Referendum re: Oireachtas inquiries

livealotfornow

see http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2011/1017/1224305921200.html

seems that the right to a fair trial in this country is about to be removed...

Saila

tl;dr it all

sensibleken

Anything Patricia McKenna is against must be a good thing

OutlawPete

For those who are iPad deficient:

The State versus the individual

The referendum to give the Oireachtas powers to conduct inquiries is seen by some as enhancing accountability, but by others as undermining the right to a good name

THE CASE FOR: PJ O'MEARA and MARK KENNEDY
The proposed system of inquiry offers an opportunity for our parliament to enhance its role and to work more effectively on behalf of the people

THE PROPOSAL that the Houses of the Oireachtas be empowered to carry out inquiries is a “leap of faith” for those who believe in the unfulfilled potential of our political institutions.

Previous attempts at inquiries have enjoyed mixed success. Even though the Dirt inquiry was widely seen as a highly effective and efficient accountability tool, this approach is not suitable for every issue. The investigative powers voters are being asked to give to the Oireachtas must be used appropriately, and sparingly.

Much debate has focused on whether this form of inquiry can work without compromising an individual’s right to procedural fairness. In this regard, Head 11 of the Draft Houses of the Oireachtas (Powers of Inquiry) Bill, 2011 requires the newly established Joint Committee on Investigations, Oversight and Petitions (JCIOP) to make rules relating to the conduct of inquiries.

Securing approval for a parliamentary inquiry will oblige the JCIOP to make an initial decision whether the particular issue merits inquiry. It can only commence, however, with the approval of the relevant House of the Oireachtas through the passing of a resolution.

At each stage the committee requesting an inquiry, the JCIOP, and particular House of the Oireachtas must set out in statements why they consider the matter at issue to be of “general public importance” and why an inquiry is necessary.

While parliamentary and public discussion should refine and strengthen the basis for these investigations, we are concerned that this draft Bill does not acknowledge certain specific limitations of parliamentary inquiries.
The first report of the Dirt Inquiry recommended that parliamentary inquiries should not probe issues that are essentially of a political or policy nature. Furthermore, this draft Bill does not attempt to define the term “general public importance”, unlike the efforts of Pat Rabbitte explicitly to define the potential scope of such inquiries in the preamble to his 2010 private member’s Bill.

The draft Bill also fails to address the real need for some degree of cross-party consensus on the appropriateness of an investigation. Again, looking to the historical example, the collegial ethos of the PAC was a key factor in the success of the Dirt inquiry. It is essential that a government should not be able to initiate inquiries into politically contentious issues. For this reason, we believe that each inquiry should require two-thirds support in the respective House.

As the investigation of matters that might threaten the internal cohesion of any sub-committee could be counter-productive, it is notable that the draft Bill makes no reference to the public questioning of former or serving Cabinet ministers. In our view, any inquiry in which ministerial decision-making was a central plank of the investigation would be unsuitable material for a parliamentary inquiry – the matter is too political for this forum.

It is noteworthy that many heads of the draft Bill on matters such as investigators’ powers and the giving of evidence are based on the Commissions of Investigation Act, 2004. Indeed, some commentators have argued that commissions of inquiry are a better investigative model. They cite the excellent work of Justice Yvonne Murphy’s team in Cloyne and Dublin.

Such a model may have fewer limitations than a parliamentary inquiry but we believe that there is a clear case for the use of the latter format where matters material to the exchequer or to the legislative role of parliament are at issue. There should be room for both approaches in the accountability armoury of the State.

Parliamentary inquiries potentially represent more than just another form of investigation. The public heartily approved of politicians of different hues, such as Jim Mitchell, Seán Doherty and Pat Rabbitte, working together during the Dirt inquiry to achieve a common goal.

But while it is undeniable that the excessively adversarial nature of our political system has affected the work and reputation of our political institutions, we believe parliamentary inquiries can undo some of the damage caused by our “tribal” political party culture and potentially serve to unite public representatives in common cause to the benefit of society.
It is also significant that the referendum Bill outlines the granting of powers to the Seanad to hold its own or joint inquiries with the Dáil.

This offers a real opportunity to revitalise the Seanad. Its relatively less frenetic work schedule should make Senators more available to work on an inquiry than their often busier Dáil colleagues. The perspectives and personalities of Independent members from the university constituencies and the Taoiseach’s nominees would add to the diversity of views and enhance the representative nature of the process.

