Senator O'SULLIVAN (Queensland—Nationals Whip in the Senate) (16:47): I quite deliberately did not prepare the framework of my contribution this afternoon because this issue is so important that I wanted it to be delivered by me as naturally as possibly. I respect the remarks made by the previous speaker and I acknowledge that there are large numbers of people in our community who are anxious in relation to this question. I too had a long and successful marriage—32 years—until I lost my wife. We were blessed with four children from our union, and I can say to this chamber that the institution of marriage was significantly important to us from the very beginning. We entered into a married relationship on the basis that it was a commitment given from each to the other, as a man and a woman, with the primary intention of being blessed, as we were, with the four children that we have and, subsequently, many grandchildren. The quest of marriage as an institution allows a belief that has to do with much more than just the union of the man and the woman. It is naturally accepted that, from there, efforts would be made by that man and woman to have children to celebrate their love and commitment. It does not matter whether you are persuaded by an article of faith, which is the case in my circumstance, or whether you are driven by an argument of nature, a child cannot be delivered without the union of a man and a woman—perhaps through modern techniques. I do not want any inference drawn on those who struggle with issues of fertility in the development of their families. I said to someone not long ago that, just as I became good and competent at being a father, my children had left home. Just as my wife and I, in different ways, became competent at looking after our children in their formative years, they got a year older. Then, as we nurtured them through to their teens and became competent at dealing with children of that age—in my case, we were blessed with two boys and two girls—they grew into the next phase of their lives, and so on and so forth until they left the comfort of our home to make their own lives. Indeed, they went on to be married and have children of their own, in the case of three of my children. So as we discuss this, I accept, Senator Rice, the importance of the feelings and the aspirations of same-gender couples who also want to make a commitment of this nature. I urge people making a contribution to this debate to understand that there are other stakeholders in the question. It is not just about the two grown-ups; it is about the children. Again, I do not want anybody to suggest that I am reflecting upon— An honourable senator: You are! That is exactly what you are doing. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator Smith ): Order. The standing orders require senators to be heard in silence. Senator O'SULLIVAN: the competency or the capacity of same-gender people to raise children. In fact, on a case by case study, there would be arguments that children in the care of same-gender parents—I use the term 'parents' carefully—or a child in the custody of two same-gender adults, in many instances I accept that you could compare and find that for each case where those children are well-nurtured and loved, and developed accordingly, there would equally be 10 man-woman marriage relationships where the children were worse-off. There is no question about that. That is a matter accepted by everybody. As a police officer, I went into hundreds and hundreds of homes where the man and woman, married or not, did not deserve to have those children in their care. So the question is not about the necessary competency. Taking vows in marriage does not reflect the competency of the two adults to provide an appropriate home for children. But developing children have the right to have parents of different genders, in my view. The evidence that Senator Wright failed to— Senator Rice: Senator Rice! Senator O'SULLIVAN: Senator Rice, my apologies. My sincere apologies, Senator Rice. Senator Lines: But you were right, Senator Rice! Senator O'SULLIVAN: I do not know what the frivolity is in this contribution of mine— Senator Lines: I do not know what the seriousness is! Senator O'SULLIVAN: You do not know what the seriousness is? That is a new low in this place, I would have to say. Senator Hanson-Young: It is a new low! The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator Smith ): Order! Senator O'SULLIVAN: What I do know as a parent—what I did see evidence of in my married parent status—was the contributions made to my children by me as their father, and their mother. I saw my children over their developing life draw different things from each of us. I saw us make different contributions and I have to say, Senator Rice, that I am not persuaded by the view of an eight-year-old child. I could make the case that, perhaps, their considered contribution may well come at some later time in their life. No eight-year-old I have met could fairly consider the complications of this issue. These children deserve the very best chance to develop in life and to draw upon the strengths of their parents of different genders. I can quote you much of the correspondence I have been given. You related a dozen or so episodes there of people who have contributed to persuading you to support this legislation. I could, equally, bring some of the thousands upon thousands upon thousands of emails that I have received over recent times from married couples—traditional married couples; men and women—who have urged me as a legislator to resist any moves to change the long-centuries held definition of a man and a woman. It is no accident—again, for me it is an article of faith and for others it is a natural extension—that it takes the man and the woman to create the child. The child, certainly at birth, and for a considerable period of time afterwards, is naturally in a physical sense nourished by their mother. We did not create this. This is an act of nature. But for the many millions of Australians who may well be agnostic on the issue of same-gender couples—let's just for the moment park up sexual descriptions; let's just sit them outside the chamber. Let's refer to two adults who may hold strong affection for each other—I challenge that not. Many millions of Australians do not want to see the institution of marriage disturbed. At the same time, they are agnostic about measures that might be taken by their legislators, by their governments, or in the progress of public opinion about being able to establish conditions upon which that union may function as a matter of law and equality, without intruding on this long-held institution of marriage. Four years after the loss of my wife, I met my current partner, Christina. We have now been together for almost five years. We have not, at this point in time, felt the compulsion to get married. Indeed, I would challenge anyone who challenges our love, affection and respect for each other and the commitment that we make as partners in life. Senator Rice interjecting— Senator O'SULLIVAN: Dear oh dear, I tell you—through you, Mr Acting Deputy Chair—these quips do your cause no service at all. We do not feel the compulsion to take on the title of marriage, and that does not diminish the relationship that Christina and I have. In fact—be it that we are a widow and a widower—in many respects we still feel married with our partners gone. We are still dealing with the commitments for life that we made—a man to a woman, and a woman to a man. In closing my contribution—I find it fascinating that someone can be laughing over in the corner on a subject that is probably the most important to have come into this chamber since I have been here! In closing, I say this: this institution has more stakeholders than simply the acronym that has been provided by my colleague. It is for children; it is for children yet to be born who have a right to a mother and a father. They have a right, as nature dictates—or convictions held by others from other sources—to grow up in a balanced environment where they can gain the gifts provided by a father and a mother. I am in accord with my party's policy on this position. There is no conflict either in the policy of the National Party, in the policy of my state Liberal National Party or indeed in the policy of the federal Liberal Party. If we want to draw upon people's contributions, I represent a party in the state of Queensland that has some 14,000 members who, every day, caucus on matters of importance with people who are not even members of our party—they are family, they are neighbours, they are employees and they are employers. Their views are filtered down through a whole system—a very fair and democratic system—to arrive at a central point eventually, and some policy settings take many years to develop. So there is strength in the collective argument of their position, in my view. For a very, very long period of time, every time their minds are turned to this question, they have consistently argued and placed policy that marriage is between a man and a woman, and it should remain unaltered. I stand here representing my party, and my view will remain unaltered, but not as the basis of being a slave to party policy. Mine is simply a deeply held conviction that I have based on my 58 years of life's experience. Accordingly, I recommend my colleagues resist this legislation in this place at this time.