised them that we intend to adopt a position that is consistent with their stated position and will bring in an amendment - as I announced over the weekend - that will result in something very similar to what is contained in the commonwealth Evidence Act. That will achieve the objective that we set out to achieve, which is to enable all Western Australians to swear an oath based upon their religious beliefs, if they have religious beliefs, but also retain the capacity for people to swear by Almighty God if that is their wish. I believe the amendment that we will bring forward will meet the issues that have been raised by the religious communities, as well as the objective that we set out to achieve in the first place.
Mr J.A. McGINTY: A little bit of wax out of the ears for everyone over there! Listening time! I will repeat it again, because obviously nobody heard it the first time - members opposite did not: The intention behind this legislation was to extend to all Western Australians the capacity to swear an oath based upon their religious beliefs. A range of Western Australian citizens, who nonetheless hold religious beliefs, currently cannot do that, but would like to, I am sure, be able to swear an oath when they go to court to give evidence based upon their religious beliefs. That was the motivation. I do not know that anyone in this House would object to that. I received a written report, which I have tabled in this House. Ms S.E. Walker: You did not do your homework. The SPEAKER: Order, members! Mr R.F. Johnson interjected. The SPEAKER: Order! I call the member for Nedlands and the member for Hillarys to order for the first time. Mr J.A. McGINTY: I received a written report from the Chief Justice of Western Australia on this very issue. Mr P.D. Omodei: Did you consult with the clergy? The SPEAKER: Order! I call the member for Warren-Blackwood to order for the second time Mr P.D. Omodei: That still does not answer the question. The SPEAKER: Order! I call the member for Warren-Blackwood to order for the third time. Mr J.A. McGINTY: I received a written report from the Chief Justice of Western Australia recommending the changes. He said in that report that he had consulted with religious leaders, that he had consulted with ethnic community leaders and that he had consulted with the judiciary. To the extent of that consultation, there was support - in some cases strong support - for the recommendation that came forward. I make this point very clear: it was brought forward with an honest intention to expand the range of people who could swear according to their religious beliefs. It was brought forward on the basis of a recommendation from the Chief Justice. We were advised and believed that it had the support of ethnic communities, the judiciary and the religious leaders. That is what the report said. Mr P.D. Omodei: That is not what the report said. Mr J.A. McGINTY: I have already tabled the report. It transpired that when the legislation was brought forward, most religious leaders said they did not support the change being made. When that became apparent, we very quickly responded and said that if it did not have the support of the people who were directly affected by it, we did not wish to proceed. It was brought forward only on the basis that this was a consensus position recommended to me by the Chief Justice of Western Australia, with support from those other groups. In light of this new development, I have spoken to officers of both the Anglican and Catholic Archbishops and have advised them that we intend to adopt a position that is consistent with their stated position and will bring in an amendment - as I announced over the weekend - that will result in something very similar to what is contained in the commonwealth Evidence Act. That will achieve the objective that we set out to achieve, which is to enable all Western Australians to swear an oath based upon their religious beliefs, if they have religious beliefs, but also retain the capacity for people to swear by Almighty God if that is their wish. I believe the amendment that we will bring forward will meet the issues that have been raised by the religious communities, as well as the objective that we set out to achieve in the first place.