The proposed system of inquiry offers an opportunity for our parliament to enhance its role and to work more effectively on behalf of the people. For this reason we believe that it should be supported on October 27th.

The_Minister

I oppose this referendum very strongly, but it will not remove the right to a fair trial.

It'll just gut the right to your good name and the right to fair procedures.

Napper Hawkins

Quick summary anyone?

sensibleken

Napper Hawkins wrote: »

Quick summary anyone?

Do or do not vote yes.

The_Minister

OutlawPete wrote: »

For those who are iPad deficient:

Why not quote the whole article, or at least the bit the OP was referring to?

Saila

The_Minister wrote: »

Why not quote the whole article, or at least the bit the OP was referring to?

his scroll bar broke while trying to

Thrill

And the case against

THE CASE AGAINST: RÓNÁN MULLEN
Referendum endangers people’s right to respect for their reputations and to fair procedures

THE GOVERNMENT wants constitutional underpinning for strong parliamentary powers of inquiry into allegations of incompetence or wrongdoing. These inquiries may make damning and damaging findings about persons’ conduct. Reputations may be destroyed.


The Government holds this is fine because it will only happen if the inquiry subjects genuinely deserve it. We are asked to assume politicians can be trusted to respect people’s rights to fair procedures and natural justice.
Brendan Howlin has produced the heads of the Powers of Inquiry Bill partly to reassure us that politicians will not run amok, but will deliver quicker, cheaper inquiries than we’ve had to date.


The Minister asked the Seanad to “look beyond what happened in the past”. Presumably, beyond cases such as Re Haughey and Abbeylara where the courts found instances of non-compliance with fair procedures by Oireachtas committees. He also invoked the existence of parliamentary inquiries abroad, but without mentioning that these powers have long since fallen into disrepute in the UK.


But the constitutional amendment offers little protection against the abuse of a future Dáil majority to create a partisan and populist inquiry. It would entrust to the Oireachtas the balancing of persons’ rights with the public interest.


Granted, they must show “due regard to the principles of fair procedures”, opening up the possibility of judicial scrutiny. But the overall wording effectively warns the judiciary away from this balancing function, which is being seized instead for the Oireachtas and ultimately the government.
In general politicians are not suited to conducting any public inquiry with the potential to damage reputations. First, we tend to be very partisan. Most politicians belong to parties and much parliamentary time is spent taking pot shots at the other side.


Secondly, in this media age, the temptation to grandstand is ever-present. There is an electoral dividend to be reaped by politicians who broadcast the most aggressive opinions about society’s latest villains.
Thirdly, there is a competence issue. If our constitutional and legal traditions mean anything, we must regard an investigation of alleged wrongdoing as highly sensitive and delicate, requiring a deep awareness of legal issues and the application of particular skills. I do not believe that enough politicians have the wherewithal or focus to interrogate persons and then judge them fairly.


The job of politicians is to consider policy and legislation. When we need to discover what went wrong in various situations, the appropriate thing is to get expert persons, untroubled by public opinion, to conduct the necessary investigations and to make accurate findings that will inform our decisions.
It is also misleading for the Government to present us with a false choice between expensive old-style tribunals and cost- effective Oireachtas committees. Nobody argued the Cloyne report cost too much or took too long. That investigation was carried under the 2004 Commissions of Inquiry legislation away from the media spotlight. It did not hesitate to make findings adverse to people’s reputations. But nobody sought to impugn the competence or impartiality of the judge and her team.


This highlights the main problem with this referendum. It endangers people’s right to respect for their reputations and to fair procedures. But it offers no significant improvement in our capacity to get to the truth about wrongdoing.

THE CASE AGAINST: PATRICIA McKENNA Amendment may tip the balance against fairness

Anyone found guilty by an Oireachtas inquiry could argue that his or her right to a fair trial had been compromised


THE PROPOSED 30th amendment to our Constitution is being presented as a solution to two issues of public concern – political corruption and long expensive tribunals. However, this amendment, giving more power to politicians, will not guarantee that those responsible for corruption or wrongdoing are held to account and effectively sanctioned.


Politicians need to be popular to survive and are therefore heavily influenced by public opinion and the desire to be liked. This can cloud their judgment and lead to decisions that are totally counterproductive or even completely wrong. The Ivor Callely case is a good example of how politicians respond to public outrage at alleged wrongdoing. As we all now



know, their response, while well intentioned, was a complete disaster.
Would it not be better to address the obvious flaws in our system, which encourage, tolerate and allow corruption and abuse?


