Marriage (Court Consent to Marriage of Minors) Amendment Bill

Kia ora, Madam Assistant Speaker. Thank you very much. I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to support the Marriage (Court Consent to Marriage of Minors) Amendment Bill, which will undergo a title change, I believe, at the committee stage.

I’d like to congratulate the women of the Commonwealth Women Parliamentarians, because that is one of the places—this bill started originally with other women, and one of those women was Jackie Blue, so let’s make sure that we keep the name of Jackie Blue on the records. Then it sort of morphed into a cross-party women’s conversation at the Commonwealth Women Parliamentarians. That is an organisation that many people—many people don’t think that consensus decision or collective, collegial decision-making goes on in this House, and it does. It does, and through the Commonwealth Women Parliamentarians is one of those organisations where it happens.

I remember that it was actually that particular group of women, cross-party—there were only two parties not represented there, and that was because they didn’t have any women, so they couldn’t. But what we did as a group of women was we actually asked the Speaker at that time—this was in the last Parliament—“Can we please put this bill forward with the name of every woman from each party inside this Parliament?” and, unfortunately, there is no capacity for that to be done.

💬 Louisa Wall: No, there is.

Uh, oh! There is, apparently, so I’ll allow—I was giving the benefit of the doubt to the Speaker of the day, so let’s just leave it there.

But if it is true—Louisa Wall tells me that it is possible to be done; I will leave that for her. She’s probably technically more correct, on many levels, than I am. But if it’s not true, then that’s a failing, because there are issues like this where a member from every political party could place their name on a bill because there is no contention here, it’s something we all agree that we need to do as a Parliament, and we should have the capacity to do it.

But because we couldn’t do it, Jo Hayes, who was the co-chair at the time of the Commonwealth Women Parliamentarians, and at that time a member of the Government, took up the cudgels of this particular bill, and we thank Jo Hayes for doing that. She needed the permission of her caucus to do so, and she gained it, so you have to give credit to the caucus that she was sitting in because they allowed her to place this particular piece of legislation into the members’ ballot, and, as fate would have it, it was drawn.

Can I also acknowledge the author of the bill and the select committee that worked upon it, the Justice Committee, for the inclusion of de facto relationships inside this bill. In the passage of this bill up till select committee, it had never been raised. It hadn’t been raised in any of the conversations that I had had as a collective, so that was smart—really, really smart. So to whoever, anywhere, brought that piece of knowledge to the table, thank you very much.

Let’s get real about what this bill does. This bill recognises a problem. In numerical terms, it might be a small problem. If we think about the number of young people—in one of my first reading speeches or my second reading speech; I can’t remember—back in 1933 I think there were 247 young women who were married at the age of 12 in this country, because that was what the legal age was to be married. But, of course, time moves on and society moves on, and we all learn new ways of doing things, and we all think about things differently. I think, on the foreword of this bill, it talks about the fact that there’s probably only 30 young people a year who, with parental consent, currently get married at 16 and 17 years old.

For many of those young people, that’s probably not a problem, because they’re in love, they care about each other, and they have the emotional maturity and the intellectual maturity to make that decision. But even if it’s only one or two of those young people who aren’t there of their free will, even if it’s only one or two—and, ultimately, if I look at the numbers, what it tells us is most of the young people, the 16- and 17-year-olds, who are currently getting married with parental permission are young women. So even if it’s only or two of those young women who are not there of their free will, that is enough for this Parliament to say, “Let’s put in another step.”—let’s put in another step.

I also want to acknowledge the member of the National Party Parmjeet Parmar. I want to acknowledge her contribution to this conversation because she quite clearly articulated the difference between “arranged” and “forced”, and I think that’s really important, because this is not a judgment on cultures. This is not trying to judge individual families. This is trying to accept that, in a few cases, we have people being—whether because of a cultural pressure, in a small instance, or whether it be for some other reason—forced into a relationship. I remember the conversation—the articulation between myself and Chris Bishop where he said you can’t prove that it’s a sexual issue inside this relationship. But the reality of most marriages is there’s a consummation that takes place, and if we’re saying that even one or two of the young people that are being forced to marry somebody that they do not willingly, of their free, will choose, then in those few cases, that is State-sanctioned rape.

That’s not what many of us want to articulate about our nation, so this small measure—which is that a 16- and 17-year-old who wishes to marry or wishes to enter a de facto relationship will have to go and talk to a Family Court judge on their own, away from all other influences, so the Family Court judge can make a decision about their emotional capacity, their mental capacity, their ability to understand what they are entering into, their ability to be making this decision of their free will—is a small price to pay to make sure that even if it’s only small in numbers, we are ensuring that when people enter into the institution of marriage, when they enter into a civil union or a de facto relationship, they are doing so of their free will.