Ms S.E. Walker: You did not do your homework. The SPEAKER: Order, members! Mr R.F. Johnson interjected. The SPEAKER: Order! I call the member for Nedlands and the member for Hillarys to order for the first time. Mr J.A. McGINTY: I received a written report from the Chief Justice of Western Australia on this very issue. Mr P.D. Omodei: Did you consult with the clergy? The SPEAKER: Order! I call the member for Warren-Blackwood to order for the second time Mr P.D. Omodei: That still does not answer the question. The SPEAKER: Order! I call the member for Warren-Blackwood to order for the third time. Mr J.A. McGINTY: I received a written report from the Chief Justice of Western Australia recommending the changes. He said in that report that he had consulted with religious leaders, that he had consulted with ethnic community leaders and that he had consulted with the judiciary. To the extent of that consultation, there was support - in some cases strong support - for the recommendation that came forward. I make this point very clear: it was brought forward with an honest intention to expand the range of people who could swear according to their religious beliefs. It was brought forward on the basis of a recommendation from the Chief Justice. We were advised and believed that it had the support of ethnic communities, the judiciary and the religious leaders. That is what the report said. Mr P.D. Omodei: That is not what the report said. Mr J.A. McGINTY: I have already tabled the report. It transpired that when the legislation was brought forward, most religious leaders said they did not support the change being made. When that became apparent, we very quickly responded and said that if it did not have the support of the people who were directly affected by it, we did not wish to proceed. It was brought forward only on the basis that this was a consensus position recommended to me by the Chief Justice of Western Australia, with support from those other groups. In light of this new development, I have spoken to officers of both the Anglican and Catholic Archbishops and have advised them that we intend to adopt a position that is consistent with their stated position and will bring in an amendment - as I announced over the weekend - that will result in something very similar to what is contained in the commonwealth Evidence Act. That will achieve the objective that we set out to achieve, which is to enable all Western Australians to swear an oath based upon their religious beliefs, if they have religious beliefs, but also retain the capacity for people to swear by Almighty God if that is their wish. I believe the amendment that we will bring forward will meet the issues that have been raised by the religious communities, as well as the objective that we set out to achieve in the first place.
The SPEAKER: Order, members! Mr R.F. Johnson interjected. The SPEAKER: Order! I call the member for Nedlands and the member for Hillarys to order for the first time. Mr J.A. McGINTY: I received a written report from the Chief Justice of Western Australia on this very issue. Mr P.D. Omodei: Did you consult with the clergy? The SPEAKER: Order! I call the member for Warren-Blackwood to order for the second time Mr P.D. Omodei: That still does not answer the question. The SPEAKER: Order! I call the member for Warren-Blackwood to order for the third time. Mr J.A. McGINTY: I received a written report from the Chief Justice of Western Australia recommending the changes. He said in that report that he had consulted with religious leaders, that he had consulted with ethnic community leaders and that he had consulted with the judiciary. To the extent of that consultation, there was support - in some cases strong support - for the recommendation that came forward. I make this point very clear: it was brought forward with an honest intention to expand the range of people who could swear according to their religious beliefs. It was brought forward on the basis of a recommendation from the Chief Justice. We were advised and believed that it had the support of ethnic communities, the judiciary and the religious leaders. That is what the report said. Mr P.D. Omodei: That is not what the report said. Mr J.A. McGINTY: I have already tabled the report. It transpired that when the legislation was brought forward, most religious leaders said they did not support the change being made. When that became apparent, we very quickly responded and said that if it did not have the support of the people who were directly affected by it, we did not wish to proceed. It was brought forward only on the basis that this was a consensus position recommended to me by the Chief Justice of Western Australia, with support from those other groups. In light of this new development, I have spoken to officers of both the Anglican and Catholic Archbishops and have advised them that we intend to adopt a position that is consistent with their stated position and will bring in an amendment - as I announced over the weekend - that will result in something very similar to what is contained in the commonwealth Evidence Act. That will achieve the objective that we set out to achieve, which is to enable all Western Australians to swear an oath based upon their religious beliefs, if they have religious beliefs, but also retain the capacity for people to swear by Almighty God if that is their wish. I believe the amendment that we will bring forward will meet the issues that have been raised by the religious communities, as well as the objective that we set out to achieve in the first place.
