❓ Question regarding the dismissal of Father David Watt from Edith Cowan University following his public opposition to gay and lesbian law reform, and the Attorney General's response expressing concern and offering investigation.
AnsweredQoN 572Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
FATHER DAVID WATT, DISMISSAL FROM EDITH COWAN UNIVERSITY
I refer to the recent dismissal of the visiting Catholic chaplain to Edith Cowan University, Father David Watt. (1) Is the Attorney General aware that Father Watt was dismissed because he was a public signatory to an advertisement in The West Australian that protested against the current gay and lesbian law reform legislation? (2) Given this Government’s public commitment to ending discrimination, will the Attorney General also guarantee protection for those who do not support the legislation? (3) Does the Government condone the silencing of opponents of this divisive legislation? Mr McGINTY
I refer to the recent dismissal of the visiting Catholic chaplain to Edith Cowan University, Father David Watt. (1) Is the Attorney General aware that Father Watt was dismissed because he was a public signatory to an advertisement in The West Australian that protested against the current gay and lesbian law reform legislation? (2) Given this Government’s public commitment to ending discrimination, will the Attorney General also guarantee protection for those who do not support the legislation? (3) Does the Government condone the silencing of opponents of this divisive legislation? Mr McGINTY
AnswerView source ↗
(1)-(3) I was not aware that the Edith Cowan University had dismissed Father Watt. It is a concern if the reason for his dismissal was the free expression of his political views. Over the past five months, I have welcomed the debates about the various pieces of social legislation, particularly those that have dealt with the Family Court and gay and lesbian issues. I have also welcomed the ability to put into the public arena some five months ago the report of the ministerial committee, which is the basis of the legislation that has occupied so much of the time of the Parliament recently and will continue to do so for the next few months. That has created debate in the community and people have a right - I consider it a duty in a democracy - to express their points of view. I have been around this place long enough to know that everyone cannot have the same point of view, even in a political party. The community should welcome the divergence of views and the healthy expression of different points of view. Mr Barnett: Will you defer the debate until next year? How can that happen if the Government does not defer debate? Mr McGINTY: We are debating the matter. The Leader of the Opposition should not be silly. This issue was in the public domain five months ago. In case the Leader of the Opposition has been oblivious to it, a great debate has taken place in the community in the pages of The West Australian and on talkback radio; that is why people came to Parliament to protest. I welcome that debate. I do not expect debate of the law to be monocultural. We must appreciate the diversity that exists in society. People will have their own points of view and they should have complete freedom to express them. If Dr Watt was dismissed because he expressed his political or religious point of view, that is absolutely appalling. I do not tolerate that for one minute. I welcome people who disagree with me and the Government and who have points of view that they want to contribute to the broader political debate about the future direction of the State. I would not in any way countenance the behaviour of anyone who sought to silence the expression of a point of view in our democracy, particularly about a matter of political controversy. If the member for Carine or Dr Watt provides me with some details of the case - I was unaware of it - I will happily ensure that the matter is investigated. If that was the reason Dr Watt was sacked, I would be the first to condemn it.
