Minors (Court Consent to Relationships) Legislation Bill

Thank you, Madam Chair. I stand to take this brief call in relation to the matter before the committee now—the Minors (Court Consent to Relationships) Legislation Bill. Again, I acknowledge my colleague Jo Hayes as the sponsor for this bill.

When I last addressed the House, I signalled that this is no minor matter, although the emphasis is on our minors—our young people, 16 and 17, who have been the subject of being forced into marriages. I acknowledge not only my colleague Jo Hayes but the fact that this bill, as a member’s bill, has cross-party support. It’s proposing changes to the Marriage Act 1955 and the Care of Children Act 2004, seeking to ensure that all minors who are to marry do so with the Family Court’s independent sanction; in other words, rather than parental consent previously, the consent of a Family Court judge after testing and hearing evidence, and also with the mutual and voluntary consent of the young persons—those young persons who may have been predisposed to forcible or forced marriage. So it’s about ensuring the young persons entering into what will be a legally recognised marital status or marital relationship—but also one of a de facto relationship, as with the amendment that was proposed by the Justice Committee—are free of duress, coercion, manipulation, and influence of others.

In my address to the House previously, I talked about the importance of the protections and the safeguards that are outlined under this bill and that it aligns very much with other procedural Family Court safeguards, ensuring that those who have been the most vulnerable become the least vulnerable under this legislation. So the bill aims to reduce the risk of minors being forced into marriage, by requiring that Family Court judge consent.

Moving along, the bill is also about preventing the possibility of forced marriage. I talked about replacing the parental consent with that independent judicial scrutiny and determination by a Family Court judge. I talked about putting in place protections for those vulnerable 16- to 17-year-olds, and also, just speaking from experience previously as a court-appointed lawyer for children and, also, representing those who are vulnerable, I referred to the Care of Children Act. But, also, it aligns very much with the Protection of Personal and Property Rights Act as well, in terms of that independent scrutiny and assessment determination by a Family Court judge.

When this matter came before the Justice Committee, there were some amendments that were proposed. In summary, those amendments, first of all, were around the title of the bill, and that’s been accepted and endorsed, I understand. So a further amendment that is proposed is addressing this status of civil unions and de facto relationships. The committee has recommended that the bill be amended—

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): Order! Order! We are on Part 1.

Pardon?

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): Part 1 of the bill.

Part 1 of the bill, right. So in referring to Part 1 of the bill—I’ve got ahead of myself—the amendments to that are around, as I said, the title to the bill. Then looking through that, it talks about—I’ve addressed the age and that the court may appoint lawyers and proceedings. So, in referencing that, the court will seek the independent consent of the young person, but to ensure that there is no duress or coercion, there is the ability for the independent appointment of counsel to assist the court and to also represent the young persons affected—be that the male or the female or both. Also, the judge may obtain a cultural report in terms of determining and assessing the necessity of those cultural aspects and aspirations in relation to entering this relationship.

So, noting the time on the clock, I have addressed that aspect of the bill in terms of Part 1 before we proceed to Part 2. Thank you.

I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. I move that all parts of the debate be taken as one question.

💬 Hon Ruth Dyson: Seek leave.

I seek leave, sorry, that all parts of the debate be taken as one question.

Before I put the leave, I just want to remind members that that leave should be sought at the beginning of the debate, and, given that condition, leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any disagreement with that course of action? There appears to be none.

Parts 1 to 4, schedules, clauses 1 and 2