Mr R.F. Johnson interjected. The SPEAKER: Order! I call the member for Nedlands and the member for Hillarys to order for the first time. Mr J.A. McGINTY: I received a written report from the Chief Justice of Western Australia on this very issue. Mr P.D. Omodei: Did you consult with the clergy? The SPEAKER: Order! I call the member for Warren-Blackwood to order for the second time Mr P.D. Omodei: That still does not answer the question. The SPEAKER: Order! I call the member for Warren-Blackwood to order for the third time. Mr J.A. McGINTY: I received a written report from the Chief Justice of Western Australia recommending the changes. He said in that report that he had consulted with religious leaders, that he had consulted with ethnic community leaders and that he had consulted with the judiciary. To the extent of that consultation, there was support - in some cases strong support - for the recommendation that came forward. I make this point very clear: it was brought forward with an honest intention to expand the range of people who could swear according to their religious beliefs. It was brought forward on the basis of a recommendation from the Chief Justice. We were advised and believed that it had the support of ethnic communities, the judiciary and the religious leaders. That is what the report said. Mr P.D. Omodei: That is not what the report said. Mr J.A. McGINTY: I have already tabled the report. It transpired that when the legislation was brought forward, most religious leaders said they did not support the change being made. When that became apparent, we very quickly responded and said that if it did not have the support of the people who were directly affected by it, we did not wish to proceed. It was brought forward only on the basis that this was a consensus position recommended to me by the Chief Justice of Western Australia, with support from those other groups. In light of this new development, I have spoken to officers of both the Anglican and Catholic Archbishops and have advised them that we intend to adopt a position that is consistent with their stated position and will bring in an amendment - as I announced over the weekend - that will result in something very similar to what is contained in the commonwealth Evidence Act. That will achieve the objective that we set out to achieve, which is to enable all Western Australians to swear an oath based upon their religious beliefs, if they have religious beliefs, but also retain the capacity for people to swear by Almighty God if that is their wish. I believe the amendment that we will bring forward will meet the issues that have been raised by the religious communities, as well as the objective that we set out to achieve in the first place.
The SPEAKER: Order! I call the member for Nedlands and the member for Hillarys to order for the first time. Mr J.A. McGINTY: I received a written report from the Chief Justice of Western Australia on this very issue. Mr P.D. Omodei: Did you consult with the clergy? The SPEAKER: Order! I call the member for Warren-Blackwood to order for the second time Mr P.D. Omodei: That still does not answer the question. The SPEAKER: Order! I call the member for Warren-Blackwood to order for the third time. Mr J.A. McGINTY: I received a written report from the Chief Justice of Western Australia recommending the changes. He said in that report that he had consulted with religious leaders, that he had consulted with ethnic community leaders and that he had consulted with the judiciary. To the extent of that consultation, there was support - in some cases strong support - for the recommendation that came forward. I make this point very clear: it was brought forward with an honest intention to expand the range of people who could swear according to their religious beliefs. It was brought forward on the basis of a recommendation from the Chief Justice. We were advised and believed that it had the support of ethnic communities, the judiciary and the religious leaders. That is what the report said. Mr P.D. Omodei: That is not what the report said. Mr J.A. McGINTY: I have already tabled the report. It transpired that when the legislation was brought forward, most religious leaders said they did not support the change being made. When that became apparent, we very quickly responded and said that if it did not have the support of the people who were directly affected by it, we did not wish to proceed. It was brought forward only on the basis that this was a consensus position recommended to me by the Chief Justice of Western Australia, with support from those other groups. In light of this new development, I have spoken to officers of both the Anglican and Catholic Archbishops and have advised them that we intend to adopt a position that is consistent with their stated position and will bring in an amendment - as I announced over the weekend - that will result in something very similar to what is contained in the commonwealth Evidence Act. That will achieve the objective that we set out to achieve, which is to enable all Western Australians to swear an oath based upon their religious beliefs, if they have religious beliefs, but also retain the capacity for people to swear by Almighty God if that is their wish. I believe the amendment that we will bring forward will meet the issues that have been raised by the religious communities, as well as the objective that we set out to achieve in the first place.