(1) Is the Attorney General aware that Father Watt was dismissed because he was a public signatory to an advertisement in The West Australian that protested against the current gay and lesbian law reform legislation? (2) Given this Government’s public commitment to ending discrimination, will the Attorney General also guarantee protection for those who do not support the legislation? (3) Does the Government condone the silencing of opponents of this divisive legislation? Mr McGINTY replied: (1)-(3) I was not aware that the Edith Cowan University had dismissed Father Watt. It is a concern if the reason for his dismissal was the free expression of his political views. Over the past five months, I have welcomed the debates about the various pieces of social legislation, particularly those that have dealt with the Family Court and gay and lesbian issues. I have also welcomed the ability to put into the public arena some five months ago the report of the ministerial committee, which is the basis of the legislation that has occupied so much of the time of the Parliament recently and will continue to do so for the next few months. That has created debate in the community and people have a right - I consider it a duty in a democracy - to express their points of view. I have been around this place long enough to know that everyone cannot have the same point of view, even in a political party. The community should welcome the divergence of views and the healthy expression of different points of view. Mr Barnett: Will you defer the debate until next year? How can that happen if the Government does not defer debate? Mr McGINTY: We are debating the matter. The Leader of the Opposition should not be silly. This issue was in the public domain five months ago. In case the Leader of the Opposition has been oblivious to it, a great debate has taken place in the community in the pages of The West Australian and on talkback radio; that is why people came to Parliament to protest. I welcome that debate. I do not expect debate of the law to be monocultural. We must appreciate the diversity that exists in society. People will have their own points of view and they should have complete freedom to express them. If Dr Watt was dismissed because he expressed his political or religious point of view, that is absolutely appalling. I do not tolerate that for one minute. I welcome people who disagree with me and the Government and who have points of view that they want to contribute to the broader political debate about the future direction of the State. I would not in any way countenance the behaviour of anyone who sought to silence the expression of a point of view in our democracy, particularly about a matter of political controversy. If the member for Carine or Dr Watt provides me with some details of the case - I was unaware of it - I will happily ensure that the matter is investigated. If that was the reason Dr Watt was sacked, I would be the first to condemn it.
(2) Given this Government’s public commitment to ending discrimination, will the Attorney General also guarantee protection for those who do not support the legislation? (3) Does the Government condone the silencing of opponents of this divisive legislation? Mr McGINTY replied: (1)-(3) I was not aware that the Edith Cowan University had dismissed Father Watt. It is a concern if the reason for his dismissal was the free expression of his political views. Over the past five months, I have welcomed the debates about the various pieces of social legislation, particularly those that have dealt with the Family Court and gay and lesbian issues. I have also welcomed the ability to put into the public arena some five months ago the report of the ministerial committee, which is the basis of the legislation that has occupied so much of the time of the Parliament recently and will continue to do so for the next few months. That has created debate in the community and people have a right - I consider it a duty in a democracy - to express their points of view. I have been around this place long enough to know that everyone cannot have the same point of view, even in a political party. The community should welcome the divergence of views and the healthy expression of different points of view. Mr Barnett: Will you defer the debate until next year? How can that happen if the Government does not defer debate? Mr McGINTY: We are debating the matter. The Leader of the Opposition should not be silly. This issue was in the public domain five months ago. In case the Leader of the Opposition has been oblivious to it, a great debate has taken place in the community in the pages of The West Australian and on talkback radio; that is why people came to Parliament to protest. I welcome that debate. I do not expect debate of the law to be monocultural. We must appreciate the diversity that exists in society. People will have their own points of view and they should have complete freedom to express them. If Dr Watt was dismissed because he expressed his political or religious point of view, that is absolutely appalling. I do not tolerate that for one minute. I welcome people who disagree with me and the Government and who have points of view that they want to contribute to the broader political debate about the future direction of the State. I would not in any way countenance the behaviour of anyone who sought to silence the expression of a point of view in our democracy, particularly about a matter of political controversy. If the member for Carine or Dr Watt provides me with some details of the case - I was unaware of it - I will happily ensure that the matter is investigated. If that was the reason Dr Watt was sacked, I would be the first to condemn it.
