Minors (Court Consent to Relationships) Legislation Bill

Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. I rise with enormous pleasure to speak to my friend and colleague Jo Hayes’ bill, the Minors (Court Consent to Relationships) Legislation Bill, at its third reading. I will echo many of the sentiments already expressed and no doubt still to be expressed.

This is a bill—I think I said it in the second reading—that has been a long time coming. I acknowledge our friend and former colleague who is in the House today Jackie Blue, somebody who has, as we’ve heard—I suppose the gestation of this bill began with and its conception was with Jackie. I won’t carry on those gynaecological references too far, but I do think that without your willingness, Jackie, to embrace something that was, at the time, considered pretty unnecessary in New Zealand—it wasn’t something that we felt in this country, apparently, was really much of a concern here, but it was.

I also commend Shakti’s Priyanca Radhakrishnan, who was working there at the time and has done a lot of work, I think, behind the scenes as well since she became a member of Parliament to really highlight the necessity for this bill. And to Jo Hayes: tenacity and determination are two of the qualities that I think spring to mind around this piece of legislation. When Jackie left Parliament, she passed the bill to me. It remained in the ballot and then it was drawn. Then I moved on to be a Minister and handed it through, and Jo has shepherded it through in a very skilful and collaborative way, and, as with the former speaker, Louisa Wall, I would like to commend her on her whakataukī and the multicoloured approach that you allude to, because this is a bill that could not have passed without the support of many in the House and the understanding as to why it is necessary.

Louisa Wall detailed some pretty brutal practices internationally, which I think are harrowing to listen to and horrifying, obviously, to happen to a young person. It’s extraordinary to us in New Zealand to think that child brides should be something that is a day-to-day reality for some people, in our ethnic communities in particular. When we come to the numbers as to how many might be affected, it’s hard to say. I mean, it could be up to 30 young people a year. Any one is bad, so it is important though to understand that this is a very focused and specific bill that relates to really difficult cases.

It is also important to know that it has been through many incarnations or iterations—I’m not sure what word would best describe it—but I think that once we got the bill to a stage where it was drafted, there had been other law changes that needed and necessitated us to change other aspects of other Acts. That is why this bill proposes changes to the Marriages Act 1955 and the Care of Children Act 2004, because it needs to ensure that all minors wishing to marry are doing so with the acceptance of the court and with equal consent from both parties.

So it’s been a multilayered legal approach, and that is why it needed to become an omnibus bill. Jo has talked to us many times and on many occasions about, perhaps, the frustrations of needing to guide this bill through some choppy waters because of some unexpected obstacles—not of a lasting variety, but just of the kind to prove a hiccup and to delay it. So when I said at the start that this bill has been a long time in coming, I really meant it in a heartfelt way, because it has gone through a lot of hands and a lot of considerations and a lot of legal refinements to get it to the state that it is in today.

I think it is in a very good state. I think the idea that to coerce a young person to marry now has to come with a penalty—recognition and a penalty: a maximum of 5 years imprisonment. This bill will close that potential gap in the laws against forced marriages by stopping someone being threatened or intimidated into marrying, and there are a lot of examples of this occurring.

I think the civil union factor, as well, was something that we needed to come to terms with, because since the bill was first conceived and written up, that was a piece of legislation that warranted an alteration, and it was robustly discussed at the Justice Committee, and I commend all the people that have been part of that wider discussion to get it into a state that is really fit for purpose.

Involving the Family Court, and an application being considered through that process, is a very important thing. Hearing from the applicant—either the 16- or the 17-year-old themselves, and their parents—as far as is practicable. There are obviously occasions where coercion and tensions between family members could result, actually, in that not being the ideal environment for all cases, but it is, ultimately, a place where decisions are made, and I think there’s a level of protection, and that is very desirable with these already vulnerable and at risk people.

The bill also amends section 46C of the Care of Children Act, which is, again, where a child has to seek the review of their parent’s or guardian’s decision or their refusal to give consent, because it does not apply for consent to a civil union or entry into de facto relationships. I don’t want to get too bogged down in the technicalities, because they are a kind of necessary evil—not exactly evil, but they needed to be very carefully thought through in order for this bill to reach the people who it needs to reach.

I think having a judge involved is a very important thing. The amendments include what matters in a Family Court judge’s perspective—so what that judge, who is not unaccustomed to a variety of difficult and complex cases, needs to be satisfied about when considering an application—including being free from undue influence or coercion. These are sometimes quite subtle, difficult things to understand and to appreciate. So I’m very glad that people of a high level of expertise and intellectual rigour will also be involved in this. The judge has to consider many things: the age, the maturity, and the views of the individual; the views of the parents as well; and I would imagine there would be quite a lot of other information that sometimes might be brought to bear. A judge is, I think, the appropriate person so that some circumstances are not given undue weight—that it is very carefully calibrated and considered on balance.

I think the cultural report is another very important part of this. There are very many ethnic groups that are in New Zealand and communities that adhere—and rightly so—to the traditions from their countries of origin. So it is important that in the context of their culturally acceptable patterns and behaviours, as well as within the law, these balances are understood. A cultural report, which would cover aspects of the applicant’s cultural background, including religious practices, would be taken into account.

