Minister urges electorate to seek common good

Minister for Gozo Giovanna Debono said that in casting the vote in the divorce referendum, the electorate had to seek the common good as the result would affect the future of the family which was of an intrinsic value in Maltese society.

Qualifying the common good as “the greatest possible good for the greatest number of individuals”, Mrs Debono said the decision had to be based on social principles and moral values which distinguished the Maltese from other people.

Those who were in favour of divorce were claiming that it was a civil right to a minority. Those opposing were convinced that divorce would bring more harm than good to society.

She quoted the late Bishop of Gozo, Mgr Nikol Cauchi, that one had to consider whether society was better or worse off with the introduction of divorce. Would an increase in the incidence of families seeking divorce contribute to the common good?

Mrs Debono criticised the wording of the motion claiming that it was a loaded question. She said this had to be sincere and truthful. It did not give guarantees that children’s rights would be better guaranteed than in a legal separation. The rights of children would be compromised by divorce.

Was there any guarantee that a marriage after divorce would be successful? What were the guarantees for the children born in the second marriage?

One had to decide on divorce according to one’s conscience, based on catholic beliefs. Bishop Cauchi had said that divorce could never be approved by a conscience which was in line with the Catholic faith.

The minister recognised that children were suffering as a result of separation and called for improvement in court proceedings to avoid unnecessary delays.

Concluding, Mrs Debono said that in a world of decreasing values, priority should be given to strengthening the family.

Jesmond Mugliett (PN) backed the opposition motion on the divorce referendum question, telling Parliament that he preferred a question that sets parameters on divorce.

Having a question which reflected the main points of the Divorce Bill currently before the House gave better guidance to the people. It also meant that if, in the future, somebody wanted to loosen the requirements for divorce, he would feel bound to subject the proposals to a referendum once again.

Parliamentarians were facing dilemmas over the subject. The motion was not put forward in a conventional way, and many had attacked Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando for introducing it. The PN had not taken a position on divorce and had left it out of the political agenda. Before this motion, there had been no hurry to place divorce on the agenda.

Should Parliament debate only issues which had been included in the electoral programme?

In last Sunday’s pastoral letter, the bishops had noted that this was a positive debate since it was analysing Malta’s position on marriage. Such a debate was very relevant. This was an opportunity to debate this subject with a vision which went beyond the general election and was the only way to go about it particularly because the Church should be able to state its position away from electoral parameters.

It was positive that the motion was co-sponsored by members from the two parties because such issues should not become the monopoly of any particular party. There were many people who believed that there should be more cross party initiatives of this kind.

Mr Mugliett did not agree that parliament should legislate solely on a religious basis. Catholic politicians should also be inspired by their own personal values.

Maltese society sought permanent marriage based on respect. Yet one had to acknowledge that for a number of couples this was not always possible.

Statistics showed that an annual 22 per cent of marriages faced problems. This was the only relevant statistic since it showed a pattern which was constant throughout the past few years. This was a benchmark used in most European countries. Another statistic showed that the rate of children born out of wedlock had increased from 10 per cent to 27 per cent in the last 10 years.

Many separated couples went on to form new relationships and have offspring. This was no longer a Catholic culture and had become widely accepted. Such a new situation had to be reflected in the legislation. If the law on cohabitation had to be introduced on its own, it would be promoting a negative idea, diametrically opposed to marriage.

Mr Mugliett said many believed that divorce was not a civil right. For the past 20 years, Malta had recognised divorce as a civil right for persons obtaining a decree nisi abroad and by non-Catholics. If divorce was recognised as a civil right in certain circumstances, it should be recognised as such in all circumstances.

Concluding, he said that there was consensus that the Maltese should be given the chance to state their position on divorce. Parliament had to ensure that the public opinion would be attained.

Stephen Spiteri (PN) said that when speaking of divorce it was important to consider responsibility for expenses, both those for the parties seeking it as well as for the State. Fees associated with divorce proceedings could prejudice those who could not afford to pay while, at the same time, one had to consider whether the person seeking divorce could financially afford to keep two families. The State must also consider whether it could afford the consequences of divorce in monetary terms. The proposed conditions for divorce in the motion raise valid points but can only lead to one question: should divorce be introduced or not? If divorce was introduced, would it be a springboard that made it easier for couples to separate rather than to effectively seek reconciliation. Would the proposed divorce regime expect documented evidence of attempts at reconciliation? Or would a verbal declaration of the couple be considered enough?

Dr Spiteri said a direct yes or no question in the referendum would be the better question. The introduction of divorce was to be considered holistically including its socio-economic effects. It was wrong to speak of divorce thinking of votes, clients or one’s political career. It would pay to consider other countries’ statistics on the negative consequences of divorce as this was not merely a question of following other EU countries and introducing divorce because the other 26 had done so.