The Nationalist Party has refused to respond to claims it is heading towards a contradictory stand by favouring cohabitation legislation while its top officials speak out against divorce.
The PN’s executive arm is widely expected to endorse an anti-divorce resolution during a meeting on Saturday and yet the government is pursuing a cohabitation law, described by several commentators as more contentious.
The PN had included a proposal for cohabitation in the 1998 manifesto but the measure was later dropped, even if the government is expected to present a cohabitation Bill in the coming months.
Questions sent to PN general secretary Paul Borg Olivier about the party’s seemingly contradictory stand, and whether the resolution would make reference to cohabitation, remained unanswered.
Instead, Dr Borg Olivier said the five sessions of the executive to discuss divorce provided a very open and mature process of dialogue, with all members free to speak out on the matter.
The discussion was prompted by backbencher Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando’s surprise Private Member’s Bill on divorce last year, which is likely to lead to a referendum on the issue close to summer.
“The PN responsibly believes that it should take a stand on an issue like divorce, which has a direct impact on the value of the family and society as a whole. We also believe that the party has always been capable of embracing members with diverse ideas,” Dr Borg Olivier told The Sunday Times.
He said the PN’s stand contrasted with the “irresponsible and superficial” view taken by the Labour Party that appears to have chosen not to debate the divorce issue at all.
Dr Borg Olivier denied claims that PN heavyweight minister Austin Gatt was exerting pressure on the executive by saying he would resign if the party adopted a pro-divorce stand.
“It is untrue and unjust to state that any member put, or is putting any pressure on the members of the executive committee to take a stand in favour or against divorce, or that the members don’t decide according to what they believe is right.”
Dr Borg Olivier also failed to respond when asked whether the party feared it could alienate a core of party faithful who had pro-divorce views.
When contacted, Dr Pullicino Orlando would not be drawn into commenting whether the PN’s anti-divorce stand was a foregone conclusion and declined to say whether he would request the insertion of a clause on cohabitation in Saturday’s resolution.
However, he pointed out that while it was correct to state that the government did not have a mandate for divorce, neither did it have a mandate to introduce cohabitation legislation.
Asked whether he would support a cohabitation law once presented in Parliament, Dr Pullicino Orlando replied: “Yes I will. I will bow to the majority… I would only be placed in an awkward situation if we’re not given a free vote on divorce – and I’ve been assured we will be.
“My stand is pro-divorce simply because it gives couples whose first marriage has irrevocably broken down the chance to remarry. What’s wrong with that?”
Writing in The Sunday Times today (page 14), former Nationalist minister Michael Falzon says the members of the PN executive should not underestimate the huge responsibility they hold.
Mr Falzon says it is essential that the PN takes note of the many liberals that have voted for the Nationalists in every election and who could abandon the party because of its stand on divorce.