I think legal representation is another tricky area. The court will have the ability to appoint legal representation to assist the application. Again, if a lonely, isolated young person has no clear direction or, in fact, a coercion effect from their parents, who do they listen to? Who are the wise guides who will give them proper advice? I think legal representation and payment for it would be, of course, out of the reach of a young person who feels in a dangerous situation. I think that is another layer which enables this to occur in a way that is meaningful and timely for the young person. Obviously, the age is an important element of this, and once a young person reaches that age of 18, then there are different decisions and choices that can be made. But in so far as they are young and they are being coerced, there is a need to move quickly, and I think that that has also been part of our considerations in putting together a view. I think that when it comes to a civil union, this was not something that we thought would impact enormously, given the cultural background of many of these forced marriages and child brides in the past, but it is an important consideration given the changes in our laws.

This is a piece of legislation that needs to be fit for future purpose. We do not want to have to bring this back to the House in a year or two or three and tinker with a clause or two. This needs to be, and I believe is, in a state of readiness to be of great use to young people who are undergoing, potentially, a forced marriage or coercion.

As a country, New Zealand wants to be part of a world that eliminates this sort of practice. It should not be happening anywhere in the world, and, in a year where we are celebrating 125 years of women’s suffrage in a country that—I won’t say gave women the vote, because it was too hard fought for to be given or gifted, but this was a country that allowed it. And in our 125th year of commemorating that major achievement on the international stage, if you like, this is a time that this bill is appropriate to pass and so I feel that it’s time has come. I commend Jo Hayes. I commend Jackie Blue and others who have helped to nurture this bill through about a 10-year period now, or more. Therefore, I commend this bill, without hesitation, to the House. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. I’m absolutely delighted to take a call tonight and talk on this bill. I haven’t been on the Justice Committee, so I feel really privileged to have the opportunity to talk tonight on the Minors (Court Consent to Relationships) Legislation Bill.

I too add my congratulations to the member Jo Hayes for shepherding this bill through the House, and I’m actually really delighted to speak on a bill that has cross-benches support. It is a different feeling in the House, absolutely, when we get to talk on bills where we all actually agree that this is an important matter. I think we all do agree absolutely that the forced marriage of young people is wrong—absolutely, we do—so it is with great pleasure that I take a stand tonight.

I would also like to acknowledge Dr Jackie Blue in the gallery tonight. Boy, you’ve had a great few weeks, haven’t you, ma’am, with some wonderful legislation working through the House. It’s an interesting time to be in Parliament—125 years we’ve had the vote, and we get to talk on these matters.

I’d also like to acknowledge the member Louisa Wall. It was a bit of a harrowing speech, absolutely, but it’s the things that we have to talk about in this House, because these are the things that happen across our nation and in our world. It’s important that we speak the hard speak, we talk the hard talk, and we raise these issues.

So I turn now to the bill. This bill amends three Acts: the Civil Union Act 2004, the Care of Children Act 2004, and the Marriage Act 1955. I was greatly appreciative of the member Louisa Wall for telling us about the Marriage Act and its long history—quite harrowing history, too. I can’t imagine being married at 12.

This bill, as we’ve heard, provides that a Family Court judge, essentially, has to consent to the marriage of young people, minors—people of the age of 16 and 17. It’s really important that if we all think about ourselves at the age of 16 or 17—certainly, I was having way too much fun to actually think about marriage as a teenager. But, essentially, what would have needed to happen if I’d wanted to get married when I was that age was that my parents would need to consent.

There’s about 30 marriages a year that we believe—these are the stats that we can pull. So it’s not a lot of people in that age group, and, predominantly, those people who are seeking the consent are young women. So they’re young women of the age of 16 and 17 who are seeking consent, in a perfect world, of their parents to marry, but what we know is that this isn’t a perfect world. What we know is that, in fact, some families are coercing their daughters into marriage, and this bill absolutely addresses that matter.

Where the parental balance has gone, or there is a reason that perhaps isn’t in the young person’s best interests, the Family Court judge gets to make a decision, and it’s really important that this happens. It’s the objectivity of the courts—a judicial protection for our young people—which enables them perhaps to have a voice when they are often quite voiceless and, often, isolated young people who may not feel, within the confines of their family, that they can voice dissent to getting married.

So I will, with your indulgence, Mr Assistant Speaker, just look at new section 18 of the Marriage Act, “Marriage of persons 16 and 17 years of age”. What does the judge need to pay attention to when looking at the consent of the young person, or looking to see whether they genuinely consent to this marriage? I will read this because it’s a little section: “(4) A Family Court Judge may, on receipt of an application” by the applicant—the person who is 16 or 17 years of age—take into account that “(a) the party has made the application voluntarily, free of undue influence or coercion; and (b) the party understands the consequences of the application and wants the Judge to consent to the intended marriage; and (c) the intended marriage is in the party’s interests.” Now, that’s pretty wonderful, really. That takes into account the views and values of that young person. It gives them a voice, absolutely.

“(5) In determining whether the intended marriage is in a party’s interests, … the Judge must take into account …, [but] without limitation,”—so they can take into account lots of other things as well—“(a) the age and maturity of the party; and (b) [their] views; and (c) any views of the party’s parents [or] guardians that can reasonably be ascertained; and (d) any other information available to the court relevant to the party’s application.” So, very clearly, how does it work? The child, the young person, gets asked. The judge makes an objective and independent decision, and whether the marriage can be agreed to or not becomes a decision that is taken from the parent. So where the parents aren’t acting in the best interests of the young people, this takes care of it.