Introducing effective accountability mechanisms and removing barriers that prevent suspected wrongdoers from being held to account before a court of law would be much safer than meddling with the separation of powers enshrined in our Constitution.


Unlike politicians, judges don’t need to be popular. They just need to be qualified and generally their decisions are not based on public opinion but on facts.


Like many, I would like to see criminal sanctions imposed on those guilty of corruption and wrongdoing. However, I believe the amendment will hinder such an outcome.


An Oireachtas inquiry will have the power to make findings but cannot impose criminal sanctions. The imposition of sanctions would require a decision of the courts. In my opinion, anyone found guilty of wrongdoing by an Oireachtas inquiry could successfully argue that his or her right to a fair trial, as guaranteed by our Constitution, had been compromised.
Do we really want to see those, say, found to have abused parliamentary expenses running to the courts, costing the taxpayers even more money, pleading for their rights? Assurances that politicians, in using their new powers, will proceed with care and restraint mean nothing in the heat of a political controversy. Better to play safe and keep the separation of powers of this State as unambiguous as possible.


This amendment, as outlined will impact on many rights protected under our Constitution, including the right to a good name and to fair procedures.


The balance of rights and fair procedures will be at the discretion of the Oireachtas, and even the Referendum Commission doesn’t know “what role, if any, the courts would have in reviewing the procedures adopted”. Allowing politicians to decide what’s fair, with no guaranteed right to challenge their decisions, should give us all cause for concern.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2011/1017/1224305921200.html

Big Nasty

Fcuked if I'm reading all that - anyone care to summarise?

Teclo

sensibleken wrote: »

Anything Patricia McKenna is against must be a good thing

That's not necessarily true, which only makes life more confusing.

tolosenc

TLDR version, plz.

AhSureTisGrand

MCMLXXV wrote: »

Fcuked if I'm reading all that - anyone care to summarise?

Vote no

sheesh

MCMLXXV wrote: »

Fcuked if I'm reading all that - anyone care to summarise?

dude new you need to read this stuff yourself to make an informed decision.

Big Nasty

sheesh wrote: »

dude new you need to read this stuff yourself to make an informed decision.

Fcuk that sh1t - would rather die ignorant! :pac:

68Murph68

If Ronan Mullen, the church apologist and Patricia McKenna, the whacko Liberal are against it, it must be worth a vote.

For Paws

Has everyone forgotten what triggered this proposed change ?; the so-called Abbeylara enquiry, where a group of Gardai involved in a 'legal' killing were able to go to court to prevent our political representatives from enquiring into a matter about which a great number of ordinary people were concerned.

My name is URL

Saila wrote: »

tl;dr it all

Napper Hawkins wrote: »

Quick summary anyone?

MCMLXXV wrote: »

Fcuked if I'm reading all that - anyone care to summarise?

tolosenc wrote: »

TLDR version, plz.

Are any of you registered to vote? :P

Killer Pigeon

Bump, this deserves further discussion.

El Weirdo

Killer Pigeon wrote: »

Bump, this deserves further discussion.

If you think it deserves further discussion, maybe you should put a few more discussiony bits in your post.

Paparazzo

Never mind tl;dr, someone just tell me weather to vote yes or no.

mkie

anyone with nothing to hide has nothing to fear. im all for anything that will expose frauds of any variety

mike65

Paparazzo wrote: »

Never mind tl;dr, someone just tell me weather to vote yes or no.

Cold and wet I hear.

lastlaugh

Was there any investigation for the Abbeylara shooting at all?

It wasn't me!

lastlaugh wrote: »

Was there any investigation for the Abbeylara shooting at all?

Yes, an extremely thorough one.

Manach

If we vote Yes for these when can we except the populist show trials to begin that will blame everyone but the political class itself?

Tayla

I'm voting no...

not that it will make a difference

lastlaugh

What would have happened if the original 'Oireachtas Subcommittee inquiry' had gone ahead after the Garda & FBI 'investigations' at Abbeylara?

Would there have been Garda ERU members up before politicians answering questions about when and where they shot John Carthy?

