Joanna Tuffy (Dublin Mid West, Labour) | Oireachtas source

My overall approach to constitutional change is conservative. The Minister probably recognises this part of my character, but conservatism can be progressive. For example, the late Professor Tony Judt, an historian and social democrat who wrote about socialism and social democracy, would say that socialists and social democrats should try to conserve the progressive achievements of those who went before them. In this regard, I wish to preserve much that is in our Constitution. It is a progressive document, including in terms of how it can be changed - in this sense, it is a living document - and interpreted by judges. It sets out broad principles, but when human experience is brought to bear on particular constitutional provisions in court, the outcome is generally fair and endorses human rights.

This point was borne out at the convention, which received two presentations at the outset from Professor Dermot Keogh and the High Court judge, Mr. Justice Gerard Hogan, both of whom have written about the origins of our Constitution. Through their research, they demonstrated that the Constitution was a progressive and forward-looking document at the time. Equality and human rights are at its heart. As I argued during the last module, adopting proportional representation by means of the single transferable vote, PR-STV, as our electoral system was a forward-looking decision. It remains so. Civic campaigns around the world generally want a move towards our system rather than the reverse despite what some commentators might claim.

Some comments get repeated just because they have been made. For example, reading the debates on women's rights reveals a great deal of progressive thought on the issue when those rights were incorporated in the Constitution. That equality is enshrined at the Constitution's heart is evident. I am not suggesting that it is perfect or should never be changed. Indeed, good changes have been made. Since absolute power corrupts absolutely, the Constitution also provides checks and balances.

Much of the commentary on the Constitution can be knee-jerk, with people not thinking for themselves but picking up someone else's commentary about it being this, that and old-fashioned. I am not referring to this debate, as our discussion has been nuanced and complex. Working as legislators, Deputies realise that the Constitution is a progressive document.

The Constitutional Convention has deliberated on the issues forwarded to it. I commend the work of its chairman, Mr. Tom Arnold, its secretary, Mr. Art O'Leary, both of whom are present in the Chamber, and everyone involved, including academics, people who made presentations and citizens. Many people have taken an interest in the convention, including via Twitter and other social media. This is welcome.

I can be quite set in my ways. I say this in a good way. I attended the meeting on the Presidency and changed my mind on reducing its term. I used to believe that it should be reduced, but I eventually voted against such a move. Having listened to the arguments and discussed the matter with the people at my table, I started to see that it was important to separate the term of the Presidency from the terms of the Government and local government. The President's role as protector of the Constitution is important. This is how people started to view the matter and is the reason that the majority voted against a reduction.

I did not support a reduction in the voting age, but I was in the minority. I accept the convention's decision in that regard. If the matter is put before the people, it will be a matter for them and various points of view will be aired.

I felt most invested in the issue of our electoral system. I am very much in favour of it. I attended the two months of discussion on it. The debate was excellent and enjoyable, but I was worked up because it was such an important issue for me. If I attend any of the convention's other discussions, I can relax and enjoy the debate. I welcomed the outcome. The citizens and Oireachtas Members in attendance were open to the idea of abandoning PR-STV, but after considering other electoral systems, they were against replacing it. Two key votes were held, one of which was on whether we should replace our existing system. Seventy-nine people voted against that proposal. Minus the Oireachtas Members, at least 70% of citizens were against replacing our electoral system. Having been open to the idea of a mixed member system, after examining it thoroughly and having crossed out the other alternatives - the list system, the first-past-the-post system and the alternative vote system - they eventually decided against it.

The people at my table had a great discussion on the matter. In fact, I had two tables, giving me a different sample of opinions. Citizens believe that the engagement between constituents and their Deputies is a good aspect of our system. If those citizens were anything to go by, people are starting to react against all of the cuts to the number of politicians, town councils, etc. Perhaps some of this is due to the fact that Oireachtas Members and citizens worked collaboratively at the convention, where they got to see how we behaved without having to look through the cynical lens of the media. People are naturally and rightly sceptical of politicians, but our media is driving a cynical view of politicians.

As the Minister is aware, the convention voted against reducing the number of politicians and wanted the number to remain as was. Were the number to be changed, the most votes were for 159 Deputies or more. Had the Minister tested the convention, he might have made a different decision as regards cutting the number of Deputies. He must move away from playing up to the agenda of anti-politics and cynicism. We must start promoting our role as politicians. That the constitutional convention has been so deliberative and well run proves that citizens can be persuaded of the good aspects of our democracy and can make good and wise decisions, as they do through our current electoral system.

The convention's model has worked well. I was sceptical before becoming involved. I am not sceptical now, as it has been a worthwhile process.

See this speech in context