(3) Does the Government condone the silencing of opponents of this divisive legislation? Mr McGINTY replied: (1)-(3) I was not aware that the Edith Cowan University had dismissed Father Watt. It is a concern if the reason for his dismissal was the free expression of his political views. Over the past five months, I have welcomed the debates about the various pieces of social legislation, particularly those that have dealt with the Family Court and gay and lesbian issues. I have also welcomed the ability to put into the public arena some five months ago the report of the ministerial committee, which is the basis of the legislation that has occupied so much of the time of the Parliament recently and will continue to do so for the next few months. That has created debate in the community and people have a right - I consider it a duty in a democracy - to express their points of view. I have been around this place long enough to know that everyone cannot have the same point of view, even in a political party. The community should welcome the divergence of views and the healthy expression of different points of view. Mr Barnett: Will you defer the debate until next year? How can that happen if the Government does not defer debate? Mr McGINTY: We are debating the matter. The Leader of the Opposition should not be silly. This issue was in the public domain five months ago. In case the Leader of the Opposition has been oblivious to it, a great debate has taken place in the community in the pages of The West Australian and on talkback radio; that is why people came to Parliament to protest. I welcome that debate. I do not expect debate of the law to be monocultural. We must appreciate the diversity that exists in society. People will have their own points of view and they should have complete freedom to express them. If Dr Watt was dismissed because he expressed his political or religious point of view, that is absolutely appalling. I do not tolerate that for one minute. I welcome people who disagree with me and the Government and who have points of view that they want to contribute to the broader political debate about the future direction of the State. I would not in any way countenance the behaviour of anyone who sought to silence the expression of a point of view in our democracy, particularly about a matter of political controversy. If the member for Carine or Dr Watt provides me with some details of the case - I was unaware of it - I will happily ensure that the matter is investigated. If that was the reason Dr Watt was sacked, I would be the first to condemn it.
Mr McGINTY replied: (1)-(3) I was not aware that the Edith Cowan University had dismissed Father Watt. It is a concern if the reason for his dismissal was the free expression of his political views. Over the past five months, I have welcomed the debates about the various pieces of social legislation, particularly those that have dealt with the Family Court and gay and lesbian issues. I have also welcomed the ability to put into the public arena some five months ago the report of the ministerial committee, which is the basis of the legislation that has occupied so much of the time of the Parliament recently and will continue to do so for the next few months. That has created debate in the community and people have a right - I consider it a duty in a democracy - to express their points of view. I have been around this place long enough to know that everyone cannot have the same point of view, even in a political party. The community should welcome the divergence of views and the healthy expression of different points of view. Mr Barnett: Will you defer the debate until next year? How can that happen if the Government does not defer debate? Mr McGINTY: We are debating the matter. The Leader of the Opposition should not be silly. This issue was in the public domain five months ago. In case the Leader of the Opposition has been oblivious to it, a great debate has taken place in the community in the pages of The West Australian and on talkback radio; that is why people came to Parliament to protest. I welcome that debate. I do not expect debate of the law to be monocultural. We must appreciate the diversity that exists in society. People will have their own points of view and they should have complete freedom to express them. If Dr Watt was dismissed because he expressed his political or religious point of view, that is absolutely appalling. I do not tolerate that for one minute. I welcome people who disagree with me and the Government and who have points of view that they want to contribute to the broader political debate about the future direction of the State. I would not in any way countenance the behaviour of anyone who sought to silence the expression of a point of view in our democracy, particularly about a matter of political controversy. If the member for Carine or Dr Watt provides me with some details of the case - I was unaware of it - I will happily ensure that the matter is investigated. If that was the reason Dr Watt was sacked, I would be the first to condemn it.