Of course, through the rest of the changes in the legislation, we have this theme revolving throughout the legislation. I think, certainly for me, having worked in the area of domestic violence and having worked very closely with Shakti Ethnic Women’s Refuge over many years, what I have come to learn and what I have come to know is that this is a highly specialised area of work, and I want to also acknowledge and thank the women at Shakti for their ongoing work. Culture and the context of working with families within the context of ethnicity is different work. It’s expert work, and it is absolutely important that we must acknowledge that at Shakti Ethnic Women’s Refuge, the workers there go beyond and above in order to support our families.

I’d also like to acknowledge my friend and colleague Priyanca Radhakrishnan for her work. She has, in her own thesis, addressed this matter, and I’m just trying to think—Unholy Matrimony is the name of her Master’s thesis. The work that she did while working at Shakti and alongside her community is absolutely to be commended. It is the stories of our families—particularly for those of us who are not within those cultural contexts—that are being told. It is important that we tell these stories. It is important that we understand that in this country, these things happen, and we need to prevent them.

So I’m absolutely delighted to acknowledge my colleague Priyanca Radhakrishnan and to thank her for her work, which she continues to do, and she was a member of the Justice Committee. With that, it is my great pleasure to commend this bill to the House.

Kia ora, Mr Assistant Speaker. Thank you very much. I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to acknowledge the member in charge of the Minors (Court Consent to Relationships) Legislation Bill and to join with the voices acknowledging Jo Hayes and the bringing forth of this piece of legislation. I also wish to join with the other voices and acknowledge Dr Jackie Blue and the work that has gone on before.

I want to acknowledge the Commonwealth Women Parliamentarians association, which attempted to have a name from every woman from every party in this House placed on this bill and then bring it to the House. Not only would this bill have made history but that would have made history, and I just say that I think we need to continue to find that piece of legislation, and we need to make that happen. My understanding is that there is no barrier to that. Therefore, let’s go at it, ladies.

I do want to say, however—and it has been articulated by other speakers—that it’s calculated that this bill might affect 30 young people here in New Zealand. There’s two things I want to pick up on. First of all, 30 doesn’t sound like much, but in my family, we have one of them. So when it is somebody very close to you who, with their sister, has had to go through and actually reach out to Shakti and have Women’s Refuge lift them up, with the police, and then bring them down here, where Shakti Wellington—and we have not solved the issue of funding to Shakti Wellington yet. It is something we must solve, and we must solve it soon. But when it strikes your own family in this way, then you realise that it might be only 30, but it’s 30 too many.

The second thing I would want to just pick up on is that one of the previous speakers corrected herself when she started to use the word “child” but changed that statement to “young person”. In many other pieces of legislation that have passed through this House in the not too distant past, a “child” is defined as anybody under the age of 18—in our court system now; in our youth justice system—so I absolutely don’t want to take away from this piece of legislation and the fact that this is a step forward, but it’s merely a step forward. This is a step that we need to take.

The next part of the conversation is that when these young people show up at the Family Court, they go in with the judge, and they come out and the judge has said “No, we’re not going to allow them to marry.”, who’s going to be there to protect them from their family? Who’s going to be there to actually stand up for them in front of their father and their mother against what is—and let’s not put judgment on it, but it is a cultural norm from somewhere else, and we are trying to say, “This is the line here.” Who’s going to be doing that? Is that going to be Shakti Wellington? Is that going to be Shakti? Is that going to be Women’s Refuge? Who is that going to be, because that’s the next question here.

The other part of the question is that there were at least three submissions that were made that never got mentioned in the select committee report. One of them was Shakti Community Council’s position, which was to “Raise the minimum legal age for marriage from 16 years … to 18 years (with or without parent consent) in line with the worldwide trends in Western countries.” The Human Rights Commission: “The Bill aims to ensure that 16 and 17-year olds who wish to marry, are not being coerced to do so. The Bill removes the ability of parents to consent to the marriage of children under 18 and replaces it with an application to Court and a decision of a Family Court Judge. The Commission believes that the Bill should go further than this in protecting the minors from coercion to marry by removing the ability for those under 18 years to get married at all.” Family Planning New Zealand: “We raise questions about whether the law should include any provision [at all] for 16 and 17 year olds to marry. In its most recent evaluation of New Zealand, the Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination Against Women … recommended that New Zealand ‘Revise the legal minimum age of marriage to 18 years without any exceptions for parental consent’.”

This is the next conversation we need to have. If, under so many other pieces of legislation, these are children, why in this nation are children allowed to marry? Now that’s not a conversation for today, but it’s the next one that perhaps, ladies, we might be able to put our signatures to.

The only other thing I’d like to do—because I’m not going to hold this bill up any more—is I want to acknowledge Dr Parmjeet Parmar. She hasn’t been acknowledged to date, but she was in the Commonwealth Women Parliamentarians association when I was part of it in the last term—I have been unable to go to the meetings since I’ve become a Minister—and she made very clear the difference between arranged marriages and forced marriages. I want to place that on the record because this is not about making a judgment on other people’s culture, across the board. This is about a statement inside New Zealand about where we believe the line needs to be drawn for our children and our young people.

So I want to acknowledge Dr Parmjeet Parmar, who made it very, very clear that there is a difference between a forced marriage and an arranged marriage. But even an arranged marriage can wait until people are 18. Kia ora, thank you.

