JPO objects to colleague’s remarks on Divorce Bill

Nationalist MP Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando yesterday objected to comments by his colleague Charlò Bonnici that the Private Member’s Bill on the introduction of divorce was “imposed” on MPs and citizens alike in a premature and unjust way.

Mr Bonnici was speaking during the third day of the debate on the opposition motion for a consultative referendum on divorce. On a point of order, Dr Pullicino Orlando denied that he had acted in an incorrect manner in presenting the Private Member’s Bill. “I was totally correct,” he emphasised, “and I do not accept that someone judges me.”

“I had every right to present the Bill and cannot accept this type of argument from a colleague.”

Mr Bonnici retracted his statement.

Continuing, he said that one had to see the real situation of Maltese marriages. According to the 1995 census there had been 5,089 who had experienced marriage breakdown while in 2005 there had been 13,354 separated couples and 5,076 in cohabitation.

However, he said that 93 per cent of marriages were still solid.

Mr Bonnici said that divorce supporters presented various arguments in favour of divorce which various statistics proved wrong. One argument in favour of divorce was that separation and cohabitation had increased, causing social disorder. But statistics carried out in various countries proved that divorce did not stop the increase of cohabiting couples. In Ireland there were 210,000 cohabiting couples, even though divorce had been introduced.

Similarly, in the United Kingdom in 1997 there had been 74 per cent of women between the ages of 18 and 49 who were married; this number had fallen to 49 per cent in 2002 for women in the same age-group. Even in this case cohabitation had increased.

In 1986, 7.2 out of 1,000 Australians had suffered marriage breakdown, but only 2.5 per cent out of these had opted for divorce. In 2005, 54 out of 1,000 had suffered marriage breakdown but the amount of those who had opted for divorce was 2.6 per cent. Similar trends could be found in Japan, Russia and Italy.

Other statistics showed that subsequent marriages were more prone to marriage breakdown once the parties had already gone through divorce. Mr Bonnici quoted statistics that people had a 75 per cent more chance of divorcing if one was in contact with other divorcees.

According to a study carried out by Harvard Law School, children whose parents had divorced suffered poverty more than children of solid marriages.

Another argument in favour of divorce was that one would have the liberty to decide how to regulate one’s own relationship. Mr Bonnici said that while he understood such a stance, one had to acknowledge that this was not necessarily a good thing.

Turning to the question proposed in the motion, he said that he would like to see an alternative question to the one proposed in the motion. This should be sincere and a reflection of the Bill as a whole.

The question as proposed was unjust and was intended to make one vote in favour of divorce. He preferred the question advocated by the government because it was not biased. There were two elements which had to be included in the question, such as the element of no-fault divorce and that divorce would be given unilaterally.

Mr Bonnici said he was conscious that there were people who were suffering. The solution was not in divorce but in finding means to keep the family stable.

He proposed the setting up of a parliamentary committee on the family and a national commission for strengthening the family. He also suggested the setting up of an institute of studies on the family at the University of Malta. The state had to invest in families in order to curb marital problems.