Foreign Minister Tonio Borg argued in Parliament today that the divorce referendum question as proposed by the Opposition was clearly written by someone who agreed with divorce.
Speaking in Parliament on the penultimate day of the debate on the holding of the referendum, Dr Borg said the PL and its leader had not been consistent on divorce and about holding a referendum.
Indeed, Dr Muscat had been quoted in the past as saying on different occasions that holding a referendum on divorce would be an 'irresponsible failure'. He had also argued that divorce should be introduced by legislation not referendum.
As recently as last January 21, l-orizzont had criticised the prime minister, claiming he was shirking responsibility for legislation and passing the buck to the people with regard to divorce.
Then, two weeks later, the Opposition presented a private motion for the holding of a referendum on the introduction of divorce.
Dr Borg noted that in Ireland, legislation came first but it was then held in abeyance until approval was given in a referendum - the second to be held. That system was advantageous, not least as it enabled MPs to vote according to their conscience first.
He was not against having a divorce referendum in Malta, but it would have been better had the Irish method been followed.
Dr Borg said he also disagreed with the referendum question as proposed by the Opposition. This was obviously a loaded question written by somebody who was in favour of divorce. Some argued that it was a question based on the Divorce Bill. Yet he could have come with another three versions of the question, also based on the Bill.
It would be fairer and neutral to simply ask the people if they were in favour or against divorce and then legislate responsibly afterwards..
SUGARING THE PILL
The question as proposed was a case of 'sugaring the pill'.
For example, Dr Borg said, the question asked if people wanted divorce once there was maintenance and guaranteed care for the children. Yet this was something which already existed in cases of annulment (for the children) separations and for children born out of wedlock. But this question was aimed at leading the people to think that they should not worry about divorce.
Furthermore, contrary to the 'guarantee' mentioned in the referendum question, maintenance could not always be guaranteed. What would happened if the person paying maintenance became unemployed?
And yet, even if maintenance did not come about, the divorce would still go ahead.
The question also said that one would be eligible for divorce if a marriage irretrievably broke down and there were four years of separation. That, again, already existed in separation proceedings. Indeed, the issue of last resort was stronger in separation proceedings than in the proposed divorce legislation and there was no obligatory mediation in the latter.
To make matters worse, in divorce proceedings, the estranged spouses lost rights of succession. In cases of separations, the court decided on the basis of whoever was guilty of the marriage breakdown.
NO FAULT DIVORCE
Dr Borg said the Divorce Bill and the referendum question introduced the concept of the no fault divorce. One could get divorced after being separated for four years, whether he was at fault or not.
Therefore, one could have another referendum question, also based on the Bill, but which said: Do you agree with divorce after four years of separation even if the marriage breakdown is not your fault, and even if you lose your right to succession?