It seems that by voting Yes, you are more or less giving free reign to a commitee of politicians, but I'm not sure what power they would have in a real sense, besides invading someone's privacy in a very public manner.

opinion guy

mkie wrote: »

anyone with nothing to hide has nothing to fear. im all for anything that will expose frauds of any variety

I fear the shower of expenses abusing fu*kcers in the oirheactas gaining any shred more of power than they already have. Imagine if these guys have the ability to publicly humiliate someone when they feel the need for an inquisition. There are police, laws and courts for investigating wrongdoing. If laws need adjusting for the police to investigate wrongdoing and judges the authority to convict then laws shoudl be adjusted. Giving the clowns in government the ability to conduct show trials only serves to undermine the legal system.

Manach wrote: »

If we vote Yes for these when can we except the populist show trials to begin that will blame everyone but the political class itself?

Indeed, who will get to decide whose turn it is for lynching ?

randylonghorn

68Murph68 wrote: »

If Ronan Mullen, the church apologist and Patricia McKenna, the whacko Liberal are against it, it must be worth a vote.

Really? You're going to give your vote based on who the Irish Times chose to write for and against it?

mkie wrote: »

anyone with nothing to hide has nothing to fear. im all for anything that will expose frauds of any variety

I'm all for exposing fraud too, and given the last 10 years, I doubt too many will disagree with you on that. But I'm afraid I couldn't agree that "anyone with nothing to hide has nothing to fear" when it comes to the kind of media-led political witch-hunts which the current wording could potentially spark off. For that matter, I doubt that many of those hounded during the McCarthy era in the US would agree.

The wording of the amendment opens the way for the politicians to investigate basically anything or anyone if *they* decide it's in the public interest without any oversight from or recourse to the judicial branch.

Each House shall have the power to conduct an inquiry, or an inquiry with the other House, in a manner provided for by law, into any matter stated by the House or Houses concerned to be of general public importance.

(Bold is my emphasis).

And who will decide the rule and procedures for this? Why, the government of course.

It shall be for the House or Houses concerned to determine, with due regard to the principles of fair procedures, the appropriate balance between the rights of persons and the public interest for the purposes of ensuring an effective inquiry into any matter to which subsection 2° applies.

This amendment gives the government / any government (essentially, as they are in a majority) far more than just the ability to investigate or expose fraud or wrongdoing.

It gives them carte blanche to investigate whoever they like however they like, and sets aside the normal protection afforded by the law and the courts to the citizen in favour of a set of "procedures" to be put in place by the investigating body themselves.

One could have accurately written a similar sentence about both the McCarthy trials and the Inquisition.

While I don't really believe we're likely to see a repeat of either here ... nevertheless, the fact that the same summary could validly be applied to this amendment as to such low points in the history of the human race should surely give us pause for thought?

There was no reason why this type of catch-all wording for an amendment was needed.

Mike 1972

sensibleken wrote: »

Anything Patricia McKenna is against must be a good thing

Paedophillia ?

grenache

Never in my life thought i'd be siding with Ronan Mullen for anything, but i'm definitely voting no on this. The place to judge people is in the courts, not in an oireachtas committee room.

Raze_them_all

The government Will accept the peoples decision no matter what it is.


I'll vote no, It'll pass.....



The government will make me vote again till the yes vote is passed.


Thank **** for the lisbon traty...country is swimming in jobs.


(still angry over that farce that I voted no to, twice)

randylonghorn

Raze_them_all wrote: »

The government will make me vote again till the yes vote is passed.

I doubt that will happen this time tbh. Firstly, it isn't FF, and while I wouldn't be a big fan of the present crowd either, I think they have a small bit more sense. Secondly, it isn't as crucial an issue.

In fairness, I don't think it's the Lisbon Treaty that scuppered us, I think our politicians and financial regulators and banks and so on managed most of that just fine, but that's an aside on this topic.

What might happen is that they throw it up again at some stage with a better wording. Which is fine, I'd certainly be prepared to look at it with an open mind. I don't have a problem with them looking for a better / cheaper way than the Tribunals / Commissions, or trying to give Dáil Committees more teeth.

But they don't need to drive a coach-and-four, to paraphrase O'Connell, through natural justice to do it, or set up a situation where they politicians decide who they target and how they do it and what protection (if any) those called before them have. That erodes the foundation of law and justice in any civilised society. This wording is just sloppy at best and self-serving at worst.

expectationlost

christ patricia mckenna and ronan mullen, christ

mikemac

Politicians selecting targets/scapegoats, drawing up the questions and deciding the results

The next scandal this is used on someone will take the blame but it will not be the people asking the questions or their superiors

If you want someone to be tried, take it before a judge.
Having said that, something has to be done about the cost of the tribunals and hundreds if not thousands that barristers pull per day

sensibleken

mikemac wrote: »

Politicians selecting targets/scapegoats, drawing up the questions and deciding the results

The next scandal this is used on someone will take the blame but it will not be the people asking the questions or their superiors

If you want someone to be tried, take it before a judge.
Having said that, something has to be done about the cost of the tribunals and hundreds if not thousands that barristers pull per day

Isnt this the point?

