Lawmakers’ duty to strengthen marriage – Prime Minister

Prime Minister Lawrence Gonzi told Parliament yesterday there would come a time when divorce had to be introduced in Malta but current statistics showed that marriage was still strong and solid. It was the duty of lawmakers to strengthen this and not take initiatives that weakened the family unit.

He acknowledged the fact that there were a minority of people whose marriage had failed. Legislators had a duty to seek solutions for minorities that wanted to start a new relationship in a legal manner and did not want to be considered as second-class citizens. These practical solutions had to help build this relationship without undermining the institution of marriage.

Speaking during the debate on the referendum question as put in the opposition motion, Dr Gonzi said the debate was difficult, delicate and of great importance.

It was difficult because it had to address fresh realities and it was delicate because it dealt with the personal situations of people who were living in difficult circumstances. It was also of great importance because it affected the family as the basic unit of society based upon the indissolubility of marriage. This principle was built on common sense and offered stability for children.

Although when the first Divorce Bill was proposed someone had expressed himself against the referendum, he gladly noted that there was now a consensus.

The electorate had to decide whether or not they wanted divorce. This was a simple, clear and categorical choice. There was also political convergence on a lot of things but not on the substance of the question to be put to the electorate. The issue did not have to be politicised and one had to let freedom of conscience lead the choice made by politicians.

Dr Gonzi said that this led him and the leader of the opposition to grant MPs a free vote, something rare in Maltese parliamentary history. This was not a choice in favour or against the government.

He had unsuccessfully hoped that both sides could reach consensus on the referendum question. Divorce went against the common good and today’s circumstances did not justify divorce even if there was the need to find solutions for marital breakdown.

The decision to introduce divorce did not have to be taken on what other countries had done. Decisions had to be taken on the basis of what was best for Maltese families. To argue otherwise meant also introducing abortion and euthanasia, but he was sure no one wanted such irresponsible actions.

No one should declare his opinion if it was not backed by statistics and studies. He asked whether there were any studies which showed a disastrous situation in marriages in Malta. Statistics consistently showed that the Maltese still believed in the institution of marriage and were genuinely committed to make it succeed. Statistics showed that marriage was valued and respected.

The common good should prevail over all other considerations. This was not religion although he was proud of his Catholic beliefs. The common good was intimately linked to those involved in politics. Politicians had to seek the common good taking decisions that might not satisfy everybody’s wishes.

Dr Gonzi said that despite his belief against the introduction of divorce, he had to let the electorate decide in a referendum. He had not proposed the wording of the referendum question but insisted that it had to be clear and specific. This called for political maturity.

He referred to his letter to the Leader of the Opposition last February to find common ground on procedure, if not on substance. He said that in his reply, Dr Muscat had chosen to close the door to constructive dialogue when he insisted on not changing the wording of the referendum question. This put enormous responsibility on him and on the leader of the opposition.

In his experience as a lawyer and as Minister for Social Policy he had witnessed the heartbreak of broken marriages and the hardship suffered by spouses and children. He had also witnessed couples who reconciled and made great sacrifices for the benefit of the children.

He believed in mediation. The solution lay in assisting couples to overcome difficulties.

The solution could never be one to make things simpler for those who wanted to end the marriage but to emphasise that marriage meant responsibility, commitment with the proof given in moments of crisis.

The Prime Minister said that he had proposed two amendments to Dr Muscat. One regarded the date for the referendum which was accepted. However, Dr Muscat’s attitude was insolent because he thought that the Prime Minister was juggling for a referendum the day after the celebration of the feast of Our Lady of Sorrows.

In his second amendment, Dr Gonzi had proposed that the referendum question be specific, clear and reasonable leaving all MPs the chance to vote according to their conscience.

He feared that neither the leader of opposition nor those who were genuinely against divorce, also on opposition benches, realised the problems which the question as proposed would create if the referendum was approved.Dr Muscat had replied that the Labour parliamentary group were of the opinion that the question did not give the chance to different interpretations.

On the contrary, claimed the Prime Minister, the greatest defect of the question was it would confuse people.

The question meant that Malta would introduce the no fault divorce meaning that those who caused the marriage breakdown would, after four years of separation, walk away as if nothing had happened and would be granted a divorce. This reduced the separation procedure to nothing. This procedure recognised the responsibilities of the spouses to themselves and to their children. The question made it easier to go for no fault divorce and left the innocent party without any protection.

It was true, he said, that there were situations of marriage breakups and new relationships were established which deserved to be recognised even legally.

The referendum question proposed irresponsible divorce which would destroy everything. The only difference from the Las Vegas style divorce was that one had to wait for four years before obtaining a divorce. The innocent party remained without a remedy which was contemplated in the separation procedure. The divorce question did not distinguish between consensual divorce and spouses who opposed this.

Approval of the referendum question by the electorate meant that the Family Court was no longer needed since it became irrelevant who caused the marriage breakdown. Mediators, social workers and other mechanisms used in saving marriages would be rendered redundant as the electorate was being asked to introduce irresponsible no fault divorce.

Dr Gonzi called on MPs to reflect, according to their conscience, whether they were ready to surrender their values and principles.

The electorate would vote on the motion and not on the proposed Bill which called for responsible divorce.

His original proposal had been to discuss the Bill which included a clause that it would be submitted for a referendum. This was what the PN executive had approved and 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 the Irish did where the divorce debate was subjected to a referendum? Had the Irish method been adopted, amendments to the Divorce Bill would have needed another referendum.

Dr Gonzi said that it was not true that divorce would guarantee adequate maintenance and protection of children. This would create a lot of confusion to the electorate. He asked whether MPs would be betraying the electorate if, after the referendum approval, the Bill did not provide such a guarantee.

It was banal for anyone to argue that guarantee meant that one could seek legal redress. The proponents should admit that they were mistaken and that the referendum question opened the door to confusion and political and legal wrangling over interpretation.

As worded, the referendum question was disloyal and irresponsible.

He appealed to MPs to reconsider their position so that consensus could be found on a simple, reasonable question without any sugar coating.

He hoped that after the parliamentary vote, the electorate would be adequately informed of the consequences. He was confident that the people would make the right decision.

At the end of Dr Gonzi’s speech, Dr Muscat asked him whether he would be proposing an amendment to the referendum question.

Dr Gonzi replied that he had tried to reach a consensus and it was up to Dr Muscat to move amendments to the question he had proposed.

The 10-sitting Parliamentary debate on the motion comes to an end this morning with Dr Muscat making the closing remarks.

The House Business Committee yesterday decided on the method of voting.

It was unanimously agreed that when the debate ends at 1 p.m., the Speaker will call all those in favour of the motion to stand. The Clerk of the House will call their names for the record, after which they will sit.

The procedure will be repeated for all MPs against the motion, following which the result will be read out.