‘Referendum needed to change principles’

Any changes in the Divorce Bill that ran contrary to principles voted for by the electorate in the referendum could be made only after another referendum or an electoral mandate, Opposition Leader Joseph Muscat said yesterday.

No one, he added, could change the number of years required to obtain a divorce.

Speaking in Parliament during the second reading of the Bill introducing responsible divorce, Dr Muscat said that a meeting had been held between the government and opposition on amendments in the committee stage.

There was a basis for agreement on most points in the amendments that technical committees from both sides had drafted. The opposition was also ready to discuss other points.

Dr Muscat referred to Parliamentary Secretary Jason Azzopardi’s suggestion of constitutional amendments and to an exchange of correspondence started by Nationalist MP Jesmond Mugliett on changes to the divorce law in the future. He said any future amendments regarding the principles had either to be approved through a referendum or through proposals in electoral manifestos.

The electorate was clear in its mandate and there was no need to subject the Bill to the double hurdle of a two-thirds majority.

He felt that the matter did not need to be included in the Constitution which, however, required revision on other matters.

Dr Muscat said that the referendum showed that the electorate was tolerant, respected civil rights of minorities and showed compassion. There were no winners or losers except for those new families who would be legally protected through divorce.

The electorate had also shown what type of relationship was required between the state and the Church. These were to be two separate and clearly distinct entities which respected each other. Discussion on other chapters relating to Church-state relations had to be carried on with reciprocal respect.

Dr Muscat referred to the referendum campaign, saying there were highs and lows. The lows included the denigration of women, showing them as being inferior to men, and frightening them by showing disrespect to women’s emancipation. Male chauvinism was also evident in the campaign. This showed the need for a feminist movement to continue to promote women’s role in society.

He expressed his admiration for the head of the Yes movement Deborah Schembri, for her intellect and courage to fight the conservative establishment which had tried to destroy the movement. She was being denied the right to serve her clients before the ecclesiastical tribunal even though decisions by this tribunal had a civil effect. It was a shame that no one in the government had condemned this intolerable situation which needed to be remedied.

No real alternatives to divorce had been proposed during the referendum campaign. Divorce was only part of the solution. Children suffered not only through divorce but also in cases of separation and Church annulments of marriage.

He said that time had shown that Parliament was right when it opted for a referendum and had decided on a specific question. If the Prime Minister’s proposal for a generic and open question for divorce had been approved, Parliament would have been presented with different legislative proposals throwing it into confusion. MPs were guided by the electorate’s wishes which had to be respected.

The crucial vote in Parliament was in the second reading when MPs voted on the principles of the Bill.

The divorce Bill by itself was not enough. Structures and resources were needed to strengthen the institutions for separation and divorce. There had to be the political will and the budgetary measures to give support to mediation and provide other facilities.

Dr Muscat said that much had been said during the referendum on the need to strengthen families. After the referendum the government had not yet taken action at least on preparing couples for marriage as was also advocated by the Cana Movement.

He said that above all, strengthening families meant that economic measures had to be taken to protect them. Instead the government had voted against the extension of maternity leave in the EU despite a report presented by Labour MEP Edward Scicluna on the matter and which had not been criticised by the government.

The government was burdening families with higher utility rates, while hundreds of workers with Air Malta were facing an uncertain future. The government had also agreed to EU proposals to increase the retirement age when everyone knew that grandparents were unofficially giving a social service by taking care of their grandchildren so that parents would go to work. This would not be possible if the retirement age was increased.

The Opposition Leader called on the government to publish the preliminary draft of the Cohabitation Bill while the divorce Bill was still in committee stage so that MPs could discuss matters in a holistic manner.

He also referred to remarks made on the “conscience” argument. These MPs and ministers had conveniently not listened to their conscience when imposing high utility rates and accepting a €500 weekly increase in ministerial pay when care workers with private contractors were earning this amount of money in one month.

Dr Muscat said that contrary to the PN, the PL had been consistent on divorce from the outset. It had read the signs of the times and had allowed its MPs and members to make their own choices. His view remained that if MPs wanted to respect the electorate’s wishes they had to vote in favour or to abstain.

He said that after the vote on second reading, the PN’s position on divorce would become anachronistic. However, the PN was still living in denial: its position in opposing divorce while giving a free vote to MPs was untenable.

Dr Muscat said that the vote in the second reading was crucial. He regretted that the Prime Minister had still not declared how he was going to vote. The Prime Minister was not a common MP and had no choice but to respect the wishes of the electorate. This was not a poker game and the Prime Minister had no other choice but to vote in favour.