Nationalist MP contests percentage of perceived marriage breakdowns

Parliamentary Secretary Jason Azzopardi yesterday contested the perceived percentage of marriage breakdowns and questioned the methodology used by those who said that these had grown to 22 per cent.

Dr Azzopardi was speaking during the debate on the Private Members’ Motion for a consultative referendum on the introduction of divorce.

Although the debate had been imposed unfairly on MPs, he said it served as a wake-up call to review the state of the family and marriage in Malta. The divorce issue should not be engulfed by crusades.

However, there was a lack of information through which people should form their opinion. Dr Azzopardi said that the debate required up-to-date statistics, which would then help people to form good decisions. At present statistics were not updated. He disagreed with those in favour of divorce, who had argued that family breakdown had risen to 22 per cent; their methodology was to have the number of separated persons as a percentage of the amount of marriages that took place last year.

One should have calculated separations either as the percentage of the whole population or of the married population. This would have resulted in 3.3 per cent or seven per cent respectively – a far cry from the 22 per cent being quoted.

Dr Azzopardi disagreed with pro-divorce activists, who had also argued that marriage was a private matter. He argued that marriage had a public aspect, and it was a pity that the state was involved only in the ratification of marriage and/or separation.

The family was the cornerstone of society while marriage was the backbone of the family. While Malta had been under the rule of the Romans, the French and the British – whose legislation catered for divorce – it still had not introduced divorce.

Divorce would give the idea of a disposable marriage.

Turning to the proposed question to be asked to the electorate, Dr Azzopardi said he would be voting against the motion. It would be a mistake for a question of conscience to be decided by a referendum. The question was also intellectually dishonest: it was loaded and, while it seemed to be comprehensive, it was simplistic.

Malta had the advantage of analysing what had happened in other countries. After having introduced divorce legislation, marriage rates in other countries had decreased while cohabitation had increased. Divorce weakened the family, he said.

Divorce impacted on poverty and criminality. London’s The Daily Telegraph had stated that marriage in the UK was going out of fashion and the public cost of family breakdown was high.

Dr Azzopardi admitted there existed marriage problems, but the picture was not as chaotic as some had painted it. Moreover, divorce was not a plausible measure.

Robert Arrigo (PN) said he was against divorce but agreed that the people should be asked to give their views on the matter in a referendum. The effects of the issue were so great that MPs should not shoulder it alone without knowing what the people wanted. The vote would have a bearing on Malta’s future.

Many MPs were quoting figures and he warned that statistics were cold numbers.

Parliamentarians would be taking on a great burden if they acted without a mandate, and therefore must consult the people without any pressure whatsoever. Whatever the question, it would still not cover all aspects of the issue, but it must be recognised that one size did not fit all. Every couple in trouble had a different story to tell.

Without a referendum, MPs would be imposing on the people. The parties must stay away and the electorate must vote according to its conscience. The electorate must not ask MPs how they should vote. There were indeed problems, like alcohol abuse and wife battering. MPs must act sensibly. After this debate on the motion, there must be a second round to close the issue.

Turning to children, Mr Arrigo said that these were without a voice, as would be the ones born of future relationships. Children were important and Parliament had always taken actions to safeguard them.

Mr Arrigo said that the issue was controversial, against divorce, in favour of a referendum but taking cognisance of the heartaches of broken families and their offspring.

After the referendum result, Malta would not be the same. MPs would have to continue the debate and it would be the House’s responsibility to see that in two years’ time they would have left things in a better shape.

Philip Mifsud (PN) described the opposition’s motion as one of convenience. While Labour had ridiculed the EU membership referendum, it was not proposing a referendum on divorce.

Labour MPs tried to please everyone. This was similar to the situation when the Nationalist government introduced local councils and the Labour Party had argued that candidates should be independent.