It’s my great privilege to rise and give a speech on this, the Minors (Court Consent to Relationships) Legislation Bill, and we look forward to it becoming an Act this evening.

I want to begin, as others have, by congratulating Jo Hayes. It is a great achievement to steer a bill through its passage in this Parliament, and to do so as a member’s bill is a particular achievement. It’s one, certainly, that I haven’t achieved yet and that I hope to achieve in my time in Parliament. Congratulations, Jo. In congratulating Jo, of course, I have to congratulate Jackie Blue, and it is wonderful to see Jackie Blue here this evening. I think what the passage of this bill from Jackie to Jo shows is that there is great friendship between parliamentarians, particularly when it can be in pursuit of common causes and objectives.

In that sense, I do want to dwell on the cross-party work that has allowed this bill to get to this point. It is a very positive sign of what is possible in this House that this is a bill that today, we hope, will receive a unanimous vote of support in this Parliament. I want to thank, in particular, the Justice Committee, who, I understand, worked productively and constructively to ensure that this bill did what it set out to do without having adverse implications for others, and who worked constructively to ensure that this could pass into law.

As is so often the case with pieces of legislation like this, I want to acknowledge all those men and women behind the scenes who advocated for its existence, whose advocacy and tireless speaking for those who may not have otherwise had a voice ensured that the likes of Jackie and Jo knew that this was a cause that should be furthered. Of course, the Commonwealth Women Parliamentarians, but other organisations like Shakti, the National Council of Women of New Zealand, Women’s Refuge, New Zealand Family Planning, and those who have argued for the human rights progress that this bill represents—thank you to all of them.

Of course, while this bill, rightly, applies to both men and women, pragmatically, we can see that this is a bill whose application largely applies to women, and, in that sense, we tonight take another step forward in women’s continued progress, of not only equal rights but equal opportunities in New Zealand. We reflect that, 125 years ago, women fought for the right to vote for the people of this Parliament, and gained that right. I want to take a small moment of personal reflection to note that 125 years ago my great-great-grandfather, in this New Zealand Parliament, voted to support women’s right to vote. I think he would be proud of us today to see women continuing to work together to ensure that our rights and opportunities are furthered.

In this case, of course, what we are protecting is, potentially, as the previous speaker, Tracey Martin, said, a very small group of people. In the previous year, only 30 times did a 16- or 17-year-old marry, and in 80 percent of those cases they were women. But this is an issue of the sort that Parliament should and must deal with from time to time, whose impact may not be widespread in terms of numbers of people impacted but whose impact on those individuals is so profound that it behoves us to take action, because the impact on those individual women, if even one of those 30 were forced into a marriage or civil union or de facto relationship against their will, with the threat of physical or emotional abuse, with the threat of rape—if those things are the case, then it is so abhorrent to this House that we are prepared to put in place legislation of this sort to prevent it. It speaks to the integrity of this Parliament that we will take measures like this even where the application may be so narrow, because we realise the depth of the injustice at stake.

What this bill protects against is, of course, young women who are vulnerable because of their age, because they are only 16 or 17, and because they are still subject, in many ways, to the control of their family. It protects those women from threats that could be emotional, psychological, physical, or financial by handing to the Family Court the discretion to apply judgment about whether or not that young woman needs to be protected from a marriage that may in fact be unjust. I think it’s important that we acknowledge that this aligns with article 16 of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women.

I would note also that in passing this law, Parliament again acknowledges the role of judges in making sound judgments about what is right and what is proper, because, in this case, judges must be satisfied that a marriage is voluntary, that it is free from undue coercion, that the applicant understands the consequences, and that the applicant actually wants the judge to consent to it. It also allows for an objective assessment of the applicant’s interests. It allows the judge to consider whether the person has the age and maturity, whether the views of their parents are having an undue influence on them, and whether there is any other information that may be considered. In this sense, I want to congratulate the drafters of this bill and those who have worked on it, because I think it gives broad discretion to judges that will ensure good decisions can be made and that people at risk can be protected.

I want to take a moment, because we are discussing a subject that is a little bit dark, to reflect, actually, on the positivity of marriage and relationships and civil unions and de facto relationships, because that is actually the institution that is at stake here. That is the institution, in a sense, that we are seeking to protect, as well as the individual women. This bill encourages us to reflect on what the nature of a marriage should be, what the nature of a committed, long-term relationship should be, and I would hope it would be to the agreement of all members in this House that what we expect from those relationships is love, commitment, forgiveness, and kindness. For each of us in this House who have had relationships of a long-term nature with those elements in them, we know how sacred those things are, and we know that it is one of the ultimate expressions of human optimism for two individuals to enter into a relationship together, seeking that those values be continued into the future. It is an institution that we should seek to protect from the kind of corruption that a coerced marriage represents, because that is absolutely antithetical to what marriage is actually about. So I think that in furthering this legislation tonight, we are not only protecting individual women but honouring what it is that we expect long-term relationships to be about.

At this point, in what could be seen as a slightly sentimental move, I want to quote from a New Zealand poet—Jenny Bornholdt, one of my favourites. Forgive me; I’m an English literature student. She wrote a poem called “Wedding Song”, in which she said, “Now you are married try to love the world as much as you love each other. Greet it as your husband, wife. Love it with all your might as you sleep breathing against its back.” When we consider that sublime idea of what marriage is, we then contrast it with the low of what marriage could be if we did not protect women and men as we are with this legislation tonight.