(1)-(3) I was not aware that the Edith Cowan University had dismissed Father Watt. It is a concern if the reason for his dismissal was the free expression of his political views. Over the past five months, I have welcomed the debates about the various pieces of social legislation, particularly those that have dealt with the Family Court and gay and lesbian issues. I have also welcomed the ability to put into the public arena some five months ago the report of the ministerial committee, which is the basis of the legislation that has occupied so much of the time of the Parliament recently and will continue to do so for the next few months. That has created debate in the community and people have a right - I consider it a duty in a democracy - to express their points of view. I have been around this place long enough to know that everyone cannot have the same point of view, even in a political party. The community should welcome the divergence of views and the healthy expression of different points of view. Mr Barnett: Will you defer the debate until next year? How can that happen if the Government does not defer debate? Mr McGINTY: We are debating the matter. The Leader of the Opposition should not be silly. This issue was in the public domain five months ago. In case the Leader of the Opposition has been oblivious to it, a great debate has taken place in the community in the pages of The West Australian and on talkback radio; that is why people came to Parliament to protest. I welcome that debate. I do not expect debate of the law to be monocultural. We must appreciate the diversity that exists in society. People will have their own points of view and they should have complete freedom to express them. If Dr Watt was dismissed because he expressed his political or religious point of view, that is absolutely appalling. I do not tolerate that for one minute. I welcome people who disagree with me and the Government and who have points of view that they want to contribute to the broader political debate about the future direction of the State. I would not in any way countenance the behaviour of anyone who sought to silence the expression of a point of view in our democracy, particularly about a matter of political controversy. If the member for Carine or Dr Watt provides me with some details of the case - I was unaware of it - I will happily ensure that the matter is investigated. If that was the reason Dr Watt was sacked, I would be the first to condemn it.
Mr Barnett: Will you defer the debate until next year? How can that happen if the Government does not defer debate? Mr McGINTY: We are debating the matter. The Leader of the Opposition should not be silly. This issue was in the public domain five months ago. In case the Leader of the Opposition has been oblivious to it, a great debate has taken place in the community in the pages of The West Australian and on talkback radio; that is why people came to Parliament to protest. I welcome that debate. I do not expect debate of the law to be monocultural. We must appreciate the diversity that exists in society. People will have their own points of view and they should have complete freedom to express them. If Dr Watt was dismissed because he expressed his political or religious point of view, that is absolutely appalling. I do not tolerate that for one minute. I welcome people who disagree with me and the Government and who have points of view that they want to contribute to the broader political debate about the future direction of the State. I would not in any way countenance the behaviour of anyone who sought to silence the expression of a point of view in our democracy, particularly about a matter of political controversy. If the member for Carine or Dr Watt provides me with some details of the case - I was unaware of it - I will happily ensure that the matter is investigated. If that was the reason Dr Watt was sacked, I would be the first to condemn it.
Mr McGINTY: We are debating the matter. The Leader of the Opposition should not be silly. This issue was in the public domain five months ago. In case the Leader of the Opposition has been oblivious to it, a great debate has taken place in the community in the pages of The West Australian and on talkback radio; that is why people came to Parliament to protest. I welcome that debate. I do not expect debate of the law to be monocultural. We must appreciate the diversity that exists in society. People will have their own points of view and they should have complete freedom to express them. If Dr Watt was dismissed because he expressed his political or religious point of view, that is absolutely appalling. I do not tolerate that for one minute. I welcome people who disagree with me and the Government and who have points of view that they want to contribute to the broader political debate about the future direction of the State. I would not in any way countenance the behaviour of anyone who sought to silence the expression of a point of view in our democracy, particularly about a matter of political controversy. If the member for Carine or Dr Watt provides me with some details of the case - I was unaware of it - I will happily ensure that the matter is investigated. If that was the reason Dr Watt was sacked, I would be the first to condemn it.
I welcome people who disagree with me and the Government and who have points of view that they want to contribute to the broader political debate about the future direction of the State. I would not in any way countenance the behaviour of anyone who sought to silence the expression of a point of view in our democracy, particularly about a matter of political controversy. If the member for Carine or Dr Watt provides me with some details of the case - I was unaware of it - I will happily ensure that the matter is investigated. If that was the reason Dr Watt was sacked, I would be the first to condemn it.
