The question to be put to the Maltese electorate in the divorce referendum must neither be simple nor simplistic, but one that was sincere, Nationalist MP Francis Zammit Dimech said yesterday.
Speaking in Parliament during the debate on the opposition motion on the consultative referendum on the introduction of divorce, he said that divorce would impact Malta’s history and society at large. The Prime Minister had proposed a “yes” or “no” question which the Leader of the Opposition said was simplistic. But the question proposed in the opposition’s motion was simple and loaded and did not reflect the contents of the Bill. It was therefore imperative that the House agree on an alternative question, one that had to be sincere with voters.
The question proposed in the Bill meant that divorce would only be granted once alimony was guaranteed. But this proposed guarantee did not exist. This was a “legal heresy” because alimony was not always given and enforced. There was no provision in the Bill which would truly make alimony a guarantee. Asking the electorate such a question would be tantamount to a political lie, he said.
The question also referred to children’s interests, but the Bill did not provide for real protection for children. So the question was misleading even on this point.
Dr Zammit Dimech said the Bill had various drafting mistakes.
The right to divorce would be given automatically to any party who wanted a divorce after four years of being legally separated, or four years after the couple would have stopped living together. It would be granted even if one of the parties did not want it. Moreover, divorce would be granted to those couples who would have been separated for four years but were still living together.
In this way, the Bill was introducing a no-fault divorce.
He said that for separation to be granted one needed to satisfy one of the grounds stipulated in the law, but the Bill was not providing for such grounds. Moreover, he criticised the fact that there was nothing which would regulate how many times a person could get divorced.
Dr Zammit Dimech said that MPs did not have a right to decide on such an important issue without the public’s permission. This was why he agreed with a referendum.
He saw no need to include the four-year period in the question. This period was already in use with regard to separations on the grounds of irretrievable breakdown. Divorce was a more serious issue and thus people had the right not to be tied down with a time period. They had the right to decide to enact divorce and leave such an issue to the House. He said that MPs should have the right to decide on a longer time period.
Dr Zammit Dimech underlined that the question to be put to the electorate needed to be sincere, rather than simple or simplistic as other speakers said. There was a need for the voting public to provide guidance to the House on the introduction of divorce.
He also expressed his concern as to whether the question proposed in the motion reflected the content of the Bill.
The question proposed in the opposition motion was that divorce would take place in instances where there was no hope of reconciliation between estranged couples. Referring to the Bill’s contents, he said that lawyers appearing for such clients had a duty to suggest counsellors who could possibly help reconciliation. This was also called for in the Bill.
How could one ask voters whether there was reasonable chance for reconciliation or mediation in cases where there was violence? Dr Zammit Dimech asked.
Divorce also affected inheritance rights. It was ironic, he said, that the Bill introduced the concept of “persons who were dependent on the family” rather than children. This meant Malta would introduce new and more varied family types than before. In the same way, the child’s status would also fall under new and different categories.
Turning again to alimony, he said this was the most dishonest factor in the question proposed by the opposition. If the woman did not work, she had a right to a higher alimony from the husband.
He added that the court needed to consider all the various aspects such as the amount of benefits received, the behaviour of both parties, accommodation necessities of both parties as well as the way pension schemes would be affected by the provision of divorce. On a political level, there was a great need to clarify who those persons getting an absolute guarantee would be.
The question should reflect the content of the Bill, the realities of the current situation and what was really happening in the courts. What was needed was guidance from the Maltese population, expressing their trust in Parliament, Dr Zammit Dimech said.