If we want to reflect on that low, I want to use the voice of a young woman who, in June this year, marched in Auckland in a march about a future without violence. She chose to stay anonymous, but her voice should be heard in this House tonight, because she spoke of being forced into marriage—an eventuality she avoided. She spoke of the devotion she had to her parents but also the psychological abuse she had been subject to as a member of that family. She spoke of being forced into a marriage in which she remembered feeling like she would never be happy again, and she spoke of moving from a psychologically abusive life with one family to a psychologically abusive life with an abusive husband.

That reality, that story, is what we here tonight stand up against. We say no one should be in that situation, and we will use the powers of this Parliament, we will give powers to our courts, to prevent that situation. Just because we don’t typically see situations like this occurring does not mean that we should not take great steps to prevent them from happening, because the injustice of those things is so great, and the corruption they do to practices we hold so dear is so great, that we as a House will act to remove them.

So I end by mirroring the whakataukī from Jo and saying that tonight, with all of us present, we weave together to make a great step forward. Congratulations to all of those who made it happen. Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker.

I regret I haven’t consulted with the other parties in relation to the point of order I’m just going to make—I was engrossed in the speeches, actually. This has been a very powerful contribution, from all the speakers tonight, and I am seeking leave for the House to rise early in order for the next speaker not to have a broken speech—so just for the dinner adjournment, a couple of minutes early. I so seek leave.

Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There appears to be none.

Sitting suspended from 5:55 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.

It’s a huge honour to get to stand and mark this occasion, which is a really significant moment in New Zealand’s history. I would like to acknowledge—add my voice of acknowledgment to Jo Hayes for bringing the bill to this point. I think I said in my second reading speech, and I’ll say it again, you’ve brought us all to this point, and that is no small achievement. To get a bill passed is one thing, but to bring the House together in support of a piece of legislation is very significant. I want to acknowledge you and the Commonwealth Women Parliamentarians and, of course, the wonderful Dr Jackie Blue for all of your work to bring us this piece of legislation and to the point of passing it in a united way this evening.

Of course, it’s important too to acknowledge Shakti, who have been acknowledged by many speakers this evening. They brought this issue to public attention, and it is where they’ve been telling us for many years that our response to family violence wasn’t meeting the particular dynamics that many of the women that they were supporting were experiencing and that they identified significant gaps in our legislation. Forced marriage, and particularly forced marriage of girls, were particular holes. They’ve also brought to our attention dowry abuse as well as female genital mutilation. So I want to really acknowledge their work and note that this piece of legislation is significant in improving our collective response to domestic violence.

I too, again, will acknowledge the member Priyanca Radhakrishnan for her important academic work in this space, from when she was working at Shakti, that clearly defined this issue as an issue of domestic violence and that it is not an issue of religion, because there is no major religion in the world that supports this practice, and it is not a matter of culture, because there is significant variation in the dynamics of domestic violence across socio-economic groups. Therefore, it cannot be considered to be a culturally bound issue. However, we do know that certain populations and groups of young women are more likely to experience these dynamics around family violence. It is really important that we listen to their experiences and respond appropriately as legislators and as parliamentarians. So it’s fantastic to see that happening tonight.

As has been mentioned by others, this is not a huge issue. There are not thousands of young women being affected by this. But the truth is we don’t exactly know the scale of the problem. Shakti, over, I think, a five-year period, have talked about working with about 300 cases of forced marriage. So that’s not necessarily exclusively young women but does give us a sense because, of course, that’s not going to be all of the cases. We know that in terms of refuge they will only see, I think, about 10 percent of the cases of family violence across the country. We know that this is likely to be more significant than what the numbers tell us, particularly in relation to forced marriage. Statistics New Zealand identified 282 sixteen-year-olds and 17-year-olds who were recorded as married in the 2016 data. So there is a specific population that we need to make sure that we are meeting their needs and protecting, in fact.

I do want to acknowledge the work of the Justice Committee, as well, in really grappling with some quite gnarly issues, I think, in relation to the bill. I personally felt that it was significantly strengthened. As a personal opinion, I would’ve loved to have seen—and maybe that’s the next step—that we said “No.” to marriages of 16-year-olds and 17-year-olds full stop. But the bill certainly went beyond marriage and included de facto and civil union relationships. I think, of course, when we think about the fact that our human rights legislation says that there shouldn’t be discrimination on the basis of marital status, it makes sense that we should broaden this legislation and ensure that protection for our girls in de facto and civil union relationships. I also understand that, you know, there is a particular type where marriages may not be formalised within our legal system but are culturally sanctioned. That would not necessarily have been covered by the bill in its first form. So I think that is particularly important.

What it will mean is that their judge will need to consider whether the girls want the marriage and that they fully understand the implications for their life of getting married at that time. I think they are very important considerations. But even more than that, the judge will also be required to be assured of the free will and to assess whether the marriage is in the best interests of that girl, taking into account her age and maturity, taking in the views of parents and guardians and wider information, including cultural reports, which is part of this, and that there will be legal advice and representation available for these young women.

