The Referendum Commission has complained strongly to the Government that it was given too little time to explain the issues behind the Nice Treaty.
In a detailed report, the commission said it was "unreasonable" that it should "bear the brunt" of criticisms about the lack of information available to voters.
Under legislation, the Referendum Commission only comes into legal existence when the Government has decided on the date for a referendum.
On May 8th last year, the Cabinet set June 7th as the date for referendums on Nice, the abolition of the death penalty and Ireland's ratification of the International Criminal Court of Justice.
"The lack of time had implications for all elements of the campaigns.
"What should have been a carefully planned, well thought out and engaging campaign was instead a series of somewhat disjointed initiatives that were criticised in some quarters as unwieldy and uninspiring," said the commission's chairman, former chief justice Mr Thomas Finlay.
Because of the shortage of time, the commission was unable to test out different types of advertisements during the campaign to find out which worked best.
Last month, the Dáil passed legislation that will limit the commission's brief to offering "general explanations" in future referendums. However, Mr Justice Finlay has urged the Government to amend the legislation so that the commission could be set up earlier than is possible at present.
In addition, he recommended that the current 30-day minimum gap between the passing of a referendum Bill in the Dáil and the holding of the referendum itself should be extended.
He noted the Oireachtas All-Party Committee on the Constitution's recommendation that 120 days should be available for debate on complex proposals. The Government should carry out detailed research about potential referendum questions, which could be made available immediately to the Referendum Commission.
"The commission thinks it is unreasonable that its members should be expected to continue to bear the brunt of adverse public criticism for perceived failures in its information campaigns when the root cause of the difficulties is beyond its control," it said.
It noted that the commission's alleged shortcomings were much criticised afterwards, though debate quickly turned to the effectiveness of the campaigns run by the political parties.
"The responsibility for ensuring that there is an effective and well-informed debate on the issues is a joint one between the commission and the interested parties. While there is much that can be done to improve the effectiveness of the commission's approach, it cannot substitute for a vigorous debate between the political parties and other groups." The public began to "turn off" the TV advertising used before polling day, while some voters appeared to have some difficulty telling each of the advertisements apart.
"The reality is that, by the time the commission had engaged an advertising company and a production company, it had only a matter of days to approve the format and content of the broadcasts and commence productions," the former Chief Justice complained.
