(Adds more details)

Nationalist MP Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando this morning defended the divorce referendum question proposed by the Opposition and rebuffed criticism made yesterday by the Prime Minister. He also defended the concept of no-fault divorce.

Speaking in Parliament hours before Parliament votes on the Opposition motion for the holding of the divorce referendum, and the related question, Dr Pullicino Orlando said this was a historic debate as the family was at the heart of society.

However, some MPs were giving too narrow a definition of the family.

Dr Pullicino Orlando said he was against divorce in that he hoped that all marriages remained strong. He was in favour of all measures to strengthen marriages and families. Parents and children should underline the importance of strong families.

Unfortunately there were marriage breakdowns resulting in annulments and separations. Whether formal or informal, a marriage breakdown caused a psychological trauma on the spouses and the children.

Should children continue to be exposed to such circumstances which were psychologically damaging to them?

NO LAS VEGAS DIVORCE

Dr Pullicino Orlando said that all those who spoke against divorce related it to marriage breakdowns. But this was simplistic and wrong.

The Divorce Bill currently before parliament did not lead to a Las Vegas type divorce. Indeed, it was based on the most conservative divorce law, that of Ireland.

And it was not true that the divorce question was ‘sugar coated’.

Dr Pullicino Orlando said he had insisted, from day one, that if the Bill could be improved, he was open for suggestions. Nothing was written in stone and amendments could be made if the referendum was approved.

But opponents were not basing their opposition on the basis of the Bill, but their intention to impose their beliefs on others.

The Irish referendum question had been based on the Bill in that country. That bill was being practically copied in the Maltese bill, and the referendum question was also identical. So had the Irish authorities also misled the people?

Some had argued (such as the prime minister) that it would be better to debate the bill first, then go for a referendum.

Dr Pullicino Orlando said he had consulted legal experts such as Prof Ian Refalo, who suggested a way forward which would have seen a debate on the bill in parliament, with a guarantee for the holding of a referendum.

But in the executive of the Nationalist Party some wanted to use parliamentary procedure so that the referendum would never be held.

Dr Pullicino Orlando said he would admit that he was initially against the holding of a referendum because minority rights should not be subject to a referendum. But after having discussed the issue with the Prime Minister, and in view of the fact that there was no electoral mandate it was decided to go for a referendum.

He was proud to be a Nationalist MP and it was not easy for him to back a motion moved by the Opposition, Dr Pullicino Orlando said, but he was now convinced that a referendum should be held and the people should not be stopped from making their choice.

REFERENDUM QUESTION

The referendum question asked the people whether they agreed with divorce for couples who would have been separated for four years when there was no hope of reconciliation and as long as there were provisions for maintenance and care of the children was guaranteed.

This, Dr Pullicino Orlando insisted, was an exact reflection of the divorce requirements made in the Bill. There was no sugar coating.

Dr Pullicino Orlando said the four year separation period was among the longest in any country and was meant to ensure that a marriage would really have irretrievably broken down. It meant that this was not an irresponsible marriage.

NO-FAULT DIVORCE

Dr Pullicino Orlando said there were various forms of no-fault divorce, but having a four-year separation period, as was in Ireland, certainly did not make this a divorce which was worse than a Las Vegas divorce, as someone said yesterday (the prime minister). And it was worth pointing that Malta already recognised a divorce granted in Ireland, but not one granted in Las Vegas.

The form of divorce proposed in Malta would remove the psychological trauma which couples and especially children went through in court when they had to battle each other for the granting of divorce.

Absurd statements such as those which had been made only reflected imposition. Church temporal interests should not come first in this country. That was not the role of MPs.

(At this stage Dr Pullicino Orlando told Finance Minister Tonio Fenech to be well-mannered and not to interrupt).

The proposed divorce law gave grounds for no-fault divorce because it was based on a four-year period when separation would already have been made legal and, therefore, fault and its consequences would have already been established. It made no sense to have that process held all over again and divorce would only come about when there was no prospect of reconciliation.

Indeed, the concept of no-fault divorce already existed in the legal separation process. Current law already allowed a judge to grant legal separation even if the parties did not want it, when a marriage would clearly have failed completely. (clause 40)

Abroad, where there was fault-based divorce, some couples ‘created’ faults in order to get out of their marriage.

RECONCILIATION

Dr Pullicino Orlando said the divorce bill was based on the premise that a marriage could not be saved. There could not be any obstacle to those couples who sought reconciliation. The proposed divorce law encouraged couples to seek reconciliation even while divorce proceedings were underway.

The referendum question also spoke of guaranteed maintenance.

This meant, Dr Pullicino Orlando said, a guarantee of the right to maintenance, not a guarantee of payment, since that was already provided for at law.