I do think that while taking in the advice from parents and their viewpoints is important, it is the major shift that as our law at the moment allows marriage for 16-year-olds and 17-year-olds with parental consent, it is really important that we are putting that in the context and with ensuring judicial oversight of that. We’ve heard from young women recently at the rally that Shakti organised just a few weeks ago: a young woman talking about how—saying, and in quotes—“I know that listening to your parents seems like the right thing to do, but it was wrong.”, talking about her parents forcing her into a marriage she did not want to enter.

We tell young people all the time that you need to listen to your parents, you need to do what your parents tell you. It’s one of those things. But when there’s violence at hand and views that take away and have lifetime consequences for those young women, actually, we need to be able to intervene and be able to say, “Actually, no. It is not appropriate what your parents are asking you to do. You have free will.”

I spoke in the first reading of forced marriages as a form of slavery, where there is, in effect, State-sanctioned rape and binding of girls to lives of degradation. That is something that we all need to stand against. I want to congratulate Jo Hayes again and this House for coming together and making that stand and another step towards a society free of domestic violence for everyone.

Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker. It is such a privilege to stand and take a call at the third reading of the Minors (Court Consent to Relationships) Legislation Bill. When we come to this House, there are some bills that are tweaks, there are some bills that bring legislation that is outdated into the 21st century, and then there are some bills that will actually change lives, and it’s into that category that this bill squarely falls.

I want to begin by dedicating my third reading speech to the young women who have come forward and sought help, sought support—young women who have either been threatened to be forced into marriage or who have actually experienced this horrific act of domestic violence. I dedicate this speech to them, and also to the women who have supported them—supported them, walked alongside them, and been their advocates for many, many years because many of them have felt helpless in that journey that they have gone through in supporting some of the young women who have come out for help, because forced marriage is a hidden issue in New Zealand. There is a lack of understanding amongst agencies, whether Government agencies or non-governmental agencies, in terms of what forced marriage actually is. That then hinders their ability to carry out a proper risk assessment of these young people, and I know that they feel helpless, because I have been in that position.

Forced marriage is a hidden issue for two reasons—one, because often it is not talked about. That could be because domestic violence more broadly still has a stigma across communities, across our society, here in New Zealand. It could be because sometimes parents who force their children into marriage—and I say sometimes—do it for nefarious purposes. Sometimes it is for monetary gain, and there’s shame involved there and it’s kept under wraps; sometimes it’s because people from our own communities don’t actually realise that it’s happening. They don’t realise sometimes that the marriage ceremony they are witnessing is not consensual between the two parties. It’s a hidden issue also because there is an imbalance of power here, especially when we’re talking about young women who are forced into marriage. It is because their families are the ones who are perpetrating this violence—families, their parents—the very people who are supposed to keep them safe, and there’s shame in that as well. But I want people who are in that situation today to know that there is no shame in seeking help; that it’s OK to seek help.

Forced marriage is a form of domestic violence. As the member Jan Logie mentioned in her speech as well, it’s not a cultural or a religious issue per se because it is not condoned by any world religion. There are movements within all of our cultures and ethnic communities that fight against this. It is a human rights violation, and I just want to read a quote at this point from the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe in 2005. This is a quote: “Forced marriages and child marriages constitute serious and recurrent violations of human rights and the rights of the child. It is an outrage that, under the cloak of respect for the culture and traditions”—or perceived culture and traditions, I’d add—“of certain communities, there are authorities which tolerate forced marriages and child marriages although they violate the fundamental rights of each and every victim.” And that, essentially, is what we are talking about. This bill takes one step in the direction of addressing this, and I’ll get to that in a minute.

Forced marriages are different from arranged marriages because of the lack of consent, and, in fact, the addition of coercion in many places. Young women I’ve worked with have been coerced into marriage sometimes. Sometimes there’s horrific psychological and emotional abuse that is a lot harder to detect, really. There is physical abuse as well. Sometimes it is done by parents who think they’re actually doing what’s best for those children. Sometimes, we have young people who have grown up in two different worlds, virtually, in a family that has very rigid gender norms and stereotypes, where a woman’s place or a young girl’s place is defined in a certain way. Girls who then go out and work or go to school in a different environment, where the norms are different, face an issue: which one’s right? Which one’s accepted? In some families, that is a conversation that’s had, and it’s worked on together. But in some families where the rigidity is such that they won’t be broken, these young women are forced into marriage as a way to control their behaviour and sexuality, a way to preserve a sense of honour that reflects on the family as well, and it’s not right.

What does this bill do? I’ll go over it briefly because members before me have gone into the details. It, basically, closes a loophole under the current Marriage Act that allows 16- or 17-year-olds who want to get married to get parental consent to get married. This bill, when it’s passed, will remove that requirement for parental consent and replace it with Family Court consent through a judge. Essentially, it’s a very simple change. It’s a simple change that has had an incredibly long history and will have a transformational future for those people whose lives it will impact.

The Family Court judge must be satisfied that there is consent; that both parties, if they’re both 16 or 17, consent to this marriage or civil union or de facto relationship; and the age and maturity of the individuals are part of the consideration that the judge gives as well. The parents’ and guardians’ views, as Jan Logie mentioned as well, are considered. It’s not a huge component of the consideration, as I understand it, but they are considered, and that’s an acknowledgment that not all parents force their 16- or 17-year-olds into marriage and, therefore, those views are also taken into consideration. There is an avenue, through this bill, for other information to be requested—for example, a cultural report, which can be provided to shed a bit more light into the context within which this occurs. The judge then decides whether the application is accepted or declined. If a declined application results in a marriage, then there are penalties for that, as well. A registrar is not allowed to provide a licence to authorise a marriage between 16- or 17-year-old unless there is court consent.