It seems tehy will be established the same way as tribunals and pretty much will have the same power as tribunals but will cost less

seamus

sensibleken wrote: »

but will cost less

I seriously doubt that. If anything they'll cost more as the individuals being investigated, fight and fight and fight and fight and fight this in the courts.

It's a populist amendment. If someone was worth investigating, then the Gardai can do it. If they have broken the law, then they can be investigated, arrested and tried.
The reason that this doesn't happen is because the politicians try to hide it and try to force the Gardai not to investigate their buddies. Tribunals were cooked up as a way of making it look like they were doing something against the bad men, but without having to make their political buddies suffer the indignity of being subject to a criminal investigation.

If someone hasn't done something legally wrong, then why should the Dáil have any power to instigate an investigation against them, except to drag their name through mud? If they've done something illegal, then we have processes to deal with that.

They're effectively asking the people to rubber-stamp the setting up of kangaroo courts which will solve nothing and catch no-one.

They will be used before elections to drag the opposition politicians out into the public view and throw shit at them.

Orando Broom

lastlaugh wrote: »

It seems that by voting Yes, you are more or less giving free reign to a commitee of politicians, but I'm not sure what power they would have in a real sense, besides invading someone's privacy in a very public manner.

<<Selective quoting of LL>>

Absolutely. Can you imagine some of the luders we elect being given this power. We need to erode the power of the Oireachtas where possible, not enhance it. I find it interesting how the media choose the people to present the cases for and against. Surely there would be a few constitutional experts that would have divergent opinions that could coherently set out both cases.

Orando Broom

It would be more in thier line to cap the fees for barristers for Tribunals. Certainly in this climate plenty would take the work with reduced terms.

opinion guy

expectationlost wrote: »

christ patricia mckenna and ronan mullen, christ

Seriously who are these people that you all object to ?
Never heard of either of them tbh

Thrill

http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/vote-would-give-politicians-judges-powers-171075.html

Vote ‘would give politicians judges’ powers’


Tuesday, October 18, 2011
A SENIOR counsel has raised significant concerns over the "sweeping and draconian powers" which will be afforded to politicians if the public votes yes in next week’s referendum on Oireachtas inquiries.
Oisin Quinn has questioned the impartiality of politicians to whom such powers may soon be given.

Yesterday he briefed a meeting of the Association of Higher Civil and Public Servants on what a yes vote will mean. The association’s members are typically the civil servants who must attend and give evidence at the Oireachtas hearings.

Mr Quinn said there was no doubt there was a necessity for a "limited power of Oireachtas inquiry" designed to address failings in public administration and oversight.

However, he said a yes vote would allow the Oireachtas to conduct inquiries into any matter "of general public importance", to investigate the conduct of any person and to make findings in relation to the conduct of that person.

"There can therefore be no doubt that passage of this referendum will pass to the Oireachtas sweeping and draconian powers which will enable politicians to conduct and control inquiries into individuals and make the most serious findings of fact against those persons."

He said "there is public anger at the failure of the institutions of the state to deal with the banking and property crisis and the subsequent failure to bring those persons responsible to account".

However, he said the passing of the referendum will not address the cost of independent tribunals of inquiry, the duration of the inquiry or the "continuing failure to prosecute certain solicitors and bankers arising out of the property and banking crisis".

He said a yes vote would give Oireachtas investigators the power to enter "at any reasonable time any premises" where they have "reasonable grounds to believe there are any documents, or there is any information in any form relating to any matter within the terms of the reference for the inquiry".

He said politicians are not expected to be judges nor to be trained in either the process of elucidating evidence, questioning witnesses or reaching independent and fair-minded judgments. He said independent judges were in place to carry out that role.

