David Norris (Independent)

I know that. The Senator was interrupting because she is in a political party. She would not have interrupted before she was in a political party. I am drawing attention to the fact that the amount of State funding allocated to a qualified political party is specifically referenced. I am using this provision as a device to introduce something that is of vital importance to the democratic character of our Parliament. I make no apology to Senator Bacik or anybody else for so doing, unless the Cathaoirleach imposes a restriction on me in this regard. That phrase exists and I am entitled to tease it out. We are talking about the allocation of funds only to political parties and I am signalling that I propose to put down an amendment. Again, this is about the party interest. Senator Bacik may have the party interest at heart now, but there was a time when that was not the case.

I retain and will always retain my independence. The encouragement of independence is a very good thing. I have to laugh at the proposals for protecting whistleblowers which are blowing about the place. The Minister should take that legislation back to his friends in Cabinet and ask them how it will work in a newspaper's editorial office. I can tell him it will not. One reason he is trying to close this place down is that there are a few whistleblowers here. We have always made life uncomfortable for the Government, regardless of the party or parties in power. As the most outspoken of all, the university Senators were the first to be targeted. When the Government could not get us, it went for the Senate in its entirety. I will use every tactic I can to prevent that happening and to strengthen the independence of the House. We need Independent voices in this Chamber. I am giving notice of my intention to table an amendment in this regard.

Senator Bacik, who is a woman of outstanding intellect and clarity, made many of the points I would have made in response to Senator Mullen. I will not bother going in extenso into those issues. I do not consider this an intervention in terms of the electoral system. Rather, it is an intervention regarding the selection of candidates. I have put my cards on the table in indicating that I am in favour of social engineering. For example, regrettable as it was that they were necessary, busing and racial quotas in universities and so on were important in the United States. Uncomfortable and awkward as they were, they helped to achieve what was necessary in a pluralist society.