Mr. Mervyn Hickey:

We have to look at administrative financial sanctioning regimes in the context of being pre or post the Zalewski case. There are many extant financial sanctioning regimes but, if they predate that decision, they must be looked at against that background. I will not go into any deep exploration of the case but the key takeaway for us and what has influenced what we are doing is that the regime of the Workplace Relations Commission, WRC, was challenged.

The Supreme Court concluded that what was being engaged in by the WRC was the administration of justice. There had been some doubts as to whether that would be the case but the Supreme Court has confirmed it is. Because it is the case, a limited exception is granted under Article 37.1 of the Constitution for judicial functions of a limited nature to be carried out by administrative regimes, such as in the case of the Bill that has been proposed and is before the committee today. If that is to be the case, however, those functions are now subject to many requirements for fair procedure, which may previously not have been clearly required but now are clearly required. The scheme we presented, therefore, had to undergo a rigorous analysis and continues to be rigorously analysed to ensure it is robust. The Competition (Amendment) Bill, which is further along, will show the signs of that development. We are engaging with the Office of the Attorney General on such matters that are common to our scheme and those requirements will have to apply.