Willie O'Dea
Question:1 Mr. O'Dea asked the Taoiseach if he intends to formulate proposals on the way in which public moneys will be spent in future referenda campaigns. [18084/95]
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Public Expenditure on Referenda.
I am at present examining the implications of the findings in the McKenna case for future referenda. These findings require careful consideration and any necessary proposals to comply with them will be put in place in due course.
Will the Taoiseach put definite proposals in place in advance of a future referendum? Does he agree it would be better to do this now rather than wait for a referendum as he might get it wrong again?
I agree with the Deputy it is very important that this should be clarified at the earliest possible time. That is the purpose of the study that is now being undertaken, but obviously it has not been completed yet.
Does the Taoiseach agree that the notion of spending public moneys should be examined and that it should not be assumed that public moneys should be spent on referenda campaigns? There seems to be an implicit assumption that public moneys will be spent in a balanced way one way or the other. Does the Taoiseach agree that there are many referenda in which it is not possible to produce a leaflet which puts "both sides" of the issue because there are many issues to which there are ten sides rather than a simple two sides? Does he agree in principle that it would be better to abstain completely from spending public money on referenda campaigns?
I think the Deputy is putting an undue inference on Deputy O'Dea's question. I do not think Deputy O'Dea was advocating expenditure, he was simply asking what we would do in the light of the judgment in the McKenna case. That is how I answered his question. There is no presumption as to the expenditure of public funds in future referenda campaigns. The matter is being examined.
Undoubtedly there are five or even ten views on every such question but when it comes to voting in a referendum one can vote "yes" or "no" or abstain. The maximum number of views you can have on the question is three.
I want to confirm there was no inference in my question that public money should be spent. Will the Taoiseach confirm that he is considering whether public moneys should be spent on future referenda campaigns or whether it should be left to the political parties to fund them?
I do not think the Deputy was inferring that public money should be spent and I was not inferring in my reply that it should be spent on future referenda campaigns. The matter is now to be considered in the light of the court judgment. When we have developed our thinking on the matter further perhaps the Deputy will put down a further question and we will come back to this matter.
While I fully agree with the Taoiseach that one can only vote "yes" or "no", I think he might agree if he goes back to the so-called substantive issue referendum that it was beaten for a multiplicity of reasons and that it would not be possible to issue a leaflet paid for by the Government in which the "no" side was expressed as one single coherent view. Rather than funding propaganda for "yes" or "no" I suggest it would be better to allow those who are interested in putting forward their view in public to raise such funds as they want to support their own campaign from private and voluntary sources and leave Exchequer funding completely out of the equation.
I have no trouble with that point of view. Let me repeat there is no presumption in anything I have said in favour of the expenditure of public moneys in any shape or form. I agree with the Deputy that it is the function of political parties in particular to give leadership on issues of this kind. That is one of the purposes for which people subscribe to political parties — so that they may show leadership in matters of public policy. Almost any referendum will be on a matter of public policy and it would be appropriate for a policital party not only to have an opinion but to disseminate that opinion quite widely. The fact that public funds were being expended in this instance may have created a sense in some political parties that there was not the same obligation on them to expend their own resources of time and money in giving an account of their position to the public. That mistake, if mistake it was, will not be made on future occasions because clearly we will now know — by virtue of the Supreme Court decision — that it will be primarily, or perhaps exclusively, a matter for parties and other organisations to disseminate their views in the appropriate way. At this juncture, however, I do not want to prejudge the results of any examination we may make of the Supreme Court judgment beyond saying that we will and must fully respect that judgment because it is now the definitive statement of the law.