Every single one of us could reach out not too far from us today and find a story where there has been a young woman—more often than not a young woman—who has found themselves under a pressure to do this against their will. In my situation, I know two young women. So I applaud all the members across this House, because this was a collective effort. I want to acknowledge the Assistant Speaker in the Chair, who also has placed her weight as an MP in a previous Parliament and in her time as a huge advocate for women across this Parliament, and also pushed her weight behind this bill. So I want to acknowledge all the women, but I want to acknowledge all the members of Parliament, because there has been no man who has opposed this. We have been supported by the men of our parties. There’s never been a question of anything—this is fully supported by our Parliament. It’s a small step that will make a huge difference to a few people, but the difference it will make is enormous. Thank you very much, Madam Assistant Speaker.

Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker. I rise to speak to the Marriage (Court Consent to Marriage of Minors) Amendment Bill, a member’s bill in the name of Jo Hayes. May I begin by commending Jo Hayes for her tenacity, her diplomacy, and her ability to consult and talk and ensure that this bill had the support that it needed from all parts of this House, and also of a larger section of society that was a little sceptical about its use, and others who firmly believed it was important. It is a bill that reflects a small group of women, who are very adversely affected, and it’s a story that is not often told. I think that, as a result of this bill, there have been discussions which have shone some light on some very unfortunate practices. So, in a number of ways, Jo Hayes, I think that what you’ve done with this bill is commendable because it has raised consciousness, as well as put this bill through the various paces it has needed to get to this stage.

It has had a long history. I believe it was about 10 years ago that Jackie Blue, the member of Parliament for National, worked on this bill with a number of migrant communities and others—Priyanca, I know, and Louisa Wall. There were a number of people who were involved with this for a long time.

💬 Louisa Wall: From 2010.

That was 2010, so it’s been eight years’ gestation. When Jackie Blue left Parliament, she gave the bill to me. I gave it to someone else who was here briefly, and Jo Hayes has picked it up from there. So this has passed through many hands within this House to get to the stage it has now, and not without surprises around the amendments. It needed to become an omnibus bill because it amended so many Acts, and, as civil unions came through, as de factos became discussed, this bill needed to future proof itself and remain relevant within the law, which is what it has done.

There were, indeed, robust discussions at the Justice Committee, not because people believed that this bill was wrong but because they wondered if it was still relevant. Was it still needed? Was there a requirement for a bill of this kind in this modern age? And the submitters and the information that we had through our select committee members, who are in touch with these communities, repeatedly assured us that it was essential.

So it is with enormous pleasure that I state the words rarely uttered by me in this House, which are that this bill enjoyed unanimous support. There’s the argy-bargy that happens in the engine room that is the select committee, it comes before this House and further arguments unfold, but this is a bill that has unanimous support. It is needed, it is wanted, it’s been a long time coming, and I’m hesitant to take up too much more time in the House, actually, because it’s taken long enough. This bill needs to be passed.

If this is passed, a Family Court judge will now need to consent to the marriage of a 16- or 17-year-old, and that is appropriate because, at that level, the Family Court judge has the wisdom, the capacity, and the knowledge of how these things work, to give a wise decision. If parents are coercing their children—and there is a very big difference between coercion and force. We looked at those definitions for a long time to come up with something that we felt would address the issue.

So I think, with all the to-ing and fro-ing and with all the things that have happened around this bill, it has returned to this House for this final reading in a form that is one that we really can accept as being the best possible law that we can all make to protect this group of vulnerable people. So, without hesitation or reservation, I commend this bill to the House.

Tēnā koe e Te Māngai o Te Whare. Tēnā koutou katoa. I’d just like to start with some international context for this piece of legislation and then relate it back to Aotearoa New Zealand. So there are groups internationally called Girls Not Brides and Ending Child Marriage, and their definition of child marriage is “any formal marriage or informal union where one or both of the parties are under 18 years of age.” Each year, that’s 12 million girls. That’s 23 girls every minute—nearly one every two seconds—who are getting married. In New Zealand, that equates to approximately 80 child brides a year, and, of interest, 388 or 48.6 percent of those women are actually married overseas, and they come into our country. So, actually, in addition to this whole issue about child brides, we also have issues about the immigration status of those women.

What happens to a number of those women if they end up in domestic violence situations? That’s been another issue that we have been pursuing as the Commonwealth Women Parliamentarians (CWP). Globally, today, there are 700 million women who were child brides. Of those, 250 million were married before 15 years of age, and I think we should all think about what happens to those women who are married. What happens to them is that they are at risk of violence, abuse, exploitation for life. Of the babies born to women who are child brides, 60 percent are at greater risk of dying in the first year of life.

