Katherine Zappone (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I thank Senator Colm Burke and the Acting Chairman. I again thank the Leader for making available this time to respond to our document, "Open it, Don't Close It: Radical Seanad Reform Through Legislative Change", as well as to the wider issues of political reform to which it points. I thank the Leader for his request that I respond to all Members' contributions and will begin by thanking them for the highly thoughtful contributions by each Member, as well as their attentiveness to the document. It is a great support to Senator Quinn and me in respect of what we are attempting to do. Senator Quinn and I both agree with the Leader and with most of our colleagues that it is absolutely appropriate to discuss radical reform here in the Seanad and that our focus has been on the reform of the political system, as quite distinct from Senators with vested interests arguing for the retention of their, or our, jobs. As Senator Keane observed in the first part of this debate, "We are discussing the State and the country, the Seanad and the system of checks and balances." Would anyone challenge Dáil Deputies were they to debate political and Dáil reform? Would anyone argue their arguments were solely and only about keeping as many seats as possible for themselves and their colleagues? Do the people not deserve that their public representatives take seriously the issues related to the institutions of governance and review critically how well the systems are working to ensure there does exist a genuine balance of powers in order that democracy is served? Consequently, Senator Quinn and I consider it to be appropriate - I believe most Members have agreed - that this issue should be discussed in this Chamber. This is much of what our document is about. Moreover, I note, as did Senator Barrett in his earlier contribution, that in its origins, "this House was shaped by a need to counter the stronghold of the Executive over the Legislature". Down through its history, as we argue in the document and as I have heard other Members observe, the Seanad has provided a system of checks and balances to the existence of political power. Many Members referred to this issue in their contributions. Senator Paul Coghlan, the Government Whip, spoke eloquently about it when he referred to the 75 references in the Constitution to the Seanad's role, particularly the safeguards the Seanad provides for the people and he asked whether the public would like to see such safeguards swept away.

I listened carefully to my colleagues in this House during both parts of this debate and I do not believe I heard a single Member argue for abolition. I heard all of them argue for radical reform of Seanad Éireann. I heard several of them, for example, Senators O'Donovan, Bradford and Crown, note that political reform is critical and urgent. All the Senators, including Senator Colm Burke who spoke earlier today, stated this was urgent and that Members should be engaged in a debate on the Dáil and the Executive, as well as the Seanad. Senator Mooney also mentioned that point. Senator O'Donovan called them the three anchors that hold together our system of democracy. Senator Crown argued the entire process of government must be reformed.

I also listened carefully to the Leader, who outlined his agenda of reform of the Seanad, and to other Senators who suggested that such reform must continue, including the manner in which they behave in the Chamber, which I accept. The Leader has instigated a number of innovations for reform. He has sought further reform, such as the taking on by the Seanad of a more significant role with regard to the scrutiny of European legislation and Senator Colm Burke also has been central in this regard. However, Members are aware that thus far, this particular reform has not been supported and one must ask why this is the case.

I heard no calls for abolition. I heard several Members, including members of the Government parties, accept our evidence that the costs of the Seanad have been exaggerated and should not be used as an argument for its abolition. I also heard the strenuous arguments of Senator Bradford that this House is worthy of retention, that Members must reflect on the need for radical change in tandem with the radical change in politics that is urgently required. He then stated, "Let us not be the whipping boys of those who are unwilling to reform their own House." Nevertheless, I still have heard members of the Government parties state we should put this issue to the people to allow them to decide. I am quite astounded by such arguments. Those Members are in favour of radical reform, yet they state the people must be asked whether they want the Seanad to remain as it is or to be abolished. Is it not the usual case that if a referendum is put to the people, the Government does a number of things? First, it engages in an extended analysis of the intricacies of change as to why it is needed, what kind of specific change is sought and how it can fit with the various policies and laws that already are in place. Is this not the example that currently is before-----