Senator JOYCE (Queensland—Leader of the Nationals in the Senate) (5.56 pm)—I want to clearly put on the record that the final move towards the dissolving of the concept of marriage would be just about there if this amendment were to go through. Therefore, I fervently disagree with it. I think that I reflect the views of many of my colleagues in that, although I would not for one moment say that I reflect the views of all of them. However, for the record, I would like to
know what the substantive differences are between the term ‘relationship’ as we have now proposed in this bill and what marriage actually is.


Senator JOYCE (Queensland—Leader of the Nationals in the Senate) (6.42 pm)—The one thing I can say about Senator Hanson-Young’s amendment is that it finally bells the cat on where the issue will ultimately end up—that is, the diminution of marriage and the movement of marriage to something that explicitly says nothing at all. When marriage becomes something that means nothing then it starts to assert itself on the whole structure and formulation of society. You can
believe that you live in a society without rules and without process. You can believe that marriage is a completely amorphous concept that can be in any form or substance that you wish. You can believe that the primary drivers in your life are your own personal desires, that nothing in your life needs to be subjugated by a greater principle so that the rights of children who come into a relationship are protected. The whole point about marriage is that it is not about you; it is about the children and it is about that which follows after you. It is about putting behind you what you might deem to be your greatest wishes and realise that your wishes are actually secondary, and that in life there have to be certain disciplines. Although you might have a personal desire to go beyond that to encompass everything you wish, you take society to a lower level not a better level in doing so.

There is a concern that, as things by degrees and by incursion come in as to the definition of marriage so that it is encroached upon piece by piece, in the end we move to a position where marriage fails to mean very much at all and in the end it is just a word that lacks any meaning. As to this amendment by Senator Hanson- Young, at least I give her the credence that she is sincere, but I believe that this is the path that we are moving down by degree with some of the legislation that has gone through to date. Obviously, I fervently disagree with Senator Hanson-Young’s amendment. I would like to explicitly state that I know members both within the National Party and within the Liberal Party see this as a titanic issue. If this battle—and it will indeed be a battle—is not enjoined and if our position in the Senate is not maintained, then we will do our nation a huge disservice as we move the nation to being one of an amorphous, nebulous type of society which has no form or structure. It might be one that explicitly allows us every one of our own personal desires but does not reflect the fact that the nature of life is more than all that. It is a discipline to a wider cause and the wider cause brings protection to the greater number of people who live within it. So given that process, I firmly stand against this. As I said, and I say this as representing the views of others, just because we do not vote against these things you must not take that for one moment as recognition that we are voting for them.