New Zealand’s, I guess, contribution to this international campaign did start in 2010, and the Hon Maggie Barry is 100 percent correct that Jackie Blue engaged with Shakti; so I too want to acknowledge my colleague Priyanca Radhakrishnan, who was working for Shakti at that point in time. Some of us may not know, but there was a John Hudson Sunday story that did a big exposé about this issue in New Zealand, and there were 12-, 13-, 14-, 15-year-old girls who were being married in New Zealand in cultural and religious marriages. And one of those young women, a 14-year-old, had been raped and her parents had made her marry her rapist. She suffered torture, beatings, isolation. She escaped and was seeking refuge with Shakti, and we started then having this discussion, because Shakti then engaged with people like Jackie, who talked to the National Council of Women and a whole lot of other people. I have tried to look back to when we first referenced this to the UN, but actually this issue is relevant in New Zealand; so our contribution to this global campaign of Girls Not Brides, Ending Child Marriage, is incredibly significant tonight.

I do want to acknowledge that, to date, this has been the one and only piece of legislation that we as parliamentarians across the House have agreed on. So, Jo, I want to commend you as the co-chair of our CWP group and, also, as somebody who put her name to this bill. It doesn’t matter how you got it, although I think that inheritance is a great legacy; the fact is that this bill is in your name and you are incredibly passionate about advocating it not only within your party but across the House, and I know you’ve done a number of media interviews about what we’re trying to achieve.

So, essentially, what we’re saying is that marriage should actually be between adults but, in lieu of it being between adults, because in New Zealand we do allow 16- and 17-year-olds to get married, because of the issues of consent, and the issue of coercion, and the fact that, from the evidence that I talked about just before, we know that some parents are making their children, their girl children, marry older people, there is an issue. What this process will ensure is two things. One is informed consent—so the judge has to be convinced that that 16-year-old or 17-year-old girl, young woman, absolutely knows what she is entering into, in wanting to marry somebody else, and that judge will determine, based on that interaction, whether or not that young woman wants to get married and has the capacity to give informed consent. Why do we do that? Because of some of the harms that I outlined earlier.

I have to say, I’ve been at some events, though, where women have come up to me and have said, “I got married at 16 and I’ve had a wonderful marriage.” And that’s fine. That’s great. We’re not trying to stop it, which was actually one of the big discussion points when we presented to the select committee: if we really want to end child brides, why aren’t we saying you can’t get married? And one of the reasons that we said we couldn’t was that that was a big change—because that went back to 1955. But we felt, by adding a layer of credibility into the system, where a judge, through the Family Court, could make the determination about that young person giving informed consent, therefore assenting to the application for a marriage licence, reassured in that process and that that would also guarantee that no harm would come to that young woman.

I also have to say that the other advancement in this piece of legislation, which the select committee actually have been incredibly helpful on, is saying, “It’s not just marriage. This also applies to civil unions and also to those who are in de facto relationships.” And, I guess, that really highlights, again, the constructive process that our select committee engages in, because we were able to have those discussions, people were able to bring to the table pieces of information that, actually, we just hadn’t considered, because in other legislatures around the world—or in other democracies—they have only marriage; they don’t have civil unions or formal recognition of de facto relationships in their laws.

Just finally, I do want to pick up on one of the points that my colleague the Hon Tracey Martin talked about, in terms of this whole concept of a multi-member bill. Now, the multi-member bill concept came about because, as a cross-party group of women, we were thinking, “How can we get this bill into the House if everyone agrees with it?” We didn’t have a Minister who was prepared to propose it, but we thought, “How can we do it?” Obviously, we had somebody put their name to it, and it was in the ballot. But I consulted Mary Harris, the then Clerk of the House, about how we could enter a multi-member bill into the Parliament. The way that we could do it—it’s just that no one has ever done it—is that if we had a bill that we all agreed on, every political party in this House would nominate one of their members, for their name to be on that bill. And if every political party did that, we would then seek the leave of the House for that bill to be tabled, and then it could be debated.

The fact that it’s never happened before doesn’t mean that it can’t; it actually just means we haven’t found the right bill. And so, I guess, our experience from this cross-party endeavour is: let’s try and find a bill where we can find every political party supporting it, we can all put one person’s name on it, and we can agree as a House for that bill to be tabled in this Parliament, and let’s create—it’s fun—consensus around really important issues like this one. So that’s a challenge to all of us: let’s start thinking of some bills that we all think are incredibly important and that might not be on Ministers’ work programmes, and rather than put them in the member’s ballot, let’s see if we can work constructively as a Parliament.

