Minors (Court Consent to Relationships) Legislation Bill

I rise to speak on the Minors (Court Consent to Relationships) Legislation Bill. In doing so, I again commend Jo Hayes for her work in bringing this legislation to the House, and, indeed, the work of the Justice Committee, who have worked collegially to come up with a bill that does what it’s intended to do and minimises any adverse consequences.

Looking at this bill, what, of course, it does is it provides safeguards to protect young people who could face physical, emotional, or financial pressure to marry. This bill, in essence, protects young people, especially women, from being forced into a marriage by their parents or others. When we look at how this bill achieves that, it gives discretion to a Family Court judge. I think it is a very useful provision in this bill that Part 1 specifies, very clearly, the guidance to a Family Court judge about what they must consider when they’re deciding whether or not to grant an application for marriage to anyone aged 16 or 17.

So those guidelines allow for the judge to make a considered decision. They don’t preclude a 16- or 17-year-old being able to marry, but they ensure that that person has made the application voluntarily, free of undue influence or coercion. They require the judge to assess that the party actually understands the consequences of the application and that they do in fact want the judge to consent to the intended marriage. It also gives the Family Court judge discretion to judge whether or not that marriage is in the party’s interests—is in the interests of the young person who is making that application for marriage. This is a very reasonable set of things for a Family Court judge to consider and, I think, gives the right and appropriate amount of latitude to seek out those cases where, in fact, there could be coercion there.

So the sorts of things that the Family Court judge is also determined to take into account in terms of whether or not a marriage is in someone’s interest are the age and maturity of the person, their views, and, actually, the views of the parents and the guardians and any other information relevant to the court.

I draw members’ particular attention to that, in replacement section 18(5)(d) in clause 8, because I think that that provides a degree of discretion that can give us assurance in this committee that were there something untoward that was on display during the Family Court process that didn’t precisely meet the clauses that I’ve previously outlined, then there is discretion, there is latitude, given to the judge to apply that judgment—to say, “There is information that I have received that makes me concerned about this application and gives me good grounds to decline it.” The bill is also well-thought-through in that it considers that, of course, here in 2018, we don’t just recognise relationships through the institution of marriage; we recognise relationships through the institution of civil union and through de facto relationships. It makes provision to allow those sorts of relationships to also be subject to this kind of scrutiny.

Importantly, what this bill does is bring New Zealand up to speed with a growing international view that there are instances of people being coerced into marriage, that there are instances where people will pick a country that has loose legislation because it will allow someone to be coerced into marriage. But appropriately, I think, this bill has been very carefully considered by the select committee and the provisions are very specific to our jurisdiction. They take on the existing institutions we have, in the form of the Family Court, and they recognise that of course there is a place in the country for people having marriages that families are very involved in, where courtships are supported by families, but that that in and of itself doesn’t mean that those marriages should be accepted. Where families are forcing someone to marry against their will, that is a fundamental breach of that person’s rights, and that is something that we should have a concern about as a community.

I do want to note the important replacement section 20 in clause 8 that requires that a judge may obtain a cultural report. I think that this provides an important balance, because what that means is that the judge can actually get information about matters that may lie outside their immediate cultural understanding and which they may be petitioned by applicants to understand, and I think being able to obtain that cultural report is very important in diverse, modern New Zealand in 2018, ensuring our judges have access to that kind of information when making these sorts of important judgments. This is a good bill and in these committee stages I continue to commend it to the committee.

💬 Chris Bishop: Madam Chair.

💬 Priyanca Radhakrishnan: Madam Chair.

I call Chris Bishop.

Thank you very much. I’m sure my colleague on the Justice Committee, Ms Radhakrishnan, will get an opportunity to speak on this bill. It is a genuine pleasure to take a call on this bill, and I want, just at the outset, to acknowledge you, Madam Chair, because I know that you’ve been part of the cross-party—

💬 Hon Ruth Dyson: You don’t mean to bring the Chair into the debate, do you?

I’m sure the Chair won’t mind indulging me for a moment to acknowledge her contribution. I also want to acknowledge Joanne Hayes and her team, which includes many parliamentarians from across the House, who have worked hard on this bill. As someone who’s had two members’ bills now pass into law, I know it’s a good feeling, and it looks like this piece of legislation is going to work its way through its committee stage this evening, and its third reading, I’m sure, in a few short weeks. So I do want to acknowledge the member, who’s worked very hard on this.