Mr J.A. McGINTY: I received a written report from the Chief Justice of Western Australia on this very issue. Mr P.D. Omodei: Did you consult with the clergy? The SPEAKER: Order! I call the member for Warren-Blackwood to order for the second time Mr P.D. Omodei: That still does not answer the question. The SPEAKER: Order! I call the member for Warren-Blackwood to order for the third time. Mr J.A. McGINTY: I received a written report from the Chief Justice of Western Australia recommending the changes. He said in that report that he had consulted with religious leaders, that he had consulted with ethnic community leaders and that he had consulted with the judiciary. To the extent of that consultation, there was support - in some cases strong support - for the recommendation that came forward. I make this point very clear: it was brought forward with an honest intention to expand the range of people who could swear according to their religious beliefs. It was brought forward on the basis of a recommendation from the Chief Justice. We were advised and believed that it had the support of ethnic communities, the judiciary and the religious leaders. That is what the report said. Mr P.D. Omodei: That is not what the report said. Mr J.A. McGINTY: I have already tabled the report. It transpired that when the legislation was brought forward, most religious leaders said they did not support the change being made. When that became apparent, we very quickly responded and said that if it did not have the support of the people who were directly affected by it, we did not wish to proceed. It was brought forward only on the basis that this was a consensus position recommended to me by the Chief Justice of Western Australia, with support from those other groups. In light of this new development, I have spoken to officers of both the Anglican and Catholic Archbishops and have advised them that we intend to adopt a position that is consistent with their stated position and will bring in an amendment - as I announced over the weekend - that will result in something very similar to what is contained in the commonwealth Evidence Act. That will achieve the objective that we set out to achieve, which is to enable all Western Australians to swear an oath based upon their religious beliefs, if they have religious beliefs, but also retain the capacity for people to swear by Almighty God if that is their wish. I believe the amendment that we will bring forward will meet the issues that have been raised by the religious communities, as well as the objective that we set out to achieve in the first place.
Mr P.D. Omodei: Did you consult with the clergy? The SPEAKER: Order! I call the member for Warren-Blackwood to order for the second time Mr P.D. Omodei: That still does not answer the question. The SPEAKER: Order! I call the member for Warren-Blackwood to order for the third time. Mr J.A. McGINTY: I received a written report from the Chief Justice of Western Australia recommending the changes. He said in that report that he had consulted with religious leaders, that he had consulted with ethnic community leaders and that he had consulted with the judiciary. To the extent of that consultation, there was support - in some cases strong support - for the recommendation that came forward. I make this point very clear: it was brought forward with an honest intention to expand the range of people who could swear according to their religious beliefs. It was brought forward on the basis of a recommendation from the Chief Justice. We were advised and believed that it had the support of ethnic communities, the judiciary and the religious leaders. That is what the report said. Mr P.D. Omodei: That is not what the report said. Mr J.A. McGINTY: I have already tabled the report. It transpired that when the legislation was brought forward, most religious leaders said they did not support the change being made. When that became apparent, we very quickly responded and said that if it did not have the support of the people who were directly affected by it, we did not wish to proceed. It was brought forward only on the basis that this was a consensus position recommended to me by the Chief Justice of Western Australia, with support from those other groups. In light of this new development, I have spoken to officers of both the Anglican and Catholic Archbishops and have advised them that we intend to adopt a position that is consistent with their stated position and will bring in an amendment - as I announced over the weekend - that will result in something very similar to what is contained in the commonwealth Evidence Act. That will achieve the objective that we set out to achieve, which is to enable all Western Australians to swear an oath based upon their religious beliefs, if they have religious beliefs, but also retain the capacity for people to swear by Almighty God if that is their wish. I believe the amendment that we will bring forward will meet the issues that have been raised by the religious communities, as well as the objective that we set out to achieve in the first place.
