Prime Minister Lawrence Gonzi insisted in Parliament this evening that the referendum question as proposed by the Opposition, if approved, would open the door to the worst form of irresponsible divorce.

In a speech during which he occasionally sounded emotional, Dr Gonzi said this was a delicate and important debate which involved the institution of the family.

A stable marriage was the best model for social stability and the best environment for children.

Dr Gonzi said MPs did not have a mandate to legislate for the introduction of divorce, whether it was responsible or irresponsible.

"I was not elected to introduce divorce. None of us were," Dr Gonzi said, and MPs had to respect the wishes of people who expected them to build on the principles they had found.

Dr Gonzi recalled that since the time when the first Bill for the introduction of divorce was published, he had proposed a referendum while somebody else had, at the time, spoken against holding a referendum.

Holding to referendum was the best way forward and he was glad everyone now agreed on this.

Indeed, there was much about which the two sides agreed.

They agreed that they did not have a mandate to introduce divorce, and that once they did not have a mandate, the people should decide whether or not divorce should be introduced. They also agreed that partisan politics should not be involved and MPs should vote on the basis of their conscience.

This had led him, and the leader of the opposition, to grant MPs a free vote, a rarity in the Maltese parliament. This was not a choice in favour or against the government.

The granting of a free vote on something which was so important showed that the issue of divorce was being viewed with exceptional seriousness.

MISLEADING REFERENDUM QUESTION

Dr Gonzi regretted that no agreement had been reached on the referendum question.

In his view, Dr Gonzi said, divorce should not be introduced it went against the common good. In his view MPs should improve the common good for as long as that was possible. Current circumstances did not justify the introduction of divorce, although he acknowledged that solutions were needed for the growing number of marriage breakdowns.

A time might come when divorce would have to be introduced, but statistics showed that the institution of the family was currently still strong. Therefore, one should strengthen what one had, not take measure which would destroy it.

One should not act on the basis of what other countries had done. Decisions needed to be taken on the basis of what was best for Maltese families. To argue otherwise would mean also introducing abortion and euthanasia, but he was sure that no one wanted such irresponsible actions.

Furthermore, one should not declare one's opinion unless it was backed by studies. Was there any study which showed a disaster in Maltese marriages? Or did the figures show that marriage was still valued?

Rather than a collapse of marriage, statistics showed that the people strongly believed in the institution of marriage and did everything to make it a success.

Once marriage was strong and good, why did anyone want to dismantle it?

THE COMMON GOOD

The common good should prevail over all other considerations. This was not religion, although he was proud of his beliefs.

The common good was something which was intimately linked to anyone's involvement in politics. There was no other reason for being involved in politics. Politicians sometimes had to take decisions which were not liked by some individuals but were necessary for society in general, now and in the future.

Nonetheless, Dr Gonzi said, one could not ignore the minorities who had problems, and MPs also had a duty to seek solutions to these people, who wished to build a new relationship with another person in a legal manner which did not render them second class citizens.

Such solutions should help the building of relationships without undermining marriage.

Despite his personal belief against the introduction of divorce, Dr Gonzi said he agreed with the holding of a divorce referendum. He would work to ensure that the people took their decision freely in a serene environment which was not politicised.

The people should be able to make a clear choice between whether or not they wanted to see the introduction of divorce.

He always insisted that the referendum question should be clear and specific. On February 17 he wrote to the Leader of the Opposition to underline that he was making every effort to find common ground on procedure, if not on substance. Unfortunately, the Leader of the Opposition closed the door to constructive dialogue and refused to discuss the wording of the question as proposed in the motion.

Dr Gonzi recalled that he had told Dr Muscat in his letter how, as a lawyer and social policy minister he had witnessed the heartbreak of marriage break-ups and the hardship suffered by spouses and their children. He had, however, also seen people make incredible sacrifices to save their marriage.

Those experiences led him to form the view that the solution to marriage problems was not to make the collapse easier, but to help couples overcome their problems.

He had told Dr Muscat that politicians had a huge responsibility as their actions impacted on the fate of vulnerable members of society. He had therefore invited him for consensus aimed at letting the people take a serene, informed decision.

He invited him to consider two amendments. The first was about the referendum date, and it appeared that this had been agreed and the consultative referendum would be held on May 28.

However, Dr Gonzi said, Dr Muscat’s attitude was insulting, to say the least, since he had thought that he would seek a date which came immediately after the feast of Our Lady of Sorrows.