Just finally, I do want to commend Jackie—hopefully she’s watching. I know you won’t mind, Jo. She will be interested in what’s happening.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): I just encourage the member to use the sponsor’s full name.

Oh, sorry. Thank you. So Dr Jackie Blue, wherever you are, I’d just like to say that this bill has progressed to this point not only because you were able to work with the community to construct the bill, not only did you have somebody in your National caucus who was prepared to take it on, but also because, when you’d left, you came back to the cross-party women’s group and talked to us about this being a piece of legislation that we could work on together, which we have done. And so, without further ado, I commend this bill to the House. Kia ora.

Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker. It’s a great pleasure to rise and add the Green Party’s voice of support to this, the second reading of the Marriage (Court Consent to Marriage of Minors) Amendment Bill, as it is named right at this moment. Firstly, I too would like to congratulate the member Joanne Hayes on shepherding the bill through the House to get it to this point and on keeping all of us on board and engaged and happy through that process. That is, clearly, no mean feat.

I also want to acknowledge Dr Jackie Blue for the work that she did with Shakti: for picking up on their concern, which—and it has been acknowledged by others—is an issue that they have been raising for a very long time, because of their experience with working with young women coming into their safe house and contacting them who have been forced into these relationships against their will. They have not felt as though those young women have adequate protections in our laws. So it is well overdue, in fact, that we as a Parliament create a protection for those young women to save them from those lives of forced servitude and, as I think was described by Minister Tracey Martin, basically, socially, legally sanctioned rape.

I wanted to just touch on the work of the Justice Committee. The Green Party don’t have a seat on the Justice Committee, so I really want to acknowledge the committee for the work that they’ve done; it’s substantive and really does seem to have addressed some quite tricky issues—where the bill was initially responding to marriages, that it is for 16- and 17-year-olds who wish to marry. This will now be extended to civil unions and de facto relationships. I can imagine that that issue of working through how you create the system for de facto relationships in law, where we don’t normally have an engagement with the court at all for these young women, must have taken a degree of consideration.

I absolutely support the point that the committee got to, of actually having this process for all relationships. So it is marriage, civil unions, cultural marriages, and de facto relationships. The point was made, in the commentary from the committee, that that seemed to be consistent with the Human Rights Act and the provision to not discriminate against anyone on the basis of marital status. So all of our young women and girls should have the same protection from being forced into relationships, and I think that’s great. And, to reflect that, there is, sensibly, the recommendation to change the title of the bill to the “Minors (Court Consent to Relationships) Legislation Bill”, as opposed to “(Court Consent to Marriage of Minors)”.

For anyone who is listening, I’ll just briefly reiterate the process that this sets up. If a 16- or a 17-year-old wishes to get married, then they will need to make an application to the court and a judge will then consider their application, and the select committee has added a bit more guidance for the judge around how to consider that application. In the first instance, the judge must be satisfied that the applicant has made the application voluntarily—free of undue influence or coercion—and that the applicant understands the consequences of the application and, indeed, wants the judge to consent. So that’s the first consideration for the judge, which is quite a significant number of issues for that judge to work through. And if they are actually assured of the free will of the young woman concerned, then they need to do an objective assessment to assess whether the marriage will be in the best interests of that girl, taking into account the person’s age and maturity, the person’s views, any views held by the parents or guardians, and any other information available.

Considering the severity of the consequences—typically, it is a girl being forced into a relationship against her will—I absolutely think it is appropriate that the court works through a very, very thorough process to make sure that they understand the consequences and that it is of their freewill to enter into that relationship. And the select committee also made the recommendation that the judge should be able to access a cultural report to be able to aid their consideration of that assessment. Again, I think that is appropriate, and I have certainly been hearing from judges over time about how they would appreciate more access to cultural reports in a whole range of situations, because, actually, it is really an essential piece of information to understand the context when you’re dealing with people, and particularly if there is violence involved.

Also, finally, legal representation should also be available if the judge considers that necessary or helpful for the applicant. So this is a really important step today in terms of making sure that our commitment to end family and sexual violence works for everyone in our society—for our children, and for people of all cultures. It is with huge pleasure that I offer the Green Party’s support at this second reading.

Kia ora. I take this brief call this evening and my mind is somewhat distracted. I have a heavy heart because, as the member of Parliament for the Whanganui electorate, my thoughts turn to the community in Waverley, South Taranaki, with the double fatality car accident, six deaths there, in the worst car accident in 13 years. So my aroha to the families there and also to the community of South Taranaki.

