PN General Secretary Paul Borg Olivier said today that Labour leader Joseph Muscat was playing convenience politics about the holding of a divorce referendum, after having said some time ago that the holding of a referendum was a waste of time.
Dr Bord Olivier was speaking at the PN club in St Paul's Bay.
In the same activity, Prime Minister Lawrence Gonzi said that the divorce issue was not one about religion, but one which involved values.
For him, as a politician, his first duty was to ensure that families remained strong and united and to help those whose marriage had broken down.
The PN had stood up to be counted on divorce, while somebody else, perhaps because he was ashamed, had not.
For the PN, he said, the priority was to give Maltese families and especially the children, a good, sustainable future.
PN General Secretary Paul Borg Olivier said the PN had not abdicated its responsibility to take a position on the family.
The motion which the PN had approved yesterday said that divorce was not the best way forward for families, but those having marital problems needed to be helped.
The internal debate on divorce had affirmed the strength in diversity which the PN enjoyed, Dr Borg Olivier said, It did not shirk from discussing contrasting views from which the best policies emerged.
In contrast the PL lacked conviction and had not come out with any policy. Rather than conviction, it had a policy of convenience.
It was understandable, Dr Borg Olivier said, that some might disagree with the PN position.
The PN was extending its hand to those who disagreed, with it, and he hoped that would be reciprocated. The Divorce Movement had claimed that the PN decision was a filthy tactic. Yet the PN had decided after a proper process within its structures and it also had to respect the rules of the land
It was a PN government which enacted the Referenda Act, and it was this government which was proposing the holding of a divorce referendum. The Bill moved in Parliament actually said nothing about a referendum.
And, Dr Borg Olivier said, Dr Muscat was shifting the argument from divorce towards the referendum for political ends.
Yet, some time ago Dr Muscat had actually said that the holding of a referendum would be a waste of time. So who was being consistent now?
Nationalist MP Karl Gouder, who has spoken in favour of divorce, said the debate made him proud to be Nationalist and it was the PN which had a history of hearing the views of the people.
PL REACTION
The Labour Party aid Dr Gonzi was the only person who was being inconsistent.
It noted that Dr Borg Olivier had quoted an interview held in 2008, when there was no word of any debate on divorce and there was no pending bill, as was the case now.
And Dr Gonzi, just 20 days ago on January 23 told The Sunday Times:
"Once we politicians don’t have the mandate, we will tell the electorate to vote, not the 65 people who haven’t been entrusted with this responsibility."
Dr Gonzi was playing a political game but his inconsistency and contradictions were being revealed, the PL said