‘Responsible divorce is in the public interest’

Labour MP Owen Bonnici told Parliament that while he believed that the introduction of responsible divorce was in the public interest, it was important to provide support and encourage families in difficulties to seek all possible ways for reconciliation.

The family fostered values in children and also provided stability to the country. It was important that in whatever the government did it sought to strengthen families. However, he said it must be acknowledged that there were a number of Maltese families who were facing difficulties.

Dr Bonnici said the phenomenon of couples separating and leaving the matrimonial home was not new and through the institute of separation this has been regulated in national law for hundreds of years. No one in parliament was telling families in difficulties to take the easy way out and separate but there were families who were not reasonably able to reconcile.

He said that following an analysis of the current law on personal separation convinced him as to why there should be the civil right of divorce.

Second marriages were a reality for those who had either obtained an annulment or a divorce from a foreign jurisdiction. The reality of second marriages could also be seen in the light of statistics that indicated that an average of 150 civil annulments were given every year, another 50 cases a year of religious annulment and at least 25 requests for recognition of a foreign-obtained divorce are made yearly.

Today’s legal situation provided those couples for whom there was no reasonable possibility of reconciliation to seek a separation or an annulment. Yet currently a married man can seek an annulment without instituting proceedings for personal separation. This, he said, brought about a situation whereby the marriage was brought to nought without a basis of fault and without guaranteeing maintenance or protection of children from that marriage.

Neither does the current situation exclude circumstances in which the couple cooperate within the limits of the law to obtain an annulment. Dr Bonnici asked the government to say why was today’s no fault civil annulment, which can be sought the day after the celebration of marriage, acceptable but responsible divorce was wrong?

While praising judges at the civil family court as well as judges on the canonical tribunal, he indicated that it was undignified for those who want to remarry to have to recount intimate affairs in court proceedings when that information was publicly accessible.

Religious annulments were not doing justice and these perpetuate the person’s trauma and do not provide as many safeguards as a civil annulment. Dr Bonnici criticised the importance given at law to religious annulment above a civil annulment when the former did not provide equal procedural safeguards.

He insisted that the question being proposed was not one whether a person agreed with a divorce or not, but only whether after there was an irretrievable breakdown of marriage should there be a right to contract another marriage. He criticised those who proposed the widening of causes for annulment rather than introduce divorce, saying that it was time to call a spade a spade rather than be afraid to introduce divorce and assist families in difficulties.

Dr Bonnici criticised the Prime Minister for accusing the Leader of the Opposition of wanting a no-fault divorce, since the proposed divorce regime was one that provided a number of guarantees.

Four specific safeguards were being proposed: that divorce would only available to those who would have been separated or living separately for at least four from the last five years; there would be no reasonable possibility for reconciliation; maintenance would be guaranteed and that children would be protected. Consequently, the proposed divorce regime was not only dependent on the safeguards currently in force for separation but continue to add to these requirements.

The question in the referendum that is to be held on the May 28 ought to be one that asked the people whether they wanted to have a divorce regime with these safeguards. Should the proposed regime be voted for by the people, whom he said have always risen to the occasion when called upon, then Members of Parliament who might wish to further strengthen these principles could at committee stage propose further amendments.

Dr Bonnici argued that providing civil rights to minorities and the introduction of divorce was in the public interest. He questioned why the recognition of a foreign divorce was not considered to be against Malta’s public interest but a divorce obtained locally was considered to run counter to public interest.