The SPEAKER: Order! I call the member for Warren-Blackwood to order for the second time Mr P.D. Omodei: That still does not answer the question. The SPEAKER: Order! I call the member for Warren-Blackwood to order for the third time. Mr J.A. McGINTY: I received a written report from the Chief Justice of Western Australia recommending the changes. He said in that report that he had consulted with religious leaders, that he had consulted with ethnic community leaders and that he had consulted with the judiciary. To the extent of that consultation, there was support - in some cases strong support - for the recommendation that came forward. I make this point very clear: it was brought forward with an honest intention to expand the range of people who could swear according to their religious beliefs. It was brought forward on the basis of a recommendation from the Chief Justice. We were advised and believed that it had the support of ethnic communities, the judiciary and the religious leaders. That is what the report said. Mr P.D. Omodei: That is not what the report said. Mr J.A. McGINTY: I have already tabled the report. It transpired that when the legislation was brought forward, most religious leaders said they did not support the change being made. When that became apparent, we very quickly responded and said that if it did not have the support of the people who were directly affected by it, we did not wish to proceed. It was brought forward only on the basis that this was a consensus position recommended to me by the Chief Justice of Western Australia, with support from those other groups. In light of this new development, I have spoken to officers of both the Anglican and Catholic Archbishops and have advised them that we intend to adopt a position that is consistent with their stated position and will bring in an amendment - as I announced over the weekend - that will result in something very similar to what is contained in the commonwealth Evidence Act. That will achieve the objective that we set out to achieve, which is to enable all Western Australians to swear an oath based upon their religious beliefs, if they have religious beliefs, but also retain the capacity for people to swear by Almighty God if that is their wish. I believe the amendment that we will bring forward will meet the issues that have been raised by the religious communities, as well as the objective that we set out to achieve in the first place.
Mr P.D. Omodei: That still does not answer the question. The SPEAKER: Order! I call the member for Warren-Blackwood to order for the third time. Mr J.A. McGINTY: I received a written report from the Chief Justice of Western Australia recommending the changes. He said in that report that he had consulted with religious leaders, that he had consulted with ethnic community leaders and that he had consulted with the judiciary. To the extent of that consultation, there was support - in some cases strong support - for the recommendation that came forward. I make this point very clear: it was brought forward with an honest intention to expand the range of people who could swear according to their religious beliefs. It was brought forward on the basis of a recommendation from the Chief Justice. We were advised and believed that it had the support of ethnic communities, the judiciary and the religious leaders. That is what the report said. Mr P.D. Omodei: That is not what the report said. Mr J.A. McGINTY: I have already tabled the report. It transpired that when the legislation was brought forward, most religious leaders said they did not support the change being made. When that became apparent, we very quickly responded and said that if it did not have the support of the people who were directly affected by it, we did not wish to proceed. It was brought forward only on the basis that this was a consensus position recommended to me by the Chief Justice of Western Australia, with support from those other groups. In light of this new development, I have spoken to officers of both the Anglican and Catholic Archbishops and have advised them that we intend to adopt a position that is consistent with their stated position and will bring in an amendment - as I announced over the weekend - that will result in something very similar to what is contained in the commonwealth Evidence Act. That will achieve the objective that we set out to achieve, which is to enable all Western Australians to swear an oath based upon their religious beliefs, if they have religious beliefs, but also retain the capacity for people to swear by Almighty God if that is their wish. I believe the amendment that we will bring forward will meet the issues that have been raised by the religious communities, as well as the objective that we set out to achieve in the first place.
The SPEAKER: Order! I call the member for Warren-Blackwood to order for the third time. Mr J.A. McGINTY: I received a written report from the Chief Justice of Western Australia recommending the changes. He said in that report that he had consulted with religious leaders, that he had consulted with ethnic community leaders and that he had consulted with the judiciary. To the extent of that consultation, there was support - in some cases strong support - for the recommendation that came forward. I make this point very clear: it was brought forward with an honest intention to expand the range of people who could swear according to their religious beliefs. It was brought forward on the basis of a recommendation from the Chief Justice. We were advised and believed that it had the support of ethnic communities, the judiciary and the religious leaders. That is what the report said. Mr P.D. Omodei: That is not what the report said. Mr J.A. McGINTY: I have already tabled the report. It transpired that when the legislation was brought forward, most religious leaders said they did not support the change being made. When that became apparent, we very quickly responded and said that if it did not have the support of the people who were directly affected by it, we did not wish to proceed. It was brought forward only on the basis that this was a consensus position recommended to me by the Chief Justice of Western Australia, with support from those other groups. In light of this new development, I have spoken to officers of both the Anglican and Catholic Archbishops and have advised them that we intend to adopt a position that is consistent with their stated position and will bring in an amendment - as I announced over the weekend - that will result in something very similar to what is contained in the commonwealth Evidence Act. That will achieve the objective that we set out to achieve, which is to enable all Western Australians to swear an oath based upon their religious beliefs, if they have religious beliefs, but also retain the capacity for people to swear by Almighty God if that is their wish. I believe the amendment that we will bring forward will meet the issues that have been raised by the religious communities, as well as the objective that we set out to achieve in the first place.