(1) Is the Attorney General aware that Father Watt was dismissed because he was a public signatory to an advertisement in The West Australian that protested against the current gay and lesbian law reform legislation? (2) Given this Government’s public commitment to ending discrimination, will the Attorney General also guarantee protection for those who do not support the legislation? (3) Does the Government condone the silencing of opponents of this divisive legislation? Mr McGINTY replied: (1)-(3) I was not aware that the Edith Cowan University had dismissed Father Watt. It is a concern if the reason for his dismissal was the free expression of his political views. Over the past five months, I have welcomed the debates about the various pieces of social legislation, particularly those that have dealt with the Family Court and gay and lesbian issues. I have also welcomed the ability to put into the public arena some five months ago the report of the ministerial committee, which is the basis of the legislation that has occupied so much of the time of the Parliament recently and will continue to do so for the next few months. That has created debate in the community and people have a right - I consider it a duty in a democracy - to express their points of view. I have been around this place long enough to know that everyone cannot have the same point of view, even in a political party. The community should welcome the divergence of views and the healthy expression of different points of view. Mr Barnett: Will you defer the debate until next year? How can that happen if the Government does not defer debate? Mr McGINTY: We are debating the matter. The Leader of the Opposition should not be silly. This issue was in the public domain five months ago. In case the Leader of the Opposition has been oblivious to it, a great debate has taken place in the community in the pages of The West Australian and on talkback radio; that is why people came to Parliament to protest. I welcome that debate. I do not expect debate of the law to be monocultural. We must appreciate the diversity that exists in society. People will have their own points of view and they should have complete freedom to express them. If Dr Watt was dismissed because he expressed his political or religious point of view, that is absolutely appalling. I do not tolerate that for one minute. I welcome people who disagree with me and the Government and who have points of view that they want to contribute to the broader political debate about the future direction of the State. I would not in any way countenance the behaviour of anyone who sought to silence the expression of a point of view in our democracy, particularly about a matter of political controversy. If the member for Carine or Dr Watt provides me with some details of the case - I was unaware of it - I will happily ensure that the matter is investigated. If that was the reason Dr Watt was sacked, I would be the first to condemn it.
(2) Given this Government’s public commitment to ending discrimination, will the Attorney General also guarantee protection for those who do not support the legislation? (3) Does the Government condone the silencing of opponents of this divisive legislation? Mr McGINTY replied: (1)-(3) I was not aware that the Edith Cowan University had dismissed Father Watt. It is a concern if the reason for his dismissal was the free expression of his political views. Over the past five months, I have welcomed the debates about the various pieces of social legislation, particularly those that have dealt with the Family Court and gay and lesbian issues. I have also welcomed the ability to put into the public arena some five months ago the report of the ministerial committee, which is the basis of the legislation that has occupied so much of the time of the Parliament recently and will continue to do so for the next few months. That has created debate in the community and people have a right - I consider it a duty in a democracy - to express their points of view. I have been around this place long enough to know that everyone cannot have the same point of view, even in a political party. The community should welcome the divergence of views and the healthy expression of different points of view. Mr Barnett: Will you defer the debate until next year? How can that happen if the Government does not defer debate? Mr McGINTY: We are debating the matter. The Leader of the Opposition should not be silly. This issue was in the public domain five months ago. In case the Leader of the Opposition has been oblivious to it, a great debate has taken place in the community in the pages of The West Australian and on talkback radio; that is why people came to Parliament to protest. I welcome that debate. I do not expect debate of the law to be monocultural. We must appreciate the diversity that exists in society. People will have their own points of view and they should have complete freedom to express them. If Dr Watt was dismissed because he expressed his political or religious point of view, that is absolutely appalling. I do not tolerate that for one minute. I welcome people who disagree with me and the Government and who have points of view that they want to contribute to the broader political debate about the future direction of the State. I would not in any way countenance the behaviour of anyone who sought to silence the expression of a point of view in our democracy, particularly about a matter of political controversy. If the member for Carine or Dr Watt provides me with some details of the case - I was unaware of it - I will happily ensure that the matter is investigated. If that was the reason Dr Watt was sacked, I would be the first to condemn it.
