I move amendment No. 65:
In page 11, to delete lines 30 and 31.
The new section I tried to insert would establish an independent referendum commission. It arises directly from the McKenna judgment. Given there has been so much discussion on the effect of the McKenna judgment on our electoral law, it should be incorporated into this Bill. I tried to argue the case and was overruled. The Bill contains a section where the Minister will pick up the tab for various other things included in the Bill and I was told some of my amendments need not impose a charge on the State.
An important element of the McKenna judgment is that it deals with referenda rather than elections proper. This is an appropriate Bill through which to address the issue and into which to insert this section. Since the McKenna judgment, we have had a bail referendum. We would be less than honest if we did not agree that a huge number of complaints were made regarding the lack of information about that referendum. The low turnout in that referendum was as a direct result of the lack of information provided by Government or by the ad hoc referendum commission which was set up at the time.
The amendments I proposed seek to set up an independent commission consisting of the Clerks of the Dáil and Seanad, the Ombudsman, the Comptroller and Auditor General, the President of the Law Reform Commission and two other suitably qualified people. All of the members of the commission would be public servants except perhaps the last two mentioned and all would be independent. The functions of the independent commission would be fairly broad based. If a referendum were called, the commission would carry out a range of functions such as setting a schedule for public information events and agreeing the format and content of tenders to select advertising or public relations consultants. The commission would then agree the preferred consultancy for the referendum campaign, the format and content of the documentation and the manner of presentation of information to the public. The commission would also be empowered to consult widely to ensure there would be an objective and unbiased presentation of the proposal to the public and it would engage in the appropriate research along the lines outlined in the ad hoccommission where senior counsel opinion would be sought on both sides of the argument. In addition, all aspects of advertising and public information campaigns, the appointment of consultants and so on would be included in the commission’s remit. The purpose of inserting this section would be to remove any Government input into the dissemination of information following the decision to call a referendum. That would be in keeping with the spirit of the McKenna judgment.
In the two referenda following the McKenna judgment, Governments have abided by the letter but not the spirit of the judgment. At the moment, a Government can set up an ad hoccommission and decide it will only receive £100,000 if the Government feels the argument it proposes has the greater chance of success. By starving the ad hoc commission of sufficient funds to publicise the intricacies of the proposed referendum, the Government can effectively stymie the Supreme Court decision in the McKenna judgment. Setting up a totally independent commission would allow more transparency and far greater independence in the dissemination of information and would convey the impression to the public that the spirit and the specifics of the McKenna judgment were being adhered to.
I understand the Minister is the only person who can move this type of amendment and I ask him to consider including the section I have proposed in the Bill. This is a necessary provision which should be included. If — as I hope will happen at some stage in the near future — we are discussing a new electoral system, I would like the arguments about the electoral system to be put forward by a totally independent commission which would have the wherewithal to put the case for and against electoral reform in a fair and impartial manner.