I now turn to the business before the House, and it is a privilege to be able to address the House and acknowledge my colleague Joanne Hayes here as the sponsor of this legislation, or this proposed legislation, the Marriage (Court Consent to Marriage of Minors) Amendment Bill. It’s no minor matter in addressing the court but it is a bill about minors. It’s proposed legislation, and it does have cross-party support so it will, I anticipate, see it through to the third passage with a final reading.

This is legislation that is not gender biased, although I acknowledge my colleagues who have addressed the House this evening in terms of the particular concerns about young women and forced marriages—some may have considered at a previous time arranged marriages, but this legislation is specifically about ensuring that the most vulnerable become the least vulnerable and are protected by this legislation. I also am pleased to be able to address the House because the safeguards, the checks and balances, in this legislation are very much premised on much Family Court legislation that I’ve advocated in my role previously as lawyer for children, youth advocate, and also court-appointed counsel for those incompetent and incapacitated persons.

I turn to what this bill is about. It’s proposing changes specifically to the Marriage Act 1955 and the Care of Children Act 2004. For three decades, I advocated represented children. Many of the abused are children in welfare—the most vulnerable—and to ensure that they were represented well before the court, their interests, their views, and their welfare were not only undertaken but the court took great heed of those through the advocacy and the responsibility that I had and many of my former colleagues as well.

So the protections and safeguards that are outlined within this Act-to-be very much align with other procedural checks and balances that I’ve talked about: for example, the Care of Children Act; the Family Proceedings Act; guardianship legislation; the former Children, Young Persons, and Their Families Act, now Oranga Tamariki Act; and also the Mental Health (Compulsory Assessment and Treatment) Act. So the safeguards and the checks and balances that I talk about are very much what’s outlined in this bill as well. It’s focused about reducing the risks of minors, young persons, 16-year-olds and/or 17-year-olds. So it aims to reduce the risk of minors being forced into marriage by requiring court consent. So, in effect, the consent of a Family Court judge is now required, replacing that of parents, to ensure that, again, with the checks and balances, those most vulnerable become the least vulnerable. The court will seek to run through this checklist of ensuring that the young person’s views are represented, that there is the appropriate cultural report that is sought, that—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): I apologise to the member. I didn’t advise it was a split call. You have about a minute left on your call.

Right. It’s outlined there in the bill, but just to say that in terms of the safety checks and balances there, they are aligned with what has been before the court, and that this bill is very much about the most vulnerable becoming the least vulnerable, minimising risks associated with their compromised positions. Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker.

Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker, for the opportunity to speak on the Marriage (Court Consent to Marriage of Minors) Amendment Bill. I do want to, firstly, thank and acknowledge Joanne Hayes for having this bill in her name. I think it’s really important to thank the Justice Committee. Whilst I’ve not been a part of this process prior to it, I think it’s really important to acknowledge and thank the committee for the work that they have done on this bill. My understanding is that they’ve worked really, really hard, and they’ve had some really good collegial discussions and conversations around this bill.

I just want to come back to something that the Hon Maggie Barry said. She said that this is a story that is not often told. That was actually quite a poignant and sobering statement for me to hear personally. It made me stop and think and try to imagine how it must feel for some of these young people that are forced into a situation of marriage. Actually, I can’t even begin to imagine how that must feel. So for me it endorses just how important this piece of legislation actually is. I also want to acknowledge my colleague Priyanca Radhakrishnan who has worked in the sector and worked with women who have been forced into marriage.

Around this bill, what it does is it amends the Marriage Act 1955 whereby, currently, 16-year-olds and 17-year-olds who want to get married must get the permission of their parents. What this bill does is it provides a safeguard to our young people to ensure that the marriage is consensual and that it will require the consent of a Family Court judge for the marriage of a 16-year-old and a 17-year-old.

Sometimes forced marriage can be confused with arranged marriage but it is not the same. With an arranged marriage there is the element of choice. Two people are introduced to each other by their parents. The idea behind that is that marriage is actually difficult enough so they introduce individuals that have similar interests and similar family values and backgrounds to try to make the potential marriage as smooth sailing as possible. After a period of courtship, the couple can choose to continue with the relationship and into marriage, if they so choose. However, forced marriage and the motivations are and can be quite different. At least one partner doesn’t have a choice, and anecdotal evidence does suggest that it is quite often the young woman. Whatever the motivations for that might be, it doesn’t make it right.

This is an important bill because it does go to the heart of what we in Government hold dear and is core to our values. Preventing forced marriage will protect New Zealand children. I just want to quote from a submission from the Wellington Community Justice Project: “[This] Bill adds a layer of protection where parental protection fails, in requiring court consent after ascertaining the consent of the marrying individuals. This goes a long way towards eliminating coercion and thus forced marriages.” It ensures that those children who don’t have the protection are given the safeguard of the judiciary.