Look, we had a good debate around this at the select committee. It’s one of those bills which sound pretty simple when you first hear them, at first blush, and then when you get into the details, they can get quite tricky, and that is something we did find at select committee. We did consider the issue of civil unions, and, of course, de facto relationships, which is made mention of in the select committee report.

In my short contribution, I want to make just a mention of, firstly, the name change, which is given effect to because of the omnibus nature of the bill. It was recommended by the select committee, and I think that’s a sensible one—changing it to the Minors (Court Consent to Relationships) Legislation Bill, which recognises, really, the fact that this is not just about marriage. The original name of the bill focused on court consent to the marriage of minors, but, of course, we are also dealing with de facto and civil union relationships; so that name change is very important.

The other thing I want to make mention of in this committee stage is replacement section 19, in clause 8 of the bill, which allows the court to appoint lawyers in proceedings under replacement section 18, and that’s very important. This is a good bill, and I’m looking forward to it proceeding through the House.

I call Priyanca Radhakrishnan.

💬 Hon Ruth Dyson: Oh, excellent choice.

Ha, ha! Thank you, Madam Chair. It is actually pretty amazing to be able to rise twice in one evening in this Chamber and take calls on bills that I am incredibly passionate about. So it is a privilege to stand and speak at the committee stage of the Minors (Court Consent to Relationships) Legislation Bill. I read that with some care and deliberation, because indeed the title has changed over the course of the life of this bill. Actually, there is quite a large, substantial reason that sits behind that title change, and I’m going to go into that a little bit.

This bill was previously known as the Marriage (Court Consent to Marriage of Minors) Amendment Bill, and it’s taken, I’d probably say, close to a decade for it to get to where it is this evening. There’s been a lot of lobbying from the domestic partner violence prevention sector, particularly Shakti, which is the organisation that I used to work for; Dr Jackie Blue, who initiated its process in this House; and, of course, the member Joanne Hayes, in whose name it is today, and, of course, I acknowledge the member for all the work that she’s put into this bill, as well. The way this bill came about—and the reason for its previous title, of course—is because, definitely at Shakti and at other refuges as well, I understand, many of us worked with young people who’d been put into this position, which is of young people being forced into a marriage, largely by their parents. I guess the genesis of this bill was because those of us who worked with these young people wanted to put an end to it, quite understandably.

Now, at this point I just want to make mention of the fact that there is a huge difference between forced marriages and arranged marriages, and the difference therein is the element of choice. In an arranged marriage, typically your parents will introduce you to somebody. They look at the other person’s educational background, likes and dislikes—things like that, from the viewpoint that marriage is difficult, and so let’s try to level the playing field, let’s try to match two people as best as possible. But then we give them the choice to make that final decision. In a forced marriage, there is no element of choice. There’s often a different motivating factor at play.

Under the current Marriage Act—and I have to confess that I used my own wedding as a bit of a test case for this, because I did do my Master’s thesis on the issue of forced marriage in New Zealand, and I happened to get married at about the same time. I found out that under the current Act only one party that’s entering into a marriage needs to provide a written statutory declaration, which is basically the only formal way of determining consent before you’re actually at the ceremony. What happens today if a 16- or 17-year-old wants to get married? Well, they need to get parental consent before they can do so legally, and therein lies the issue. That’s the loophole, because in many cases it is the parents who are forcing them into this relationship, into this legal union, and so of course they will give consent. That is what this bill addresses. It closes that loophole. It takes away the requirement for parental consent, and instead it puts in place a requirement for Family Court consent. So the Family Court judge has to be satisfied that both parties consent to this marriage, and then it will proceed.

Now, the title change came about because of quite an involved discussion that we had at the Justice Committee stage—and it was indeed a privilege to be part of that conversation, as well, having worked on this issue from the other side for many, many years. We had quite an in-depth discussion about the fact that closing this one loophole in the Marriage Act inadvertently then left a couple of other loopholes open, because there are other legally recognised relationships, namely, civil unions and de facto relationships. Actually, officials, who did a very fine job at that select committee, brought that to our attention, and I realised at that point that I had also worked with many who had undergone customary or cultural marriages that were typically conducted at places of worship, and for many within the communities that I worked with that was seen as a legitimate marriage. If we didn’t then close the other two loopholes—namely, civil unions and de facto relationships—what could eventuate is that 16- and 17-year-olds wouldn’t be able to get parental consent to get married, but their parents, if they wanted them—

I apologise to the member; the time has come for me to leave the Chair. This committee stage will resume at 7:30 p.m.

Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.

Tēnā koe, Madam Chair. It’s a privilege to stand and speak on the Minors (Court Consent to Relationships) Legislation Bill. First of all, I just want congratulate all New Zealanders who currently enjoy being in a relationship, whether it is de facto or marriage—and you’ve lasted the distance on your first go. I want to acknowledge you and say thank you on that. As a person who’s had to have a couple of goes at it, I really admire your longevity.

I want to acknowledge the member Jo Hayes for her due diligence in this very important bill about our children, but not only that—her leadership in the Commonwealth Women Parliamentarians that she co-chairs with the member Louisa Wall. It has been an honour for me to attend the select committee hearing to support, tautoko, the voices of the Commonwealth Women Parliamentarians at the select committee. I also want to acknowledge the due diligence of the Justice Committee: the chair, Raymond Huo, and all the members for their due diligence in providing us with this report that we now refer to.

I want to refer to the amendments to the Marriage Act 1955. That Act is 63 years old now—it’s two years before it gets the super—so it is about time that we relook at it. I want to acknowledge that the whole of Parliament supports this and that we can as a group come together, because this is all about our children. This is all about our children and protecting them—making sure that they are provided with the support to make the right decision. So in my next sentence I might jest or make fun or laugh about it, but I think it’s important to know that in a relationship there are the tough times and there are the happy times.

I refer to replacement section 20, in clause 8, where the judge may obtain a cultural report. I refer to it as the many eyes of the test of love. When a minor under 18—aged 16 or 17—decides they are going to make this commitment, there are many eyes. One is they apply to the registrar for a licence. The registrar then looks at it and goes, “I’m going to put this before the judge.” The judge then looks at it and says, “OK, I’m going to make sure that I am provided with all the relevant information, because this is an important decision for this young person.” Note that when the person is then married, they are no longer considered a young person. They’re considered an adult then. Physically, we still call other 16-year-olds young people, but they take on the adult status. Not just that, the judge then wants to consider any cultural implications, and for the cultural implications the judge may seek to obtain a cultural report. In that cultural report, the judge may also require the minor, the young person, to have legal advice and have legal representation. So that’s where I refer to the many eyes of love.

But I just want to ask the honourable member my question in this debate. In my experience in the Family Court system as a clerk, it does take a long time to get things through. So I just want to ask the question: how long is this process? Perhaps I missed it in the reading of the bill, but how long is this process going to take? Definitely, as a mother of five children and a grandmother of six children, I would like this robust care to be provided to my 16- and 17-year-olds to ensure that they’ve made the right decision. But I also want the decision to be made within the 18 years—so if you could answer that: how long is the process going to take and at the end how we will add value to the life of these young people?

I want to end my contribution in commending this country and echoing our Prime Minister that this is definitely the best place to bring up children.

Thank you, Madam Chair. It’s a pleasure to take a call on this, the Minors (Court Consent to Relationships) Legislation Bill. I congratulate the member Jo Hayes for shepherding the bill through this far. I know there were a few hiccups this morning when we thought maybe the House might have to wait another couple of weeks. I can reassure her that every effort was made to assuage the anxiety of certain genuinely concerned officials, but it didn’t take much more than that.

I want to say, too, given the bill we passed in its third reading earlier today, the Domestic Violence—Victims’ Protection Bill, how important this bill is as another kind of plank in that platform that is there to prevent abuse in a situation where you’ve got vulnerable young people, and particularly where there is an element of compulsion by elders and others to force them into an arrangement that they may not be willing—genuinely willing—to participate in. I think this House has been aware that this does happen, that this practice does happen, and I think it is a bold initiative that the member Jo Hayes has taken on this legislation and got it through this House, and what a good reflection on this House that it has so far had unanimous support across the House. This ought to give us hope for the future that on these sorts of issues there is a new understanding, a new maturity across the House, about the need to protect the vulnerable in these sorts of arrangements. So that is good.

Look, I don’t think when we go through the specific provisions of this bill, the requirement for an intended party to a marriage to go before the court—that will be a big step for some young people, given the family pressure on them, the community pressure that will be on them. That will take a big step, and if this legislation does anything else apart from affording that protection—the opportunity for protection—let us hope that it is also a spur to the rest of the community to reach out and be part of that protection to vulnerable young people.

