Pro-divorce lobby spent €30,000 – Bartolo

Labour MP Evarist Bartolo today said in parliament that the pro divorce lobby spent €30,000 in its campaign, mainly from donations in kind and other financial assistance from donors.

The figure, revealed by Bartolo during his intervention in the first reading of the divorce bill tonight in parliament, pales in significance to the €230,000 that the no movement said it had spent in its campaign. Three-quarters of this treasure chest was financed by the Church.

Both Bartolo and Nationalist MP Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando reiterated much of the statements that took centre-stage during the divorce campaign. But Pullicino Orlando said he hoped the Labour party will be upholding the spirit of the divorce bill that was approved by 53% of voters in the divorce referendum.

The divorce bill provides spouses with the option to freely decide whether to proceed with a no-fault divorce, where the two jointly agree how assets and maintenance is allocated, or not.

Should one of the spouses wish to opt for a fault-based divorce, the proposed bill allows either spouse the right to request that the separation clauses within the Civil Code that deal with fault, and its consequences, apply to the divorce proceedings.

Party sources have told MaltaToday that Labour could ask for an amendment to introduce fault-based property and asset separation in all divorce proceedings.

Bartolo also said in parliament that there should be no amendments that will change the spirit of the law as approved by the majority of the electorate. “This parliament is tied to uphold the main principles of this divorce bill – the four-year duration of separation and broken-down marriage, the guarantee of maintenance, and that it is a no-fault divorce.”

The Labour MP said he saw the amendments proposed by the MPs to the party’s technical committee, and that there was no amendment to remove no-fault divorce.

Pullicino Orlando said no-fault divorce was a primary element in the divorce campaign, which he said was attacked incorrectly as a ‘divorce without reason’. “I feel that it is important that we learn from overseas and don’t consider introducing a fault-based divorce… if couples’ marriages break down irremediably, they would have to invent a fault to divorce. So if they cannot find a legal way to get a divorce, they would just pass through some back door to get that divorce.”