So, essentially, that’s what this bill has done. Why is it important? I understand that this is the first bill to go through this House that is directly related to an aspect of forced marriage. That is hugely important. That is momentous because it starts a conversation, a conversation that, as we’ve acknowledged before in this House, was actually begun many, many years ago—over 10 years ago—but it starts a conversation in this House around the issue of forced marriage.

This bill has quite a narrow focus. It doesn’t address the issue of forced marriage more broadly; it addresses it quite narrowly. But it’s a step, and it’s an important step that will protect some of our 16- and 17-year-olds who are likely to face this. But we need to do more. This is a good step in the right direction, but there is a broader conversation to be had about the broader issue of forced marriage, because there are others who are not 16 or 17 years old who are forced into marriage as well. There are other issues that disproportionately affect these communities—my communities—issues like dowry abuse that need to be addressed in this House as well.

This bill, once it’s passed, is likely to result in young people—perhaps, whose applications have been declined by the Family Court—facing even more pressure from their families and, therefore, more pressure on some of the services that support them, and so I’m proud that this Government has actually boosted front-line services funding through the Budget this year to ensure $76 million extra that will ensure a funding boost for 150 family violence providers.

Very quickly, it is a privilege to speak to this bill, because I have been part of this from the time that I worked in Shakti, before I came to this House, lobbying successive Governments for change, presented at the select committee that I then sat on till recently, the Justice Committee, and thank you all, members opposite, for listening to the arguments that were made and for making change, because that’s what we’re here to do. Thank you to the member Joanne Hayes; to Dr Jackie Blue, who was in the gallery until recently; to everyone who’s been a part of this journey; to Shakti, of course; to the Commonwealth Women Parliamentarians; and to one person I want to name specifically, a police inspector, Brigitte Nimmo, who headed the Family Violence Unit and worked with me on the issue of family violence. She is no longer with us. She’s not alive, but I pay tribute to her memory. Thank you.

I understand this is a split call. You have five minutes—Harete Hipango.

Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker. In taking this brief call—like my colleagues who have addressed the House and those of you who are listening on Parliament TV—it is, indeed, a privilege to be able to stand and speak to this. It’s an historical and significant moment, as has been acknowledged by my colleagues here. As a lawyer, my training is very matter-of-fact. I tend to be non-emotive. However, as a mother of three adult children, two of those being daughters, there is a touch of emotion in my delivery this evening. They are young women who have been raised in privilege and opportunity, where they will not be exposed to the type of vulnerabilities that have been raised and addressed in the House and, particularly, addressed in this Minors (Court Consent to Relationships) Legislation Bill.

To my colleague Jo Hayes, seated just in front of me, I acknowledge you, and also Dr Jackie Blue, who was in the House previously. I say that this is Dr Jackie Blue’s blueprint, as this passes into law—and it is only a matter of course because of the cross-party support that is there—and it has a touch of Hayes about it. It’s a “Blue Hayes”. Both are associated with the National Party, but I acknowledge everybody, cross-party, for the colourful contributions and the acknowledgments that have been woven into the stories that have been shared in the House this evening. I acknowledge the Justice Committee and, of course, the Commonwealth Women Parliamentarians for the work and the advocacy that has been advanced to get it to this stage.

I’ve had the privilege of speaking three times now, addressing the House on this bill, and I’ve said particularly that this bill is premised on protections and providing the umbrella of protectionism to those of our most vulnerable. We’ve heard the stories shared in the House this evening, particularly focused on young women who have been subjected to or the target of forced or forcible marriages and the duress, the coercion, and the compulsion as a result of that. However, I have indicated in my previous speeches that this legislation is not gender specific or gender biased. There may be the rare situation where there is a young man who is exposed to vulnerabilities in terms of that as well, so let’s not forget that.

I’m now just casting my lens over the legislation, because this bill—the Minors (Court Consent to Relationships) Legislation Bill—is really in three parts. Of those parts, Part 1—specifically new section 18, inserted by clause 8—is addressing the marriage of persons 16 and 17 years of age, so therefore is an amendment to the Marriage Act 1955. Then I turn to new section 19, inserted by clause 14 in Part 2 under this bill, and that is an amendment to the Civil Union Act 2004. Then there is also, finally, Part 3, “Amendments to Care of Children Act 2004”, and replacement section 46A, inserted by clause 20, is “Consent for de facto relationship”. The test that a judge requires to satisfy it is formulaic in each of those clauses that I have referred to, so the standard and the test and the evidence is the same and applicable to each of those specific statuses or natures of a relationship.

What hasn’t been addressed in this House—and I’m going to draw on my years of advocacy and representation as court-appointed counsel for a child or children, and my youth advocacy role as well. There have been situations in my role where I have had concerned parents who have approached me, where they have an under-17-year-old, 16-year-old, and, in a particular instance, their daughter entering into a de facto relationship and the parents being powerless as to what they can or can’t do in terms of curtailing that. This law is going to enable parents to have their views heard before a court, before a judge, and for a judge to decide and establish the views and interests of the affected parties, which will be not only the young persons in those relationships but also the views of the parents and the guardians being factored in and taken into account.