There will be others who will willingly wish to enter into relationships in the nature of marriage who will not want, not wish, and not need to avail themselves of this legislation. Perhaps if I had one question for the member who is sponsoring this bill, it would be: what does she understand the extent of the application of this bill will be? What sort of numbers are we talking about? And, conversely, given the age bracket that we’re talking about here, does she have a sense of the numbers who will not need to or will not wish to avail themselves of this bill?

I raise that because that actually was the issue that was of concern to some officials in some departments. It wasn’t one department; it was a number of departments of Government this morning who suddenly, kind of, woke up to the idea that this might have implications, whether it was for the Ministry of Social Development, whether it was for IRD, whether it was for other departments. I think we were able to satisfy ourselves that actually this was a small group, this was about protection, and to the extent there is an additional cost—and if there is, it will be minuscule. But, actually, if there is, then that is the price of affording protection to vulnerable people.

The House should not shy away from taking the step that this legislation encompasses, because it is the right thing to do, even if there is some small additional cost. I put it to officials that actually there may not be any cost at all. Perhaps what they were concerned about is that there might have been the possibility of some savings that may not be realised, but that is not a reason to stand in the way of a piece of legislation that is about affording protection—and that’s what this bill does.

So I think it is important that at this stage the committee note—and I cannot see anything in the legislation as it has come back from the Justice Committee that looks like it needs changing, tidying up, or amending. I congratulate the members of the select committee who considered the bill for bringing it back in a good and tidy form—very clearly directed, very clearly focused. That is what we need in legislation and for this sort of legislation that is about safety and cultural safety and personal safety in a difficult situation. This is a good piece of legislation, and I would certainly hope that the House will continue to support it unanimously.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I am really pleased to take a call this evening on this particular bill, which I spoke on in the second reading. I am not a member of this particular select committee, the Justice Committee, but I want to acknowledge Jo Hayes and the work that she’s put into steering this bill through the House. I also want to acknowledge the committee and the work that they have done in getting this bill to the House. I really enjoy speaking on bills that have cross-party support across the House. I think that it’s really great, particularly also for the public to see how well we can work together on issues such as these that are really important issues, particularly because they affect our young people here in New Zealand.

There is no place here for forced marriage in Aotearoa. This bill is about protecting our young people—our 16- and 17-year-olds. They are quite vulnerable, particularly at that age. They face so many pressures, so many outward social pressures—pressures to achieve at school, if they’re at school, work, etc.—so I think that this bill goes a long way to afford them some protection. It gives them a voice; a voice when they may not necessarily feel that they have a voice of their own accord, particularly if they are in a situation where they may be being forced into a marriage—and that type of situation. That could be a really scary step for them to try and say no, when they don’t feel that they can. So this enables them to be able to do that. It gives them a voice to be able to do that.

I particularly like, in the bill, where it talks about the judge being able to request a cultural report. I think it’s really important, particularly in this day and age, that they have those made available to them so they can have a really good picture of this particular young person and the culture that they come from and the cultural values that their family hold dear. My question around that would be, though, as far as the cultural report, after they’ve taken into account that report, what is the purpose from there on in of that report? I know that they can go to parents and get their opinions and advice, but it doesn’t affect the overall determination necessarily, or can’t sway the overall determination of the judge and their decision. So I’m quite interested to know where that cultural report fits in to that perspective.

I also think it’s really important that this bill also takes into account de facto relationships, because at this stage a de facto relationship is not a legally recognised relationship unless there is a signed consent from the parents of the young person. I think that by enabling de facto relationships to be a part of this bill it works really well, in so far as we have people that could still be coerced into a de facto relationship if it wasn’t part of this legislation—therefore it could have been used in a way to go against what this legislation is trying to prevent and put in place. So I think that’s a really important part to have in this particular piece of legislation.

I also think that it’s a really important point in this legislation that a judge will take into account whether these young people are making this decision of their own free will—that they’re not being coerced into it—and that they do take into account a person’s age, a person’s maturity, whether this marriage will be in the best interests of this young person, and that they’re not going to be taken advantage of in any way.

