After so much painstaking debate to arrive at a precise question for the divorce referendum, what should be done if debate in committee showed up the need to change any of the precise parameters in the question? Should the House have to consult the public again, with or without another referendum? The voting public could not be denied further say on changes to the most important aspects of the referendum question.
Health Minister Joseph Cassar put the not-so-hypothetical question to Parliament during the Divorce Bill debate on Wednesday.
He also suggested two ways of guaranteeing the payment of alimony to children and the innocent party. One way would be to have a capital sum fixed by the court for payment up-front, and another would be a hypothecation of the property of the person condemned to pay alimony.
Earlier, Dr Cassar said the debate so far had shown how dear the family was to all speakers.
The duty of politicians did not stop at legislation; they must militate against whatever led to family break-ups. It was to be believed that there were people who suffered from marital problems, but divorce was not the final solution, even though the electorate’s decision must be accepted. He suggested that children be given a greater voice at a time of trauma that would have a serious impact on their future. Indeed, if aged over 14 they should be given a say about residence, custody and access. Based on perceived level of maturity, the courts must be given the power to consider children’s opinions even if they were under 14.
Dr Cassar also suggested the court should hear the children even when their custodian remarried after divorce. They might have shown a wish to stay with their mother after divorce, but after her remarriage they might want to go back to their father because they did not want to live with a stepfather. The Bill did not set this out clearly.
Two cardinal themes during the referendum campaign had been the need for stronger families and for the government to consult on how to achieve this, besides legislating for divorce. One such measure should be better preparation for marriage. If the current courses were not effective enough or if they did not get to everybody for reasons of religion, the government should start to organise courses itself, with the help of some NGO.
Just as a Christian could not get married in church without a Cana Movement course, all those getting married should have certified preparation.
At local council level there should be drop-in units to help anybody going through difficult moments in marriage, even children.
The aim would be to give a solid identity to civil marriage, with a post-marriage system to help families or individuals. This would be a definite step forward.
Dr Cassar said that another amendment he would like to see to the Bill was to clarify that alimony should not be limited to the matrimonial home. Another important theme of the Yes campaign had been that the divorce decree should not be given before the court made sure that the partner needing alimony would in fact be getting it. This was not in the Bill.
It was all too common, even in non-divorce situations, that partners condemned to pay alimony somehow contrived to lose their job or get their income reduced.
There ought to be legal guarantees when alimony was no longer paid. Hard as it was to ensure, such a guarantee must be in the Bill because it would be the only way to ascertain that the suffering party, the one with no fault in the marital breakdown, was protected.
Even before debate on the Bill had started, many had spoken prematurely on how individual MPs should vote at the end of the debate. Did the people understand that MPs were now no longer discussing the idea of divorce but the actual writing of the Bill?
Why was it that only the Prime Minister had spoken clearly about MPs’ voting conscience? As had always happened, government MPs’ vote would be free. But why had the Leader of the Opposition made it clear that his MPs should either vote in favour or abstain?
Since the people had voted for divorce, and so long as assurances were given that children and sufferers would be protected, he would have no objection to vote in favour.
A politician’s duty was not so much to protect the magisterium of the Church and the ideal of permanent marriage as to see that legislation was the best possible and most just in the circumstances, aiming for the highest ideals but still an expression of love, compassion and patience.