The Prime Minister yesterday confirmed that a referendum will not be held on the Private Member’s Bill proposing the introduction of divorce if it is defeated in Parliament, and declared that he would vote against.
The Nationalist Party executive yesterday overwhelmingly endorsed an anti-divorce resolution, ignoring Bill promoter Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando’s warnings that it could cause major damage to the party especially if a promised referendum did not take place.
A poll carried out by The Sunday Times among 67 of the 69 MPs (see story on page 5) shows at least four Labour MPs declaring themselves against divorce in principle, which means the Bill – on which the referendum hinges – is unlikely to be approved.
Comparing parliamentary procedures to a “straitjacket”, Lawrence Gonzi yesterday said the country was bound by law to take a parliamentary vote on the Bill before subjecting it to a referendum.
Like all other MPs, Dr Gonzi added, he should be free to vote according to his conscience: against the divorce Bill, even if this eliminated the possibility of a referendum.
He made his intentions clear at the end of a long day of discussions, first with the executive committee and later with his parliamentary group.
In the morning, the executive committee approved the party’s already published position against divorce with little amendment. The discussion was prompted by Dr Pullicino Orlando’s Private Member’s Bill, which had taken his party by surprise last summer.
The only significant change in the PN’s resolution was a sentence acknowledging marital separations were constantly on the rise.
However, Dr Gonzi said the resolution was against divorce because it did not promote family values.
“We do not base our politics on individual cases, but on what we... in all humility... believe is for the common good,” he said, adding, however, that the party would still welcome those who disagree with its stand.
Denying referendum ‘politically damaging’
“I am certain this debate will not end here. It will continue throughout the years, in my opinion, and the PN, which always responded to the demands of the times, will remain open to debate. But at the moment, faced with this Bill, it is taking this position without closing the door to anyone,” Dr Gonzi said.
Addressing a press conference after the resolution was overwhelmingly approved by the executive, Dr Gonzi outlined the party’s direction on how the divorce Bill will be discussed.
It will be presented to Parliament “as soon as possible” and MPs would then vote on the title to see whether it should be debated. Dr Gonzi said he hoped the majority of MPs would approve this stage so the important parliamentary discussion could begin.
If this hurdle is overcome, an “uninterrupted” parliamentary discussion on the Bill would begin. This would not delve into the details of the law, but would give MPs a chance to express themselves on the “principle” of whether to introduce divorce legislation or not. This is where the crucial vote would take place – a vote which both sides of the House would take “freely”.
If the Bill is rejected at this stage, the discussion would end and the Bill would be dropped – a move both Dr Gonzi and deputy Prime Minister Tonio Borg said they would support since they reaffirmed their stand against divorce.
However, if approved, the Bill would enter the committee stage where it would be scrutinised and amended, allowing even anti-divorce MPs to propose amendments.
Dr Gonzi said the PN would at this stage propose a clause – which does not exist in the current Bill – calling for the law to be implemented only once approved in a referendum. It would then be handed to the President for his signature.
The Prime Minister stressed that there do not need to be any changes to the Referendum Act to link the Private Member’s Bill, through a clause, to a referendum, since the wording of the clause could satisfy the necessary criteria.
He added that when voting, the question asked should enable the public to be fully aware of the conditions of the Bill, and make it clear that this was not a “Las Vegas style” divorce.
Asked if he would consider holding a divorce referendum if the Bill is defeated, Dr Gonzi said he preferred not to look at hypothetical issues and focus on the Bill the country had been “faced with”.
During the executive committee meeting, a third Nationalist backbencher, Jesmond Mugliett, is understood to have backed divorce by seconding amendments by Dr Pullicino Orlando to change the party’s anti-divorce stand into a pro-family one which contemplated divorce as an option.
Mr Mugliett, who later told the media he firmly believed a referendum should be held, said the current situation was creating “disorder” which had to be addressed.
He added that people were “suffering” and the party should be sensitive to their needs. However, he stopped short of saying how he would vote.
The most heated discussion within the executive committee was about whether the party should risk backing a no-vote in Parliament which could kill the Bill.
Various high profile members of the party, including two MPs and members of the party’s administration, said this would be a very risky political move, since a referendum had been promised.
Dr Pullicino Orlando said he was “very concerned” by this “double hurdle” because it could deny the electorate something they had been promised from day one and this would be “politically damaging” for the party.
He said fears of a clause to link the Bill to a rejected referendum were unfounded since no MP would argue against the public being consulted.
Meanwhile, the Labour Party accused Dr Gonzi of “breaking another promise”.
“When you remove the legalism and technical excuses, the Prime Minister today is doing his utmost to deny the people from expressing themselves on this sensitive issue,” the PL said.