As a parent, I think about my daughter at the age of 16—I’m not saying this all happens just particularly to young women, but predominantly, I think, it is likely to happen to young women. I would hate to think of my daughter or her friends being in a situation where they are forced into a marriage where they may be subject to violence, where they don’t feel that they can speak up and have a voice and air their concerns or their fears about being in this particular marriage—a forced marriage of sorts.

I really, again, commend Jo Hayes on the work that she’s put into this, and I commend this bill to the committee.

Tēnā koe, Madam Chair. It’s my pleasure to speak in this committee stage debate on the Minors (Court Consent to Relationships) Legislation Bill. That’s probably a good place to start, given that that’s a change in title. When our colleague Jo Hayes actually submitted this bill to the Parliament, it was called the Marriage (Court Consent to Marriage of Minors) Amendment Bill. So it’s really important, I guess, to focus on this concept of formal relationships, and also legally recognise relationships, which is in fact what this piece of legislation now does.

I know that when we started on this journey, actually it was about joining an international call to end child brides. In most jurisdictions, we had marriage, and so the original intention was to make sure that young girls—that is, anyone under the age of 18 but over the age of 16—who could get married actually did so in a manner that reassured us that they had given informed consent and that no harm was being done to that young woman.

Internationally, we know that much harm is done to young women who marry early. A lot of the times, young women marry early and have not good lives, actually—lives full of abuse and family violence. And I’m speaking “internationally” now, from a global context, which is why the UN and a whole lot of other organisations want to end child brides—there are a few others; I’ll have to google and find them. But the reality of what the amendments have done within the context of New Zealand is actually to make it applicable to our country. So, because we have more than marriage available to people who want to formalise their relationships, obviously an extension to include civil unions is absolutely merited. And, in some ways, it made absolute sense and it was just something we hadn’t thought about, because we had only just thought about marriage. So everybody, I think, universally, could understand why this bill then became applicable not only to marriages but to civil unions.

I think a lot of people, initially, were not quite sure about the de facto aspect of it all, because actually you don’t need the law’s permission to have a de facto relationship. But, actually, the relevance is in how we as a country view de facto relationships. And how we view de facto relationships, which is a real quirk of our culture, is that, actually, you can be in a formal, committed relationship and not have been married. So the reason that we have chosen to include those in a de facto relationship in New Zealand is because they are legally recognised relationships. The State, therefore, has responsibilities to people who are in de facto relationships, and what we wanted to ensure—and I should read directly from the Justice Committee report: “Excluding one legally recognised relationship could also be contrary to the Human Rights Act 1993, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of marital status.” So I wanted to emphasise the rationale of the select committee, and also the fact that we use human rights legislation and human rights principles when we’re making these types of amendments. It was great to see the discussion and debate among the select committee. I know that my colleague Jo Hayes and I had a few conversations about this because, when it was initially proposed, we were a little bit unsure about where it had come from. But, having read the report from the select committee and now understanding the rationale, it makes absolute sense; so, well done, select committee, for those particular amendments.

I want to focus on the issue about requiring court consent for 16- and 17-year-olds wanting to enter these legally recognised relationships. Others have focused on replacement section 18 and the requirement now to go through the courts, and, I guess, the jurisdiction of the Family Court and the Family Court judge in determining, from my perspective, whether or not the young person has the ability to give informed consent and to ascertain whether or not a young person does have the ability to give informed consent. There is a level of engagement between that judge and that young person, and it has been outlined and highlighted within the select committee report—the age and maturity, their views, any views of the parties’ parents and guardians that can be reasonably ascertained, because, at the heart of this piece of legislation, is, as my colleague Anahila Kanongata’a-Suisuiki highlighted, our duty of care to our children, and we have to make sure that our children are not being abused, they’re not being coerced, and they’re not being, I guess, led down a pathway where, potentially, really negative consequences would follow them for the rest of their lives.

Those ethical principles of informed consent and do no harm are fundamental to changing who the consenting entity should be in a situation where a young person aged 16 or 17 wants to formalise their relationship. So I wanted to acknowledge those ethical principles, because, I think, when you implement principles and philosophies like that, what they’re intended to do is to keep people safe—keep the young person safe, keep us safe as a society, because we wouldn’t want to have situations where, actually, our young people have been abused.

