Referendum re: Oireachtas inquiries

OutlawPete wrote: »

For those who are iPad deficient:

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.

sheesh wrote: »

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

lastlaugh wrote: »

Was there any investigation for the Abbeylara shooting at all?