"The public needs politicians who can speak their mind, who will take up important public issues and who will fight for changes. Sitting in judgment over their fellow citizens is not why, I suggest, most politicians seek office. Nonetheless, it is a power they will have thrust upon them should this referendum be passed."

languagenerd

randylonghorn wrote: »

In fairness, I don't think it's the Lisbon Treaty that scuppered us

No, it wasn't, but does anyone else remember the "Vote Yes For Jobs" posters that were put up all over the place for Lisbon II? It was such blatant manipulation - the Lisbon Treaty was never anything to do with jobs, but the politicians took advantage of the recession to push the Yes vote (the recession started between the two Lisbon referendums, which was possibly a reason for the change from No to Yes.).

I find it weird that there are no posters up for the referendums this time though! Nice I & II, Lisbon I & II and even the abortion one years ago all had tons of propaganda posters up for both sides. Why are the parties so unfazed by these ones?

Min

I am voting no, we have laws, we have judges, it is the politicians that should legislate, not legislate to make themselves into some sort of judicial system.
I hope the people vote no to this, if people have done wrong we have a system that can be improved without giving the politicians more powers.

IITYWYBMAD

seamus wrote: »

I seriously doubt that. If anything they'll cost more as the individuals being investigated, fight and fight and fight and fight and fight this in the courts.

......

I thought part of this amendment removed the right of the individual to appeal against it's findings, which would be the singular reason why I'd vote against it?

sensibleken

IITYWYBMAD wrote: »

I thought part of this amendment removed the right of the individual to appeal against it's findings, which would be the singular reason why I'd vote against it?

No. Anyone involved can appeal against the findings in the draft report to the high court. This draft is not known to the public. the final report is then published. Also if there is an objection to the evidence it can be refered to the courts see 32.___ (1)(b) of the draft bill

http://per.gov.ie/wp-content/uploads/Draft-Heads-Houses-of-the-Oireachtas-_Powers-of-Inquiry_-Bill-20116.pdf

Also the bill does give powers to set costs, legal fees and time frames. It is definetely more likely to cost less than tribunals which included costs in the high court and the costs of the inquiry. In this case the cost of the latter can be restricted

seamus

IITYWYBMAD wrote: »

I thought part of this amendment removed the right of the individual to appeal against it's findings, which would be the singular reason why I'd vote against it?

Apart from the appeal which sensibleken highlights, at least the very first few attempts to use this amendment will be very strongly challenged in the courts as to whether it's actually legal/constitutional to use. It could possibly go as far as being brought to Europe to rule on.

My suspicion is that even if this gets voted in, it will take a couple of years before they wade through all the legal challenges to it and actually manage to invoke it.

subway

voting no on this one.
surprised there have been none of the usual boards responses. such gems of wisdom as
"if you've nothing to hide why does it matter"
"if you break the law you don't deserve a fair trial"
and so on

sensibleken

seamus wrote: »

I seriously doubt that. If anything they'll cost more as the individuals being investigated, fight and fight and fight and fight and fight this in the courts.

It's a populist amendment. If someone was worth investigating, then the Gardai can do it. If they have broken the law, then they can be investigated, arrested and tried.
The reason that this doesn't happen is because the politicians try to hide it and try to force the Gardai not to investigate their buddies. Tribunals were cooked up as a way of making it look like they were doing something against the bad men, but without having to make their political buddies suffer the indignity of being subject to a criminal investigation.

If someone hasn't done something legally wrong, then why should the Dáil have any power to instigate an investigation against them, except to drag their name through mud? If they've done something illegal, then we have processes to deal with that.

They're effectively asking the people to rubber-stamp the setting up of kangaroo courts which will solve nothing and catch no-one.

They will be used before elections to drag the opposition politicians out into the public view and throw shit at them.

Im not so sure. For a start the cost of the enquiry is set by the oversight commitee. the cost of tribunals is not set. both have appeals to the court but you cant set those costs.

i dont see how kangaroo courts can be set up or opposition politicians can be dragged out in the way you describe as the draft legislation sets out the criteria for establishing them, the rights of appeal etc that would make it very difficult to just hold these inquiries on an ad hoc manner.

Those accused or involved have a right to appeal the findings to the court before they are made public

seamus

I understand that ken, but that's in the draft legislation. Legislation can be changed and without much debate. If the majority party of the day decides that they want to relax the legislation to allow them more *ahem* robust powers in relation to investigation, they can do it with little noise and without having to ask the people. It's theoretical, but I don't like the idea that it's possible.

You're effectively giving this power to the Government and trusting them not to use it. Since I have no idea who that Government will be in 1, 5, 10, 30, 50 years time, I'm not comfortable handing that power over.