Prime Minister Joseph Muscat said in Parliament today that those who want the abolition of Spring hunting will need to vote No in the forthcoming election and those who want spring hunting to be retained have to vote Yes.
He said advice had been sought from the Attorney General and it had been decided that on the basis of the Maltese version of the Referenda Act and the Petition presented in court, the referendum question would be 'Do you agree that the provisions of the Framework for allowing a Derogation opening a Spring Hunting season for Turtle Dove and Quail Regulations (Subsidiary Legislation 504.94) should continue in force?'
Those who wanted spring hunting to be retained should vote Yes and those who want the abolition of hunting should vote No.
In a statement in Parliament, Dr Muscat explained that he had set the date for the referendum on the basis of formal advice by the Attorney General. The President had sought independent advice which tallied with that of the AG.
There were three choices for the referendum date. The first was to hold a referendum in summer, but he felt the country should not have six months of campaigning.
It also did not make sense to have a referendum when the hunting season was under way, amid the expected claims of provocation and intimidation. That would have hurt everyone, including the country's image abroad.
That therefore only left April 11.
If the people voted to retain spring hunting, the season would be opened immediately. If the people voted to abolish spring hunting, the season would not be opened.
With regard to the referendum question, this was problematic. The problem stemmed for discrepancies in the wording of the Referenda Act in the Maltese and English versions as well as the Maltese and English versions of the petition asking for the referendum to be held.
The Maltese version of both asked Do you agree that the provisions allowing spring hunting should remain in force? In that case those in favour of hunting would vote yes.
The English version said: Do you agree that the provisions on spring hunting should not continue to remain in force? Here, in contrast those who did not agree with hunting needed to vote yes and vice versa.
In view of this serious discrepancy the advice of the Attorney General was sought.
The AG based his advice on the Constitution which said that where there was conflict between the Maltese and English versions the Maltese prevailed.
Therefore on the basis of AG's advice and the ruling of the Constitution, the people would be asked whether the provisions allowing spring hunting should remain in force. Those who wanted spring hunting to stay should vote yes and those who did not should vote No.
Dr Muscat reiterated comments he made on Saturday that political parties should not directly interfere in the referendum campaign. He said he had given his personal view consistent with his declarations over the years, but MPs were free to vote as they wished.
Replying to a question by Nationalist spokesman Charlo' Bonnici, he said it was not possible to bring down the voting age to 16 for voting in the referendum since the petition was submitted before the legislative changes which will allow voting at 16 in local elections.
COALITION WELCOMES REFERENDUM QUESTION
The Coalition for the Abolition of Spring Hunting (CASH) in a statement said it welcomed the Prime Minister's 'confirmation' of the referendum question, and urged the public to vote no to end spring hunting.
"We welcome the quick announcement of both the date and the question for this historic referendum.
"The public now have the chance to take this important decision on the future of Malta, their countryside and, of course, the birds. This is no longer an issue which is decided by the politicians."
"This is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to end spring hunting, by voting no on 11th April. Everyone's vote is equally valid, and we encourage people to express themselves and make use of our strongest democratic tool."