In the fortnight before voters went to the polls last March,and firmly rejected both constitutional amendments proposed by the Government, some1,000 of them were polled online on behalf of the Electoral Commission, which has responsibility for the integrity of elections and combating misinformation.
Asked if they believed that a “small, secret group of people is responsible for making all major decisions in world politics”, over half were at least prepared to entertain the possibility. In such an environment, governments would be well advised to consider the way in which they share information. This week it emerged there had been some constructive ambiguity, in the run up to the referendum, around the possible impact of the proposal to extend the definition of the family.
The Government maintained throughout the campaign that the amendment would not affect taxation, succession, or family law. It appears that this was not in accord with the view of Revenue officials before the vote. Their position was that it would not be clear until the definition of non-marital families was established, probably by the courts.
The Government responded this week that its position reflected the advice given by the Attorney General. This is not the first or last time that a government has hidden behind the advice of the attorney general as if it was the equivalent of a Supreme Court judgment.
The attorney general is a lawyer – usually a very good one – who works for the government. It is a political appointment, and the job is to provide objective legal advice. A government is entitled, if not obliged, to rely on the advice. The advice does not mean they are right, but it does imply they considered the issues raised by Revenue and came to a different conclusion.
The trouble is that such nuances get lost in the noise. Instead, the impression that is left is one of a government misleading the electorate. That, in the current climate, can further erode public trust. Governments would do well to bear this in mind in advance of future referendums.
An earlier version of this article incorrectly described the timing and the number of respondents polled by the Electoral Commission’s survey.