Infrastructure Minister Austin Gatt insisted today that MPs should still be able to vote according to their conscience, even if the yes camp won the divorce referendum, because what the people were being asked about was a matter of conscience, not a political one.
Speaking in Parliament, Dr Gatt said that those in favour of the Bill had changed course half way through. First they had wanted the divorce issue to be debated in parliament, but when they realised that a majority would not back divorce, they opted for a referendum.
This was not a principle-based decision. Indeed, it was the PN which, from the earliest days, spoke in favour of holding a referendum.
This motion was worded such that it put pressure on those MPs who were against divorce. They were being told that if the people wanted divorce, they should vote against their conscience in parliament during the divorce debate.
Dr Gatt said that anyone who consciously took a decision in favour or against divorce deserved respect. But those who refused to hear their conscience solely to be mainstream and popular did not deserve respect.
The important thing was principles and values. He did not want to impose his principles, but MPs had to vote according to what they truly believed. He hoped MPs would not have to vote under pressure to be popular and mainstream.
He knew of some MPs who felt they were under such pressure if the 'yes' camp won the referendum.
Dr Gatt said the people should be heard, but in this case, the people were being asked to express themselves on a matter of conscience, not a matter of politics.
MPs had a duty to hear what the people said, but nothing should stop them from taking their own decision according to their conscience.
Dr Gatt said that even if the referendum was approved, there was no guarantee that the Divorce Bill would be approved in Parliament. Nor could anyone guarantee that the points made in the referendum question would become part of the subsequent legislation.
As had already been explained, no one could guarantee that maintenance would always be paid, as the proposed divorce question said.
What was especially bad in the proposed divorce referendum question was that it implied that something new was being introduced, when the 'guarantee' could not be given.
Dr Gatt spoke against the concept of no-fault divorce. The simple fact that a spouse walked out of a marriage for four years should not lead to divorce, enabling the person who caused the breakdown to get away scot free. And then, such people would even be allowed to remarry!
Such failings should not be rewarded with the possibility of remarriage.
To make matters worse, it was being made a condition that the form of divorce which had to be introduced in Malta was of the no-fault type. There might be people who were in favour of divorce, but not of the no-fault type.
This made the divorce question unacceptable. It was based on a lie, because it guaranteed matters which could not be guaranteed. It did not really change anything on care of the children, and it introduced the no fault concept, which was the worst possible.The question should be simple and direct, and should not promise anything which could not be given, Dr Gatt said. It should be a question based on principle.