MANY other factors would have had a much greater potential to influence voters than the Government advertising campaign leading up to the divorce referendum the High Court was told yesterday by Mr Jack Jones, chairman of the Market Research Bureau of Ireland.
Mr Jones said that in his opinion there were at least nine other factors or variables which had an influence on voters.
He was the first witness to be called in the challenge by former senator, Mr Des Hanafin, against the result of the November 24th divorce referendum.
Mr Hanafin is seeking to overturn the result on the grounds that the Government wrongly spent public money promoting the Yes campaign. He wants the court to order a new referendum Yesterday, Mr Jones told the three judges of the divisional court of the High Court that he conducted three opinion polls on the referendum for the Government, in March, October and November, 1995.
Following his direct evidence, Mr Peter Shanley SC, for the State, asked Mr Jones in cross examination if any voter had given the Government advertising campaign as a reason for voting Yes.
Mr Jones said nobody responded by stating they were voting Yes because of the
Government advertising campaign. Mr Shanley asked if he, as, a professional pollster, would be able to measure the effectiveness of such a campaign.
Mr Jones said in his opinion at least nine other factors or variables would have had an influence on the voter. Many, in his opinion, would have had a much greater potential to influence voters than the Government advertising campaign.
The campaign was halted on November 18th after the Supreme Court ruled it unconstitutional for the Government to spend public funds on an advertising campaign to promote a particular vote.
There had been a drop in the Yes vote and one would have expected that when the campaign stopped, there would be a further fall, but for the first time the Yes vote stabilised.
He had found over the years that the people did not trust, the Government to provide legislation on moral issues. The Government campaign could have been counter productive because it asked the people to vote on a moral issue and in Ireland did not carry weight.
There was a hierarchy of influences on the voter other than the Government advertising campaign. One was the television and radio campaign in the last weeks before the referendum, after the campaign was halted.
He recalled a number of people on Question and Answers the Minister for Health, Mr Noonan, and Mr Peter Ward of the Right to Remarry Campaign had a tremendous influence. Mr Noonan had a lot of influence in holding the Yes vote that week, while Mr Rory O'Hanlon was disastrous, he said.
Mr Jones said because of all the factors, he did not consider it possible to provide estimates of the level of influence of the Government campaign.
The kernel of the whole campaign was what happened on November 24th and the last week in this campaign was crucial. The effect of the Government campaign up to November 18th was irrelevant as to what effect it had on November 24th.
Earlier in evidence, replying to Mr Garrett Cooney SC, for Mr Hanafin, he said he gave a report and commentary to each poll based on the results in questionnaires. The first poll was in March last year. He was invited to attend a meeting with Mr Richard Humphreys, special adviser to the Minister for Equality and Law Reform, Ms Anne Kinsella, programme manager, and Mr Fergus Finlay, special adviser to the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Spring.
The first poll was carried out among 1,000 of the electorate. It cost £15,000 plus VAT. He said the poll was carried out prior to the Government setting up a preliminary plan for the campaign. He knew the Government objective was to hold the referendum and get a Yes vote.
When the court resumed yesterday morning, the President of the divisional court, Mr Justice Murphy, allowed the evidence of Mr, Jones. State lawyers claimed that the evidence of Mr Jones on how people might have voted was inadmissible.