New Zealand is a democratic society, and we are really proud of that. We were the first country to give women the right to vote. It is important that our children are—and feel—safe, and we know that young people around the ages of 16 and 17 are a vulnerable group of people and they deserve better—better protection under the law.

I just want to also quote from an article that has a quote by UNICEF. They’ve said that “Child marriage is a violation of the rights of girls and women. Girls who are married as children are more likely to be out of school, suffer domestic violence, contract HIV/AIDS and die due to complications during pregnancy and childbirth. Child marriage also hurts economies and leads to intergenerational cycles of poverty.”

So this bill will go a long way to ensure that children don’t have to continue being forced into marriage against their will, and I really commend this bill to the House.

Thank very much, Mr Assistant Speaker. Can I start by congratulating Jo Hayes. Jo has been a stalwart supporter of this bill, but I know that she comes from a lineage of strong wāhine toa supporting the bill from both sides of the House, including Jacqui Dean, and I know Louisa Wall paid tribute to some of the members who have supported this. It has genuinely been a collegial cross-party approach and Parliament working at its best; so congrats, Jo. I know what it’s like to have a member’s bill pass, and it looks like this one will soon pass into law.

In my brief remarks, I just want to canvass the difficulty the committee had—because I was a member of the Justice Committee that dealt with this bill—in working our way through the submissions. What I mean by that is they did actually conflict. I actually went into this thinking there would be, essentially, unanimous support for the bill, that 95 percent of the submissions would be in favour and we’d just kind of, essentially, tweak it a few times and we’d carry on through. But it wasn’t quite like that. The National Council of Women of New Zealand came and they said, “We support the intent, but the bill should say that only 18-year-olds should be able to get married.”, so no 16- and 17-year-old marriage at all. That would get rid of parental consent but also get rid of what this bill actually proposes, which is the ability to go to the Family Court and seek an order that that marriage be allowed. They said, “No, that should be a blanket for 18-year-olds and above only.”; so that was quite interesting.

Then we had the Human Rights Commission, and they said exactly the same thing. All committees, particularly the Justice Committee, pay attention to what the Human Rights Commission says, particularly when it comes to issues around age and consent and things like that. They said, “No, there should be no exceptions. It should be 18 only, and to do otherwise would be a breach of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW).”—which New Zealand is a signatory to, of course, through the United Nations—“We actually need to go further to implement our CEDAW obligations.” So I thought that was quite interesting.

Then, of course, we had the Office of the Children’s Commissioner come along, and they took the exact opposite view. I thought that was very interesting, because we get these, sort of, august rights-protecting bodies and rights-protecting institutions, and they’re opposed to the bill. I found that very interesting. They came along and said, “No, we actually don’t support the bill, because it breaches the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, because 16-year-olds are children.” Actually, because 16-year-olds are children, their parents have rights over them, and to take away the ability of parents to consent to marriage would be a breach of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child; so they, essentially, said the status quo should remain. I’ve got to say, I actually found that very hard to accept. I found it very hard to comprehend, because although 16-year-olds are children in the strictest sense of the word, I think the proposition that we should therefore allow parents to make decisions around their marriage choices, which flies in the face of a lot of the evidence that the committee heard from respected organisations like Shakti, is quite a difficult proposition to take.

So, basically, what the committee had to do was work through this area and protect the human right of association and freedom of association, and the right of people to fall in love with people of the same sex or different sexes, or genders, and to fall in love and get married, but also make sure that Parliament was protecting the vulnerable from abuse. It had to allow autonomy and the autonomy that all humans are inalienably born with, and the ability to associate or to marry and to love, but also walk that fine line between allowing that but protecting the vulnerable from possible abuse and possible coercion. It sounds like quite a slight change to the law, to move it from the parents consenting to moving it into the Family Court, which is that authority, but I actually think it will make a big difference.

I think there is a debate to be had out there, frankly, about whether or not the actual age of marriage should be lifted to 18. Eighteen is when you can vote, it’s when you can drink—well, at least buy a drink—and it’s when you can serve in the army. You know, I think there is actually a genuine debate to be had out there about whether or not 18 is the appropriate age. That is, basically, when you become an adult. And marriage is a pretty big responsibility.

So, look, I think there’s a debate to be had out there. Maybe that’s a bill for down the line, but I think it’s good that the Parliament’s going to agree that this is a step forward in protecting young people from coercion and abuse. Let’s face it; it is primarily women we’re talking about, young girls—because they are girls—and I think it’s a great thing that the Parliament’s working together. I commend the bill to the House. Kia ora.

Tēnā koe e Te Māngai, ōtirā ki a koutou, ā tātou nei mema o Te Whare, tēnei te mihi.