(3) Does the Government condone the silencing of opponents of this divisive legislation? Mr McGINTY replied: (1)-(3) I was not aware that the Edith Cowan University had dismissed Father Watt. It is a concern if the reason for his dismissal was the free expression of his political views. Over the past five months, I have welcomed the debates about the various pieces of social legislation, particularly those that have dealt with the Family Court and gay and lesbian issues. I have also welcomed the ability to put into the public arena some five months ago the report of the ministerial committee, which is the basis of the legislation that has occupied so much of the time of the Parliament recently and will continue to do so for the next few months. That has created debate in the community and people have a right - I consider it a duty in a democracy - to express their points of view. I have been around this place long enough to know that everyone cannot have the same point of view, even in a political party. The community should welcome the divergence of views and the healthy expression of different points of view. Mr Barnett: Will you defer the debate until next year? How can that happen if the Government does not defer debate? Mr McGINTY: We are debating the matter. The Leader of the Opposition should not be silly. This issue was in the public domain five months ago. In case the Leader of the Opposition has been oblivious to it, a great debate has taken place in the community in the pages of The West Australian and on talkback radio; that is why people came to Parliament to protest. I welcome that debate. I do not expect debate of the law to be monocultural. We must appreciate the diversity that exists in society. People will have their own points of view and they should have complete freedom to express them. If Dr Watt was dismissed because he expressed his political or religious point of view, that is absolutely appalling. I do not tolerate that for one minute. I welcome people who disagree with me and the Government and who have points of view that they want to contribute to the broader political debate about the future direction of the State. I would not in any way countenance the behaviour of anyone who sought to silence the expression of a point of view in our democracy, particularly about a matter of political controversy. If the member for Carine or Dr Watt provides me with some details of the case - I was unaware of it - I will happily ensure that the matter is investigated. If that was the reason Dr Watt was sacked, I would be the first to condemn it.
Mr McGINTY replied: (1)-(3) I was not aware that the Edith Cowan University had dismissed Father Watt. It is a concern if the reason for his dismissal was the free expression of his political views. Over the past five months, I have welcomed the debates about the various pieces of social legislation, particularly those that have dealt with the Family Court and gay and lesbian issues. I have also welcomed the ability to put into the public arena some five months ago the report of the ministerial committee, which is the basis of the legislation that has occupied so much of the time of the Parliament recently and will continue to do so for the next few months. That has created debate in the community and people have a right - I consider it a duty in a democracy - to express their points of view. I have been around this place long enough to know that everyone cannot have the same point of view, even in a political party. The community should welcome the divergence of views and the healthy expression of different points of view. Mr Barnett: Will you defer the debate until next year? How can that happen if the Government does not defer debate? Mr McGINTY: We are debating the matter. The Leader of the Opposition should not be silly. This issue was in the public domain five months ago. In case the Leader of the Opposition has been oblivious to it, a great debate has taken place in the community in the pages of The West Australian and on talkback radio; that is why people came to Parliament to protest. I welcome that debate. I do not expect debate of the law to be monocultural. We must appreciate the diversity that exists in society. People will have their own points of view and they should have complete freedom to express them. If Dr Watt was dismissed because he expressed his political or religious point of view, that is absolutely appalling. I do not tolerate that for one minute. I welcome people who disagree with me and the Government and who have points of view that they want to contribute to the broader political debate about the future direction of the State. I would not in any way countenance the behaviour of anyone who sought to silence the expression of a point of view in our democracy, particularly about a matter of political controversy. If the member for Carine or Dr Watt provides me with some details of the case - I was unaware of it - I will happily ensure that the matter is investigated. If that was the reason Dr Watt was sacked, I would be the first to condemn it.
