The government and the opposition are agreeing on practically all the proposed technical amendments to the Divorce Bill, Opposition leader Joseph Muscat said this evening.
Speaking in Parliament, he said a meeting between government and opposition representatives was held yesterday and a basis of agreement on practically all matters was noted.
He said that correspondence was also being exchanged about how changes to the Divorce Law could be made in the future, given that the law had been subjected to a referendum.
Some had suggested a constitutional amendment.
He felt that changes to the principles of the law should either be subjected to another referendum, or else the proposed changes should be included in electoral programmes, Dr Muscat said.
However he did not feel this matter should be included in the Constitution.
He was promising, however, that he would not accept any change to this law involving any of its principles, without a referendum or electoral mandate.
Dr Muscat was speaking in Parliament during the debate on the Divorce Bill.
He said the referendum showed that the Maltese people were tolerant, that they respected the rights and freedoms of minorities, and that they put compassion among their priorities.
There were no winners or losers in the referendum. If there were winners, these were families that would now be given a legal framework.
The people had also shown what sort of relationship they expected between the State and the Church. This was a discussion which needed to be continued for other chapters, since the people wanted the State and the Church to be separate from each other.
There were highs and lows in the referendum campaign, with the lows including the denigration of the role of women, with male chauvinism evident in some quarters. It showed the need for a feminist movement to propose the role of women.
Dr Muscat said he wished to express his admiration for Dr Deborah Schembri, for her intellect and courage to take on the establishment, when the establishment had tried to destroy her. It was shameful that Parliament had still not discussed how the Ecclesiastical Tribunal had banned Dr Schembri from defending her clients before it, despite her qualifications.
This situation was especially serious since the tribunal decisions were recognised by the state. It was a disgrace that no one from the government had admitted that this situation could no longer be tolerated and needed to be remedied.
During the referendum campaign, no real alternatives had been proposed for those who wished to start afresh after their marriage broke down, even though he believed that divorce was only part of the solution for these people.
Dr Muscat said time had shown that the House was right when it opted for a referendum and decided on a specific referendum question. One could only wonder what would have happened if the referendum question was generic and open, as the prime minister had wanted. Had the people been asked simply whether or not they wanted divorce, there would have been confusion in the House on what model of divorce to adopt.
MPs were now guided by what the people had voted for. They needed to respect the wishes of the people.
Amendments to the Bill which would be moved by the Opposition would be technical and would not touch the principles voted for in the referendum. Owen Bonnici, representing the Opposition, yesterday met Francis Zammit Dimech, representing the government, and there was a basis of agreement on practically all the points raised, Dr Muscat said. He looked forward to the two sides continuing to work together to produce the best law possible.
The crucial vote in parliament would be tomorrow, Dr Muscat said, because MPs would be voting on the principle of the Bill.
Dr Muscat said much had been said during the referendum campaign about strengthening families, but he still had to see real action by the government. Instead, this government had voted in the EU against the extension of maternity leave, it was burdening families with high costs, particularly for water and electricity, and the jobs of hundreds of workers were uncertain. It also wanted to raise the retirement age against.
He said that as Parliament debated divorce, the government should publish its draft of the proposed cohabitation law, so that MPs could discuss matters in a holistic manner.
Turning to the argument on 'conscience', Dr Muscat said some people forgot their conscience when they voted on ministerial pay or the utility rates.
He was proud that the PL had been consistent on divorce. The party read the signs of the times and allowed its members and MPs to make their own choices. However his view was that in order to respect the people, MPs could only vote in favour or abstain.
By this time tomorrow, after the House vote, Dr Muscat said, the PN position on divorce would become anachronistic. To date, however, the PN was still living in denial. He could not see how the PN could take a position, and then grant its MPs a free vote.
Tomorrow's vote, Dr Muscat said, would be crucial. It was regrettable, therefore, that the Prime Minister had still not told the people what he intended doing. This was not a game of Poker and the Prime Minister, he felt, had no choice but to respect the wishes of the people and vote Yes tomorrow during the vote on the principle of the law, Dr Muscat concluded.