[Greetings, Mr Assistant Speaker, and to my fellow parliamentarians, greetings.]

Actually, it’s a real delight to be able to speak in respect of this bill. To you, Joanne Hayes, I just really want to acknowledge the work that you’ve done in stewarding this bill to this phase, and, obviously, you inherited it from, or worked alongside, the Hon Jacqui Dean, so I want to acknowledge Jacqui and some of my parliamentary colleagues from across both sides of the House. I know the Commonwealth Women Parliamentarians were very instrumental in the support that’s been provided to you. But also to Chris Bishop and his team over there in the Justice Committee, I’m sure that they’ve spent many hours debating the nuances, and I was actually really pleased just to hear some of the challenges that you’ve had to wade through when, I guess, trying to strike the right balance with this piece of legislation that does exactly that: it goes to the heart of what we’re trying to do here as members of this Parliament—make good law to protect our children, in this circumstance, against coercion and abuse.

I didn’t know a whole lot about child marriages growing up, and I was preparing some remarks this evening, and, you know, you look to the experts amongst your own colleagues to help give you a bit of a steer, and then it was quite interesting to stumble across the work of my colleague Priyanca Radhakrishnan, who wrote the first ever comprehensive research in New Zealand on child marriage here in New Zealand, in 2012. Some of the issues, for me, that I was trying to grapple with in the brief period that I had to try and understand the complexities around how we make laws to protect kids that come from this particular circumstance and background, she helped to really put in context for me. I think, for me, I was coming at it from, you know, how we can avoid applying a Western cultural lens to things that can be inherently quite culturally complex issues. So I think that’s where I was coming from.

Anyway, I read her thesis. She said, “The interconnectedness between families and culture is an important aspect to consider when examining structures that contribute to the perpetuation of violence against women and more specifically, honour-[bound] violence and the influence of ‘culture’.” She goes on to say that “It must be understood that ‘violence against women is not an inherent part of anyone’s culture’ … It is an issue of power and control that, in the case of immigrants, may be exacerbated by issues such as isolation, changes in the economic status and language barriers. Forced marriage is a reality in New Zealand, as it is in many other parts of the world.”

I want to pick up on some of the comments made by previous speakers in this debate. It’s almost less of a debate but a discussion or an affirmation of New Zealand’s values, actually, when it comes to the role that children play or the value that we see of children in our society. I think that there was this—I think we’re unanimous across this House, because, you know, I read through just story after story. Yeah, there’s some confusion—that’s where I was going—as to whether or not child marriage was, in fact, really an issue here in New Zealand. The argument was made that “Oh, it doesn’t happen so much here.” Well, Shakti, the organisation that has been the main promoter of getting rid of child marriages here in New Zealand, said that over a five-year period, approximately 300 young people had been forced into under-age engagements to be married as soon as they turned 16 or 17. There were 300 here, in New Zealand, over a five-year period, and I was really surprised by that significant number.

So, to me, this is really very much so a New Zealand issue, and it is very much so that this bill here and the work that’s been done in this House is going squarely towards protecting some of the most vulnerable members of our society. In order to place those young people that we’re trying to protect with this piece of legislation and put their voices at the centre of this debate, I want to pick up on a couple of stories that were shared through the select committee process and to have their stories told here in this House.

So this is a story from 2016. We’ll call her P, and this is a story that was shared by Shakti. She was a 14-year-old child of South-east Asian descent, and she was referred to Shakti by a high school counsellor. Her mother had been verbally and physically abusive towards her since she was a 10-year-old child. When she was referred to Shakti, she disclosed that her mother was going to get her married at the age of 16 years old. Her mother did not ask for her consent, but told her that it was going to happen. She didn’t feel like she had a choice in the matter. It was a decision that had already been made. Since Shakti spoke to her counsellor, she said that her mother had changed and that they’d be allowed to continue with her education. Now she’s aware of Shakti’s services if her mother changes her mind. So that goes towards the work that Shakti’s doing, but then the stories keep going.

In 2017, there was a young woman of Middle Eastern descent, a survivor of forced under-age engagement and marriage. She migrated to New Zealand when she was a six-year-old. She grew up in a Western country and her views were relatively liberal. However, her family had very Eastern, traditional values. At the age of 16, she was taken to her country of origin under the pretext of visiting her homeland. Once there, she realised that her parents wanted her to marry her first cousin so that he could come back to New Zealand. She was not interested in getting married but was stuck in a situation where it looked like there was going to be no hope. She knew that if she were to get married, then there would be no turning back. She convinced her parents that she would agree to the wedding if they let her finish her studies. They relented and agreed to an engagement only, and she was engaged to her first cousin from her father’s side.