Dr Gonzi said he had also suggested to Dr Muscat that the referendum question should be clear, specific and reasonable so that MPs could then be able to vote with a clear conscience.

He feared that some MPs were not realising the problems which the question as proposed by the Opposition, would create if the referendum was approved.

Dr Muscat had replied that the whole Labour group agreed that the question should be one that did not create problems of interpretation.

Yet, Dr Gonzi insisted, the question proposed by the Opposition did just that, and it confused the people.

NO-FAULT DIVORCE

The question meant that Malta would have a ‘no fault divorce’ meaning that those who caused a marriage to break down would, after four years of separation, walk away as if nothing had happened.

This reduced the separation procedure to nothing. The separation procedure recognised the responsibilities of the spouses, to themselves and their children. But now it would be easier to go for no-fault divorce, however irresponsible it was.

This meant that the innocent party would have no protection at all. A woman who would have been abandoned by her husband would have no option but to accept the divorce requested by the husband.

Was this good?

It was true that some marriages broke down and new relationships grew which deserved to be recognised, even legally.

But the purpose of the proposed divorce question was to hide the ugliness of divorce.

In terms of what was being proposed, one could walk away from his responsibilities even if he was the one who caused a marriage to break down.

The separation procedure, when it was contested, imposed consequences on the spouse who cause a marriage to break down. But this no fault divorce meant that those at fault could get away with it.

“You are proposing to destroy everything. The only difference from a Las Vegas divorce is that one has to be separated for four years. But in everything else, this is worse than a Las Vegas divorce and the innocent party will be denied the remedies available in separation proceedings,” Dr Gonzi said.

This proposed divorce did not even distinguish between those spouses who wanted to divorce and those who did not.

Should this referendum question be approved, one would no longer need the Family Court since it was irrelevant who caused a marriage breakdown. The mediators, social works, Apogg and the other mechanisms to save marriage would be rendered redundant as the people were being asked to introduce an irresponsible, no fault divorce.

Dr Gonzi said he was appealing to all MPs, in the silence of their conscience, to reflect on whether they were prepared to surrender their values and principles.

Opting for divorce was a mistake, but doing it in this way was irresponsible.

Dr Gonzi recalled that his original proposal had been to first debate the proposed law for the introduction of divorce, and then for the people to be asked to approve or reject the bill in a referendum.

Now the referendum could be held before the bill started being debated. Surely the proponents should have allowed the Bill to be debated first, so that the people would know the real parameters of the proposed divorce and the people could take a clear decision?

This was what the PN executive had proposed. It surely did not mean killing off the referendum.

If the Opposition was so comfortable that it had a majority, why did it not feel comfortable to do, as Ireland had done, to first have a divorce debate and then subject the outcome to the referendum?

The people would then have a clear question, not a confusing one.

Had the Irish method been followed, amendments to the divorce bill would have needed another referendum.

NO REAL GUARANTEES

Dr Gonzi said some wanted to pacify their conscience by arguing that divorce would be granted after adequate maintenance and care for the children was guaranteed.

Yet the opposite would happen.

Could anyone explain how adequate maintenance would be guaranteed? And if the referendum was approved but the Bill did not provide such a guarantee, what would happen? Would MPs then be betraying the electorate?

It was banal for anyone to argue that guarantee meant that one could seek legal redress.

The people were being told that maintenance was being guaranteed, not the right for legal redress.

The proponents should admit they were making mistakes and opening the door to confusion and legal wrangling on interpretation.

WILL OF THE ELECTORATE

As to whether the will of the electorate would be respected, he would say yes, but those who proposed the question should shoulder responsibility for the way they had worded it, and its consequences.

Dr Gonzi stressed that if the referendum was approved, MPs had to legislate in terms of a question which was misleading and introduced the worse form of irresponsible divorce that one could imagine.

He was therefore urging the proponents to reconsider so that agreement could be reached on a simple, clear and reasonable question without any sugar coating.

He hoped that after tomorrow’s vote, the people were adequately informed of the consequences. He was confident that the people would take the best decision.

At the end of Dr Gonzi’s speech, Dr Muscat asked if Dr Gonzi would move amendments to the referendum question.

Dr Gonzi said he had done everything possible to reach agreement with Dr Muscat on the question. Now it was up to Dr Muscat to move amendments to the question he had proposed.