The combined effect of Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando’s Private Member’s Bill and the motion present-ed by Opposition Leader Joseph Muscat on the referendum in connection with the Bill seriously risks throwing the democratic process in the marriage-divorce debate into confusion to the detriment of all voters.
First of all Dr Muscat’s motion was signed by the entire Labour Parliamentary group. This, to my mind, represents a very unfortunate development because, up till then, the leaders of both parties had given a free vote to their MPs. This seems to no longer be the case, representing a dangerous hardening of positions based on party lines.
His motion states clearly in regard to the Private Member’s Bill presented by Dr Pullicino Orlando that no party in Parliament has an electoral mandate “related to the divorce law in our country for the duration of this legislature”.
This represents a clear slap to Dr Pullicino Orlando’s Bill in which no reference is made by him to a referendum.
The motion proposes that, not later than seven days from the approval of the motion, a “consultative referendum” be called with voting within 40 days.
So, incredibly enough, as had happened in the EU referendum, we find sprouting the term “consultative”. Voters are to note his term does not appear once in chapter 237 regulating referenda in Malta. So what has Dr Muscat in mind by introducing the term in his motion on Dr Pullicino Orlando’s Bill?
Dr Muscat should note the law states that “persons entitled to vote in a referendum under this Act will be called upon to declare: whether they approve proposals set out in a resolution passed for that purpose by the House”.
The motion does in fact contain a question. I say this, only because there is one question mark at the end of the proposal to be approved or not by the voters. This solitary question mark, however, is somewhat overstretched by multiple proposals, which are:
(a) Do you agree with the introduction of “the choice of divorce”...
(b) in the case of a separated couple...
(c) or who would have not been living together...
(d) for at least four years and...
(e) there would not be hope of reconciliation between the married persons...
(f) while there would be adequate maintenance...
(g) and the children be cared for adequately?
Kindly note it is only at the end (g) that the overstretched and overworked question mark makes its appearance. All those proposals, in fact, form part of one unbroken sentence.
So imagine this scenario in a hypothetical referendum on the death penalty: “Would the voter be in favour of introducing the death penalty in the case of a person found guilty only of murdering children and would have been in jail for at least 10 years with no hope of the murderer being reformed as long as the family of the victim be properly taken care of by society and that the method of execution be only that by hanging?”
So since I am against the death penalty I would vote no to the principle of the death penalty. However, what if the death penalty be introduced and I would prefer the electric chair to hanging, how would I show such an intention when voting?
By way of comparison, allow me now to refer to the question we voted on at the EU referendum: “Do you agree Malta should become a member of the European Union in the enlargement that is to take place on May 1, 2004?”
What a sigh of relief the single question mark would let out having only to cover the single proposal of joining or not the EU! Equally noteworthy is the lack of any reference to a “consultative” referendum.
So is Dr Muscat committed or not to the outcome of the vote which he himself has defined for three times as consultative in his very own motion? And if the voters opt for a no to this motion, would he feel free to introduce a law on divorce with characteristics different from those mentioned in his motion at the expense of Dr Pullicino Orlando’s Divorce Bill?