An embattled John O'Donoghue yesterday published a wishywashy report on judicial conduct and ethics, prepared by the Working Group on a Courts Commission.
It was a neat move. The Minister for Justice had already gazumped the report, through recommendations made by his own department, in the Dail last Tuesday. This new move went to reinforce the message: where commitment to change was concerned, the Minister was light years ahead of the legal profession.
Being on the side of the angels is difficult when you have charge of the Department of Justice. But the Minister was making a fair stab at it. Having released proposals to the Dail for statutory disciplinary procedures against judges, ail, Mr O'Donoghue unveiled the alternative model to critical opposition parties.
The working group, headed by Ms Justice Denham, reported last November, long before the manure hit the fan and Liam Hamilton announced he had no power to discipline judges or to make recommendations to the Government.
At that time, it suggested the establishment of yet another committee that would advise, "if determined appropriate", on the establishment of a judicial body that would contribute to high standards of judicial conduct and report to the Chief Justice.
But it insisted any such body must be controlled by the judiciary, should be established on a non-statutory basis and operate an informal system. It would publish an annual report along with a judicial code of ethics and standards.
The working group was clearly trying to put the clock back by advocating a non-statutory approach.
Two years earlier, the Constitution Review Group recommended that the Constitution be changed by a referendum to facilitate the establishment of a new judicial regulation regime. But nothing was done.
In recent days, there has been a deafening silence from Mr O'Donoghue on how he intends to proceed on this issue. The best his department has offered is that the Chief Justice should consider the merits of the New Zealand disciplinary model in preparing a report.
Adoption of that radical model would certainly require constitutional change. It could also generate a near-riot among pompous members of the judiciary.
The New Zealand system not only provides for the sacking of judges for "stated misbehaviour" by an independent body - they can also be removed for incompetence, inefficiency and bad practice.
Measurement of the performance of judges is conducted on an ongoing basis: targets are set for performance; public dissatis faction with judgments is monitored; absenteeism and lack of performance are taken into account. While debate on regulating the affairs of judges rumbled on, John Bruton led the charge against the Minister in the Dail.
The Fine Gael leader blamed him for engaging in an effective cover-up by not insisting that Cyril Kelly answer all questions in the Sheedy case before he got a penny of a State pension.
And it didn't stop with Mr Kelly. By agreeing to pension deals involving Hugh O'Flaherty and Michael Quinlan as well - before answers were provided - the Minister had failed in his political duty.
Fine Gael, he said, would oppose the passage of the special legislation setting up these pensions if the individuals concerned were not prepared to explain their motivation.
Mr Bruton saw no difficulty in having Mr O'Flaherty come before a Dail committee, as he had already offered to do so. But he saw Mr Kelly as a special case. His failure to give answers was a disgrace. And the Minister's failure to get them was also a disgrace.
Just how far Fine Gael was prepared to push for answers was unclear. Asked if he would support a criminal investigation, the Fine Gael leader opted for fudge and declared he valued the independence of the Garda and the Director of Public Prosecutions. He would not give them advice.
In that regard, it can only be a matter of time before the spotlight switches back to the Minister. Mr O'Donoghue's outrage at being accused of what he styled "criminal activity" by Nora Owen stood in stark contrast with his later decision to grant pensions to the individuals involved in the controversy.
The reluctance of the department to embark on a criminal investigation involving members of the judiciary was striking.
A direction given by the Minister on February 10th to institute a criminal investigation was not acted on by the secretary. When, on February 11th, both the Minister and the Attorney General were under the impression that the Garda Commissioner was conducting a criminal investigation, they were advised by Tim Dalton that it wasn't so: the Director of Public Prosecutions had not sought one, he said.
On March 15th, when the DPP telephoned to ask if a Garda investigation was under way, he in turn was told there was no complaint of criminal conduct.
On March 31st, when Mr O'Donoghue contacted David Byrne about the possibility of a criminal investigation - now that Sheedy was back in jail - he was advised there wasn't sufficient basis for a prosecution. They should await the outcome of judicial and departmental inquiries, he was told.
And publication of those reports over the past week has not changed the official position. The other extraordinary aspect of the affair is that the grounds given for Michael Quinlan's dismissal - that he had presented a false and misleading account of what had happened by withholding any reference to Mr O'Flaherty's involvement from the Minister until April 1st - are true but only tell part of the story.
Mr Quinlan may have withheld the information, but allegations concerning Mr O'Flaherty's involvement in listing the case were circulated to the Minister, to the Attorney General and to the Chief Justice as far back as February 10th.
Events of the past few weeks have shown that radical reform is overdue in the judicial and administrative systems. The opposition parties will not back off with elections coming up.