Such a guarantee was needed once a divorce was granted. In annulment, once spouses were not considered to have been married, maintenance was not guaranteed.

The proposal divorce law even provided for more adequate maintenance than provided in current law with regard to legal separations.

Dr Pullicino Orlando said care of the children was at the heart of the proposed divorce law. There was no doubt that children suffered whenever their parents separated – in whatever manner.

Having no-fault divorce removed the need for a fresh battle between the parents undergoing divorce proceedings because children suffered more during such proceedings than after the divorce itself. In many cases, children were used as pawns in such ‘battles’. Did anyone want this?

The proposed divorce law would ensure that maintenance for children continued beyond the current level of 18 years when the children continued to study. There were also new provisions on what would happen to the children if the parent who cared for them passed away.

“The proposed question is very, very valid and puts the people in a good position to decide on whether to have divorce and what type of divorce,” Dr Pullicino Orlando said.

It also tied down MPs so as not to loosen the criteria for divorce in the future.

Dr Pullicino Orlando said the proposed legislation gave more value to the institution of marriage, since couples who had been forced to cohabit could enter a new marriage.

Responsible divorce was in favour of marriage. Why was it being opposed? Somebody (the PM) yesterday said a time would come for the introduction of divorce. Yet Discern, the Church’s research institute, had said that within a few years, 35,000 people would be out of marriage. So could any responsible MP allow such a situation without tackling it?

One could not have legislation by crisis, he stressed.

Dr Pullicino Orlando said he could not understand how anyone (including the prime minister yesterday) could say that divorce should not be introduced because of the common good. The Nazis also acted on the basis of what they called 'the common good'.

But denying thousands of individuals such a civil right would render these people as second class. The common good was not served by denying a substantial minority the civil right to remarry, and effectively sidelining them.

POLITICAL EMBARRASMENT

Dr Pullicino Orlando said today was embarrassing for him as a Nationalist MP. He could not understand how a party which accepted within its fold, candidates in favour of divorce, had taken a position against divorce.

The party spoke on Xoghol, Gustizzja u Liberta. But was freedom restricted to buying chocolate and toothpaste? Should anyone impose and limit freedom individuals sought for their own happiness?

His party believed in the concept of marriage. But the masks were coming down. For some, family only meant one based on healthy marriages and the others, who formed other loving relationships, were ignored. This was shameful. Once there was love, and even children, should such units be looked down on? Where was solidarity, which the PN also said it professed?

Surely, in this day and age, it should no longer be the case of relegio et patria, putting religion and the Church first, he said.

Dr Pullicino Orlando denied that divorce would lead to more broken marriages. Marriages were already breaking down, he said, and in Ireland, fewer breakdowns were being reported.

Furthermore, in Malta a third of babies were already born out of wedlock. How many were babies born to cohabiting couples who could not remarry and thus declared the fathers as unknown?

Dr Pullicino Orlando insisted that those who did not want divorce should not impose their will on those whose marriage had broken down and needed to start afresh.

ANTI-DIVORCE MOVEMENT

Dr Pullicino Orlando said he pitied those who ‘had been called’ to form a front to resist divorce, such as Andre Camilleri who objected to divorce even when a wife was battered by her husband.

Could Malta continue to have the legal vacuum of cohabitation? Did Dr Camilleri want women to be punching bags?

Pierre Cordina had said that if divorce was introduced, he could end up considering leaving his wife. What values were these? He knew the Cordinas and knew this was not the case but it was time for people to be careful of what they said. The priority was the people who were suffering.

Some were even raising the issue of abortion and linking it to the introduction of divorce. That was shameful as much as it was untrue, and he had worked actively against the introduction of abortion.

NO SIMPLISTIC QUESTION

Dr Pullicino Orlando reiterated that he was against a simplistic question which asked people whether or not they agreed with the introduction of divorce. Should that happen, he would actually campaign against the introduction of divorce. Having such a simplistic question would open the door to a quick-fix divorce.

It was worrying, Dr Pullicino Orlando said, that some MPs had gone so far as to say that they were prepared to ignore the outcome of the referendum since it was only consultative, and they would base themselves on their conscience.

He could never accept that a person used his faith in this way when MPs were elected by the people, not the Church.

One could remember the criticism made against Alfred Sant when he did not recognise the EU referendum. His attitude was rightly described as undemocratic. What was bad then, was bad now if the will of the people was not respected, Dr Pullicino Orlando said.

If the people voted against the introduction of responsible divorce he would abstain when divorce was debated in Parliament, Dr Pullicino Orlando said.

Concluding, Dr Pullicino Orlando said his wish was that no one would need to resort to divorce. As the motto of the Divorce Movement said, this as a case of Yes to divorce, but also Yes to marriage.