We know that this issue is an interesting one because it has made us also look at arranged marriages or cultural marriages, marriages where people are marrying overseas, coming back to New Zealand, and there are immigration issues. We know, through our work with Shakti, that some of those issues are actually quite complex in some ways, but we are aware, and need to be aware, within that whole area, what our obligations are, I guess, when we allow people to come into New Zealand under relationship visas—what the implications are, particularly for those young women who then come, because I have seen evidence recently of young women being dumped. They are brought in after arrangements in other jurisdictions. I think that there is more to do in this area, to be quite honest. What this bill also does is provide a focus about what we think is important as a country.

I, too, want to make a comment about the specific requirement of a cultural report. We should go back to the origins of this piece of legislation, in 2012. It was presented, initially, to this House by Dr Jackie Blue, who was then a National list MP based in Mt Roskill. Her whole motivation for bringing this bill to the House was her engagement with the Indian community—an ethnic community within a community that she served—and their highlighting to her the issues that that community have, and her desire to do something about the situation that was currently happening. So the fact that we will require, or the judge may obtain, a cultural report is incredibly relevant to this area because we know that there are some communities within our New Zealand communities that are disproportionately affected by the current state. So we should acknowledge that, and we should also acknowledge, I guess, the advocacy that we’ve seen from groups like Shakti—

💬 Hon Ruth Dyson: Priyanca’s here.

And Priyanca’s here. I can acknowledge my colleague Priyanca Radhakrishnan, who’s worked for Shakti. I know she can speak more eloquently about some of the stories she knows from our community.

But, again, I just want to highlight that explicitly putting in legislation the value, the importance of culture, the relevance of culture, again just highlights, I believe, how progressive we are as a country, how inclusive we are as a country, and I want to commend the select committee for the work that they’ve done to make sure that the relevance of these changes actually reflects the needs within our own society. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair. This is the first time I’ve spoken on this bill. Listening to the speeches this evening has raised a number of questions in my mind. Partly it raises questions because I have 17-year-old daughters myself, twins. They’re very precious to me. One of the things I know about them is that they do take notice of what I say, they do take notice of what I want, and I know that as their mother I am in a position to influence them deeply. Again, of course, partly too because as the adults in the household, my husband—their father—and I, the two of us, we have—and there’s no other way to put this—enormous power over them, as most parents do over their children. We can influence them deeply. I really understand the need for this particular bill. I congratulate Jo Hayes on the work she has done in getting this bill to this stage. I’m delighted to see that members of this committee are supporting this unanimously.

What I’m interested in is the cultural report. The New Zealand I grew up in was pretty homogenous. We, I guess, didn’t even really see the difference with respect to Māori, to the tangata whenua. We’ve learned a lot better, thank goodness. But the New Zealand we live in now has many different cultures and ethnicities. Of course those different cultures bring different understandings of what families are and the obligations of families. I’m finding this is worrying me, in a sense, in this particular bill. We come from—I do—a very individualistic culture where we do expect people to make decisions for themselves. But I do know that in some other cultures, in actual fact, family ties are very important—that what the family wants really does override what the individual wants. I suppose I’m faintly worried that in obtaining this cultural report we might be imposing western individualist values on cultures which do hold family values more dear.

That’s not to say that I think that those adults in those cultures should override the rights of 16-year-olds and 17-year-olds. I certainly don’t think that. But I am worried about the understandings which will be brought to the cultural report. In particular if I look at, I think it’s replacement section 20 of the Marriage Act, which is inserted by clause 8 in the bill, where subsection (1) says the “Judge may obtain a written cultural report by … requesting a person whom the Judge considers qualified for [that] purpose …”. That’s the question that’s being raised in my mind.

Look, I know our judges work hard. I know they are people of great probity. I know that judges who work in the Family Court necessarily consider a whole range of difficult issues. But I also know that for the most part those judges in the Family Court do come from the same westernised, individualist culture that I come from. So when we’re talking about how the judge considers the person to be appropriately qualified, I guess I’m interested in how we will ensure that judges are in a good position to make a good decision about that. It’s one of those things you could keep on going back and back and back, but I’m interested in hearing how a judge might go about assessing whether or not a person is qualified—assessing, I guess, their own competence to make that judgment, and what sort of resources a judge might think of calling on with respect to finding someone who is in a position to write that cultural report. And, I guess, in terms of that cultural report, I wonder if—I suppose a judge could request this, but maybe other advice if needed.