Mr J.A. McGINTY: I received a written report from the Chief Justice of Western Australia recommending the changes. He said in that report that he had consulted with religious leaders, that he had consulted with ethnic community leaders and that he had consulted with the judiciary. To the extent of that consultation, there was support - in some cases strong support - for the recommendation that came forward. I make this point very clear: it was brought forward with an honest intention to expand the range of people who could swear according to their religious beliefs. It was brought forward on the basis of a recommendation from the Chief Justice. We were advised and believed that it had the support of ethnic communities, the judiciary and the religious leaders. That is what the report said. Mr P.D. Omodei: That is not what the report said. Mr J.A. McGINTY: I have already tabled the report. It transpired that when the legislation was brought forward, most religious leaders said they did not support the change being made. When that became apparent, we very quickly responded and said that if it did not have the support of the people who were directly affected by it, we did not wish to proceed. It was brought forward only on the basis that this was a consensus position recommended to me by the Chief Justice of Western Australia, with support from those other groups. In light of this new development, I have spoken to officers of both the Anglican and Catholic Archbishops and have advised them that we intend to adopt a position that is consistent with their stated position and will bring in an amendment - as I announced over the weekend - that will result in something very similar to what is contained in the commonwealth Evidence Act. That will achieve the objective that we set out to achieve, which is to enable all Western Australians to swear an oath based upon their religious beliefs, if they have religious beliefs, but also retain the capacity for people to swear by Almighty God if that is their wish. I believe the amendment that we will bring forward will meet the issues that have been raised by the religious communities, as well as the objective that we set out to achieve in the first place.
Mr P.D. Omodei: That is not what the report said. Mr J.A. McGINTY: I have already tabled the report. It transpired that when the legislation was brought forward, most religious leaders said they did not support the change being made. When that became apparent, we very quickly responded and said that if it did not have the support of the people who were directly affected by it, we did not wish to proceed. It was brought forward only on the basis that this was a consensus position recommended to me by the Chief Justice of Western Australia, with support from those other groups. In light of this new development, I have spoken to officers of both the Anglican and Catholic Archbishops and have advised them that we intend to adopt a position that is consistent with their stated position and will bring in an amendment - as I announced over the weekend - that will result in something very similar to what is contained in the commonwealth Evidence Act. That will achieve the objective that we set out to achieve, which is to enable all Western Australians to swear an oath based upon their religious beliefs, if they have religious beliefs, but also retain the capacity for people to swear by Almighty God if that is their wish. I believe the amendment that we will bring forward will meet the issues that have been raised by the religious communities, as well as the objective that we set out to achieve in the first place.
Mr J.A. McGINTY: I have already tabled the report. It transpired that when the legislation was brought forward, most religious leaders said they did not support the change being made. When that became apparent, we very quickly responded and said that if it did not have the support of the people who were directly affected by it, we did not wish to proceed. It was brought forward only on the basis that this was a consensus position recommended to me by the Chief Justice of Western Australia, with support from those other groups. In light of this new development, I have spoken to officers of both the Anglican and Catholic Archbishops and have advised them that we intend to adopt a position that is consistent with their stated position and will bring in an amendment - as I announced over the weekend - that will result in something very similar to what is contained in the commonwealth Evidence Act. That will achieve the objective that we set out to achieve, which is to enable all Western Australians to swear an oath based upon their religious beliefs, if they have religious beliefs, but also retain the capacity for people to swear by Almighty God if that is their wish. I believe the amendment that we will bring forward will meet the issues that have been raised by the religious communities, as well as the objective that we set out to achieve in the first place.
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.