The main plot of the divorce debate has been played out. The Yes vote delivered on Saturday shifted the debate from our streets and piazzas to our Parliament. In this House of Representatives, we parliamentarians have the duty to legislate and put into effect the will of the people. Once the Divorce Bill is approved, as I am sure it will be, the attention will focus on our courts of justice and our public administration, both of which must adapt to this new reality.

During our life as an independent country, we have introduced major, even radical, changes and I am sure that our institutions will see that this change is brought into effect in the same admirable way.

There are, of course, other sub-plots which emerged from the divorce debate that require our attention. In a campaign that was, as expected, divisive, there was one common ground. All parties to this debate agreed on the importance of sustaining and strengthening the institution of the family.

The family is the main building block of our society. This building block is being eroded. It is under attack from the pressures of an increasingly materialistic society. This is not something we discovered through the divorce debate. In fact, the government has, over the past years, introduced various measures to sustain the family, through family-friendly ­measures and other fiscal incentives.

Perhaps we have not done enough to find ways of giving families the luxury of spending more quality time together. More needs to be done, especially in ensuring that couples are well prepared to take on the challenges of married life. This function is mainly carried out by Church-run institutions. The government needs to identify ways of sustaining the efforts of these institutions.

Irrespective of whether or not the introduction of divorce will add to the pressure on marriage as an institution, a point which was hotly debated during the campaign, we have to, as a government and as a society, do more to keep the concept and values of the family unit alive.

The second sub-plot concerns the Nationalist Party. The PN and its followers need to take stock of this experience. The strength of the PN lays in the spectrum of opinions it represents. We build our policies, faithful to our Christian Democratic principles but in a manner that respects both the liberal and conservative elements of our party. We are a party with a heart in the right place but a centre left way of doing things.

This coalition approach returned a majority support for the PN in six out of the past seven general elections. It also delivered the Yes vote in the European Union membership referendum. More importantly, it has enabled the PN in government to transform this country from a cocooned, inefficient state with questionable democratic credentials to a vibrant, pluralistic and open society that can hold its own among the states of Europe.

The divorce debate tested this coalition approach. It posed a difficult terrain for the PN because it provided no common ground for liberals and conservatives to meet upon.

Faced with this challenge, the party took a stand on the issue but allowed its members to express themselves independently of the party’s position. Some questioned this stance arguing that, by taking such a stand, the party was conditioning the views of its exponents.

The referendum result shows there was strong cross-party voting on this issue, which could be interpreted as justifying the position of those who felt that political parties should have stayed aloof of this debate. It was not an easy situation to resolve.

With the referendum behind us, our efforts as a party should be to ensure that the liberal and conservative elements within our party continue working together. The process of implementing the will of the people as expressed in last Saturday’s referendum should in itself provide an opportunity for this healing process to take place.

Beyond that, we have a mandate to lead this country for the next two years. We have a responsibility to look ahead, as we are doing, and projecting Malta into the future. This we can only do if we build on the critical success factor: our wide-base ­support.

The different voices of this PN, not unlike a choir, might have different pitches, might be singing different notes but, ultimately, have the same goal.

Dr de Marco is Parliamentary Secretary for Tourism, the Environment and Culture.