So I think there’s a whole set of issues to be explored there, none of which should stop this going through. I support the whole concept of this bill and the concept of a cultural report, but I am interested in some of the issues around that report and what could be done to address them. I would hope that the honourable member whose bill this is, who’s worked so hard on it, will perhaps be able to enlighten me and to give me a little bit of reassurance around some of those areas to make sure that all the cultures, all the ethnicities, in what I hope is our increasingly tolerant society will continue to coexist peacefully together in this country.

Thank you very much. I just want to extend my thanks to everybody who has contributed to this part of the process of the bill going through to its third reading.

I’m standing just to answer some of the questions that have been asked of me tonight, and I hope that the responses that I give—although there will be some responses that I won’t be able to give in full detail because I don’t know, and that’s around the work of the Family Court and how a judge actually works out who is going to do the cultural report. For me to get up and say—that would be usurping the role of the courts, and it’s not the role, I believe, of members of Parliament to be able to tell judges how to do their job. So I trust the Family Court judges will carry through with their due diligence, because it will be their due diligence in being able to assess the applications from young people.

We must understand that this bill has a very narrow focus and where it actually came from, and how the narrow focus was brought about—as the member Louisa Wall outlined in her contribution—was from a meeting in which Jackie Blue was approached by Shakti over the issues that were facing young migrant women. So that’s where this bill stemmed from.

The first question that Anahila asked—how long the decision from the Family Court would take to get, from the time the application is received to when whatever the decision of the Family Court judge will be. As I said in the start of my speech, I don’t know, because there are the processes of the Family Court and it will be up to them as to how long the process will take. And it will be the information that is collected or given to the judge at the time and the discussions that they have.

The Hon Andrew Little asked what the numbers were that we were talking about, and, over time, there are around about 60 cases that we know of. There could be more, but those are the ones that have come. The reason that we brought this bill to the House is because we wanted to prevent something that has the potential to blow out of proportion. This is Aotearoa New Zealand. We have rules and our own culture here, and this is the way that globally the world is going as well. It is about the protection of the child, and, specifically, the female child.

Jo Luxton, the MP, asked what would happen after the cultural report. As I said, this is at the discretion of the Family Court judge, and that person will make that decision on the next process of the application.

So I’m hoping that I have been able to answer all your questions. A lot of it is with the Family Court judge, with the Family Courts, and, as I’ve said before in my opening contribution, in answering your questions I’m not here to usurp any of the processes of the Family Court or a Family Court judge. So kia ora, and thank you all again for your contributions.

Before I call the member, I just want to just advise the committee that we’ve had a lot of contribution around the cultural report, replacement section 20 of the Marriage Act in clause 8. I’m looking for some other arguments, bearing in mind that the member has given some answers to questions asked.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Now, before we broke earlier, I spoke a fair bit about the title and the need for the change, which came about, really, through some pretty involved discussions that we had at the Justice Committee around the three different types of legal relationships that this bill will address or make changes to. I spoke a little bit, or briefly, about the history, the journey that this bill has undertaken to get to the committee today, so I won’t reiterate any of that.

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): Good. That’s encouraging.

But what I will say—I wanted to touch a little bit on the intent of this bill in its three different forms. I think I had just started to talk about the fact that marriages and civil unions are more straightforward examples of legally recognised relationships, but it was really that third area that we talked about and we discussed at select committee, which I’ve got to say didn’t really enter our consciousness, in a sense. And I’m speaking on behalf of those I’ve worked with, the women I’ve worked with who have been in this position prior to when I entered Parliament. De facto relationships are less clear. Legal recognition of de facto doesn’t usually include the State, and that’s the discussion that we had at select committee that led to the change in what this bill is called today, basically.

I started talking about why that’s important, and I thought I’d just like to finish that bit, as it were. The reason that it’s important to include de facto relationships in this bill, as it does now, is because there were and there are cultural or customary marriages that still take place within a number of the different ethnic communities in which this practice is predominant. And I guess the danger of leaving de facto relationships out of the ambit of the bill is that if we close two loopholes—namely, marriages and civil unions—such that a Family Court judge has to be satisfied that there is consent on both parts but we don’t touch de facto, which is where, initially, we were going at the select committee level, that means that there is another loophole wherein parents who want to force their children into marriage could then ensure that there’s a cultural, religious, or customary marriage that takes place—generally, in a place of worship—and a de facto relationship ensues, and the two 16- to 17-year-olds live together. That would actually allow for some of the motivations that sit behind forced marriage at the start.

