GSOC investigation is blocked: Impasse will feed public’s scepticism

“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.” “The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.” “The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master — that’s all.”

OUR long, frustrating, and very expensive experience with tribunals has damaged the integrity of our democracy, our political system, and questioned our commitment to ensuring that justice is seen to be done or that our laws apply equally to all citizens. Many of these investigations, sometimes under-resourced, often deliberately stymied, have taken far too long to complete their work. They may be comprehensive but they have, by and large, failed to make the kind of contribution that serves justice or deters those whose behaviour might, in time, come to the attention of some tribunal or other. Our banking inquiry was a perfect example of this going-through-the-motions ineffectiveness. Limited, set up about five years too late, and unable to demand answers or reach conclusions of wrongdoing, it was little more than civilised chat about matters that by the time it sat had more to do with historical research than news.

The number of people invited to sit in a courtroom dock because of these investigations might all fit in one prison service van. The most infamous example of this national sterility is that almost six years after the Moriarty report found that Denis O’Brien made payments to Michael Lowry, a finding absolutely rejected as inaccurate by Mr O’Brien, the finding is like an orphaned refugee child. We all know of the need to do something about it but don’t seem too enthusiastic about doing anything much about it anytime soon.