After the engagement, the couple were left to talk, ostensibly. In that room, that young woman’s fiancé, who was considerably older than her, tried to force her to perform sexual acts, and so on. They didn’t go well. She was abused, and that continued into the marriage.

I read story after story of this ilk, and I was so heartbroken to know that that’s happening all throughout for young children here, in Aotearoa New Zealand. So to the members across both sides of this House, thank you for recognising the harm. Thank you for being, I guess, bold enough to tell the stories of those that may not have had the opportunity to have somebody be the voice for them. Thank you, too, for the work of organisations like Shakti.

I must say that if this wee exercise just in preparing some brief remarks has given me any personal insight, it’s just how fascinating some of our colleagues are and the working history that they come from. So I really do want to acknowledge too just the work of Priyanca Radhakrishnan. It was a leading piece of research that she commenced, and this is back in 2012, I think—the first piece of work in this area.

A fantastic occasion, I say to our colleague Joanne Hayes across the House. May the passage of the rest of this bill be successful. So, nō reira, ki a koe e Te Māngai. I’m glad to stand in support of this bill.

I rise in support of the Marriage (Court Consent to Marriage of Minors) Amendment Bill. Let me begin by congratulating my colleague Jo Hayes, as members before me have. She has shown tenacity in continuing to herald this legislation through the House and, of course, in taking it through from Jackie Blue, who first introduced it to Parliament.

I want to also acknowledge the role of the Commonwealth Women Parliamentarians, the cross-party group who promote an increase in women’s participation in Parliament and work on issues of importance to women and girls. It’s a credit to that cross-party group that a piece of legislation like this has gained the support of all parties in the House. It demonstrates that, as MPs, we can work together constructively to make improvements to our law, because, as previous members have commented, this was not an entirely straightforward piece of legislation. It came with challenges along the way, and, as MPs, we were able to work together on it.

Of course, what this bill does is reduce the risk of 16- and 17-year-olds being forced into marriage, and it does that by requiring Family Court consent and by also continuing the requirement for parental or guardian consent. I think it’s important to note that this is a safeguard. This is not a practice that is hugely prevalent in New Zealand society, but still it is something that we all agree we must protect against, because the idea of young people facing physical, emotional, or financial pressure to marry and, at the age of 16 or 17, being forced into a marriage that they do not want through that fear is abhorrent to us all. And that potential for coercion has been recognised in the consideration of this bill by a range of organisations, especially those who are interested in protecting and advancing the rights of women. So that risk of coercion has been recognised by the National Council of Women of New Zealand, New Zealand Family Planning, the Women’s Refuge, and many other organisations who examined this piece of legislation.

So this legislation really ups the bar for a 16- or 17-year-old to get married in this country. A Family Court judge has to be satisfied that that person has been free from undue influence or coercion, that that person understands the consequences of marriage, that they want the judge to consent, and that marriage is in their interest. Reflecting on those things, I thought back to my own marriage some 11 years ago—my wedding, back in 2007. And, you know, I was pretty young. I was 26. But the idea that that day of joy and that choice of absolute free will and that desire to commit to someone for the rest of my life would be something that was forced upon me is an idea that’s both foreign and frightening.

And I, thinking back on that experience, then contrasted it with the experience of another young woman who marched just earlier this month against forced marriages, in Auckland, and whose words I think this House should hear tonight as we consider why it is we are passing this legislation. She said, in relation to being forced into marriage, “If I had agreed to it, I would move from a psychologically abusive family to an abusive husband, having to deal with emotional and physical abuse, as well as rape. I know that listening to your parents seems like the right thing to do. But it was wrong.” Like most young women, she too wanted to fall in love the right way, with someone she wanted to spend the rest of her life with. “I realised it was wrong when my parents were making the decision for me to spend the rest of my life with a complete stranger … I did not know him, I did not like him.”

So it is that woman and others like her that today this House is supporting. And before I finish my speech, I want to further commend to this House, as we reflect on this issue, another piece of legislation that would protect the rights of women like her, and that is the Family and Whānau Violence Legislation Bill, a piece of legislation that National brought forward and took to its first reading and that included a proposition of a new offence of coercion to marry as part of the family violence reforms.

I implore the new Government to continue with that reform and maintain that new offence, because that would criminalise a person who coerces another person into marrying someone or coerces someone into entering a civil union against their will. That’s contained within the Family and Whānau Violence Legislation Bill, and there is nothing to stop the new Government from progressing that legislation through the House a.s.a.p. I commend this bill to the House and thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker.

Bill read a second time.

Name changed to Minors (Court Consent to Relationships) Legislation Bill.