(1)-(3) I was not aware that the Edith Cowan University had dismissed Father Watt. It is a concern if the reason for his dismissal was the free expression of his political views. Over the past five months, I have welcomed the debates about the various pieces of social legislation, particularly those that have dealt with the Family Court and gay and lesbian issues. I have also welcomed the ability to put into the public arena some five months ago the report of the ministerial committee, which is the basis of the legislation that has occupied so much of the time of the Parliament recently and will continue to do so for the next few months. That has created debate in the community and people have a right - I consider it a duty in a democracy - to express their points of view. I have been around this place long enough to know that everyone cannot have the same point of view, even in a political party. The community should welcome the divergence of views and the healthy expression of different points of view. Mr Barnett: Will you defer the debate until next year? How can that happen if the Government does not defer debate? Mr McGINTY: We are debating the matter. The Leader of the Opposition should not be silly. This issue was in the public domain five months ago. In case the Leader of the Opposition has been oblivious to it, a great debate has taken place in the community in the pages of The West Australian and on talkback radio; that is why people came to Parliament to protest. I welcome that debate. I do not expect debate of the law to be monocultural. We must appreciate the diversity that exists in society. People will have their own points of view and they should have complete freedom to express them. If Dr Watt was dismissed because he expressed his political or religious point of view, that is absolutely appalling. I do not tolerate that for one minute. I welcome people who disagree with me and the Government and who have points of view that they want to contribute to the broader political debate about the future direction of the State. I would not in any way countenance the behaviour of anyone who sought to silence the expression of a point of view in our democracy, particularly about a matter of political controversy. If the member for Carine or Dr Watt provides me with some details of the case - I was unaware of it - I will happily ensure that the matter is investigated. If that was the reason Dr Watt was sacked, I would be the first to condemn it.
Mr Barnett: Will you defer the debate until next year? How can that happen if the Government does not defer debate? Mr McGINTY: We are debating the matter. The Leader of the Opposition should not be silly. This issue was in the public domain five months ago. In case the Leader of the Opposition has been oblivious to it, a great debate has taken place in the community in the pages of The West Australian and on talkback radio; that is why people came to Parliament to protest. I welcome that debate. I do not expect debate of the law to be monocultural. We must appreciate the diversity that exists in society. People will have their own points of view and they should have complete freedom to express them. If Dr Watt was dismissed because he expressed his political or religious point of view, that is absolutely appalling. I do not tolerate that for one minute. I welcome people who disagree with me and the Government and who have points of view that they want to contribute to the broader political debate about the future direction of the State. I would not in any way countenance the behaviour of anyone who sought to silence the expression of a point of view in our democracy, particularly about a matter of political controversy. If the member for Carine or Dr Watt provides me with some details of the case - I was unaware of it - I will happily ensure that the matter is investigated. If that was the reason Dr Watt was sacked, I would be the first to condemn it.
Mr McGINTY: We are debating the matter. The Leader of the Opposition should not be silly. This issue was in the public domain five months ago. In case the Leader of the Opposition has been oblivious to it, a great debate has taken place in the community in the pages of The West Australian and on talkback radio; that is why people came to Parliament to protest. I welcome that debate. I do not expect debate of the law to be monocultural. We must appreciate the diversity that exists in society. People will have their own points of view and they should have complete freedom to express them. If Dr Watt was dismissed because he expressed his political or religious point of view, that is absolutely appalling. I do not tolerate that for one minute. I welcome people who disagree with me and the Government and who have points of view that they want to contribute to the broader political debate about the future direction of the State. I would not in any way countenance the behaviour of anyone who sought to silence the expression of a point of view in our democracy, particularly about a matter of political controversy. If the member for Carine or Dr Watt provides me with some details of the case - I was unaware of it - I will happily ensure that the matter is investigated. If that was the reason Dr Watt was sacked, I would be the first to condemn it.
I welcome people who disagree with me and the Government and who have points of view that they want to contribute to the broader political debate about the future direction of the State. I would not in any way countenance the behaviour of anyone who sought to silence the expression of a point of view in our democracy, particularly about a matter of political controversy. If the member for Carine or Dr Watt provides me with some details of the case - I was unaware of it - I will happily ensure that the matter is investigated. If that was the reason Dr Watt was sacked, I would be the first to condemn it.
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.