There’s often a sense that parents who force their children into marriage are doing so for some sort of monetary gain. In some cases that is true, but I just wanted to outline some of the reasons or some of the rationales that sit behind this—not condoning the practice at all, because forced marriages are a form of violence against women, a form of gender-based violence.

I just want to make clear at this point that it’s not a cultural issue and it’s not a religious issue. No major religion in the world condones this; neither does any culture per se. There are women’s rights groups from all the countries where ethnic communities hail from in New Zealand. There are women’s rights groups within those countries and within those communities here in New Zealand that fight against this issue. So it’s not a cultural or a religious thing, and we need to make sure that we don’t tar entire communities with the same brush when we’re talking about this. As in any form of domestic violence or gender-based violence, it’s a small group of people from those ethnicities that promulgate this, and there are a few different reasons that sit behind it.

I’ve worked with a number of young people who might have come to New Zealand at a young age. As they grow up here, in a culture, in a society, that may be quite different and might have very different norms to what they’re used to or what their parents were used to back home, they fall into a space where, in a sense, they’re caught between these two worlds. I’ve worked with young girls who’ve gone to school here, have gone to work here—different ways of dressing, maybe going out with boys that may be frowned upon by sort of more strict, more rigid gender norms that are practised back in the family or in the society that they come from. Therein lies issues—not always; it doesn’t always result in violence, but sometimes it does, and it’s used as a means to control. [Time expired]

Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): Priyanca Radhakrishnan—and can we confine that a little bit more.

Yeah, yeah; sure. This also does go a little bit to the cultural report aspect of things, because it’s often used to control women and girls.

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): I have stated I don’t need any more argument on cultural report. We’ve had sufficient. If you could find some other arguments, that would be great.

Yeah—no, that’s fine. I will move on. So anyway, that’s part of what sits behind the intent of this bill. The other thing, of course, is there are immigration ramifications and there are monetary ramifications as well, and I’ve worked with young women who have been in that situation, as well.

There is one point that I wanted to seek clarification on, or to make. So Part 1 of this bill amends the Marriage Act, and that was to close the loophole that I mentioned earlier where parental consent will no longer be required, but it would be a Family Court judge who would provide that. Now it says in replacement section 18(4) in clause 8 that “A Family Court judge may, on receipt of an application made under subsection (3), consent to the intended marriage only if the Judge is satisfied that, for each party to the intended marriage aged 16 or 17 years,—”, and it goes on to paragraphs (a), (b), and (c), which basically say that both parties are free of coercion, that both parties understand the consequence of the application and want the judge to consent to the marriage, and that it’s in the interests of both parties.

I wanted to bring to the attention of this committee the fact that submitters at the select committee stage had made the point that this bill should potentially look at outlining what the Family Court judge should look into and what constitutes being satisfied in the Family Court. At the select committee, I think we felt that that was probably not within the ambit of this bill particularly, but it is an important point. I say this because there is very limited understanding generally about the definition, the nature, and the context of forced marriage.

I know that because that’s actually what led to the Master’s thesis that I wrote, because with every young woman I worked with, when I worked with Government agencies or non-governmental agencies, we always started from ground zero because no one quite understood how it was different from an arranged marriage or the context in which it happened, which then meant that these agencies couldn’t undertake a robust risk analysis. This means that young women’s lives are in danger, so we do need to make sure that Family Court judges do understand the context of forced marriage, what it means, and how much of a risk these young people’s lives are often in when they’re in that situation, and this bill doesn’t lay out how the judge will do this. So I am interested in getting a little bit of clarification around how that will happen.

I know that we have already talked about cultural reports quite a bit, but I just want to make one quick point, if I may, which is that, usually, Family Court judges will ask for a cultural report from someone from that culture, whether it’s the ethnicity or the religion that the applicant is from. But whose version do we listen to, because even within, for example, the Indian community, there have been numerous media reports over the years where people from some of the cultural organisations are unaware that this is happening because it’s so under the radar. So if there’s a cultural report from someone who’s not aware that this is an issue, that report will look quite different from the report of the women’s rights activists, for example, who are dealing with this issue day in, day out.

So that’s the second point that I wanted to make, and both are incredibly important because they deal with the safety of young women and, at the end of the day, women’s lives. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Parts 1 to 4, schedules 1 to 4, and clauses 1 and 2 agreed to.

House resumed.

Bill reported without amendment.

Report adopted.