So, conversely, this law is going to adhere to, listen to, and, to some extent, protect the interests of a protective parent who’s concerned about the compulsion or duress of a young woman entering into a de facto relationship, or into a marriage, or into a civil union. I say it’s a formulaic test because for each of those statuses of that relationship, a judge is going to have to be required to be satisfied that consent is willingly forthcoming; however, the views of the parents are taken into account as well.

In commending this bill to the House, I again acknowledge everybody who has contributed to this in a very, very emotional but also matter-of-fact way, and in such a way that our vulnerable become the least vulnerable. Kia ora tātou.

I’m actually really, really proud to be able to stand and take a call on this, the third reading of the Minors (Court Consent to Relationships) Legislation Bill. I was not part of the Justice Committee, which heard from submitters around this, but I have spoken to this on a few occasions now, and the one thing, when I look back on the times that I have spoken on this bill—and it’s something that the Hon Maggie Barry said when she referred to this situation as often being the untold story.

Actually, at the time, that made me feel quite emotional when she said that. I had to think why on earth does that really tug at my heartstrings and make me feel quite emotional when she said that, and I think it’s probably the fact—as has been said in the House tonight—that those who are mothers might look at their daughters or sons, potentially, of that age group. I think to myself how I might feel in that situation as a 16- or 17-year-old girl being pressured by parents, or whomever, to enter into a marriage or a potentially lifelong commitment that I might actually not want—as an individual and a person who has a mind of my own, having to be told how the rest of my life is, potentially, going to be playing out.

I also want to acknowledge Dr Jackie Blue, who originally brought this to our attention, and I really want to acknowledge and congratulate Joanne Hayes on shepherding this bill through the House and getting it to this third reading. I think it’s something that’s really, really worth celebrating. Given the collegiality across the House and through the select committee and everything, I think that actually, in fact, everyone will be celebrating this this evening.

I just want to talk a little bit about the legislation but also a bit about why this is so important to not only us as members of the Government but everyone as members of this House. Forced marriage, we know, has no place here in New Zealand Aotearoa—no place at all—and this bill is going to protect our young people, who are sometimes our most vulnerable people: 16- and 17 year-olds. They are at an extremely vulnerable age and time in their life.

I think back to something that Dr Deborah Russell said when she talked to this bill the last time she spoke on it. She spoke about what influence we have as parents over our children. As a young person, if your parents really put the pressure on you, you want to please, you don’t want to be in trouble, you don’t want to be punished, and in some situations you just do it just to keep the peace. Being put into the situation of a forced marriage—I agree with all the sentiment and all the words that have been spoken tonight in that it actually is a form of abuse. As a country, our abuse is far too high and absolutely unacceptable. I think this bill goes some way to making some steps towards helping to really erase that, and it’s something that we really need to do in our society.

This is a life-changing bill for some of our young people. It’s going to give them a voice—a voice that they didn’t have, necessarily, before—and it’s really important that we give them that voice. People’s parents will no longer be the ones who decide or insist on marriages, and the fact that it must go through the Family Court—through a neutral body, shall we say, that has no vested interest in the outcomes of this potential marriage—is hugely important. I think that it’s also really important that de facto relationships have been included in this legislation as well, because often that’s what a lot of people are entering into these days.

Just again, congratulations to Jo Hayes. I really commend this bill to the House.

Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker. I’m thrilled to have the opportunity to speak in this third reading of the Minors (Court Consent to Relationships) Legislation Bill. For those that may have just started watching this, yes, absolutely, peace has broken out in Parliament. It doesn’t happen too often. But, for those of you who may have just started watching or listening, this is a members’ day, and the members’ day bill process is often, I think, derided at times in the public area, but I think today is a wonderful example of the impact that a member’s bill can have. I want to talk about a number of those impacts.

The first is, of course, when a member of Parliament—list or electorate—raises an issue, brings the voice of a group to Parliament, and that is the job of each and every one of us in this House. There will be many, many MPs who never ever have the opportunity to have a member’s bill pulled from the ballot. But I want to start by paying a tribute to Dr Jackie Blue, who was responsible for initially bringing that voice to Parliament in the drafting of this legislation. The unfortunate reality of the ballot, when you have perhaps a one-in-eighty chance of getting a member’s bill pulled, is that her work sat in the ballot for many years. I’m really pleased that Jo Hayes was the member in charge of the bill when it did get its lucky day. We do talk about the luck of the draw, but at the end of the day the legislation that we will pass here in its third reading today will have a massive impact on a very vulnerable group of young New Zealanders.

So in terms of this member’s bill, I think there are a number of things that are quite unique about it and quite special. One has been mentioned before, but I want to bring that back to the House’s attention in terms of the support by the Commonwealth Women Parliamentarians group. Too often what the public see of this House is not peace—it’s everything but—and there are occasions like this where, through the patience of a member who has passed the baton to another in this instance, their patience and their perseverance mean that they are able to bring about real change.

The difference in this one has been the unanimous support that has been very significantly led and championed by the Commonwealth Women Parliamentarians. It’s not a group that most members of the public are probably even aware of, but there are a number of cross-parliamentary groups whose focus on issues that are agreed on, as opposed to issues where we don’t agree, don’t often make the light of day, but this is one fantastic example, and, Jo Hayes, I want to congratulate you on bringing this to the House. It does take a huge amount of work in shepherding a member’s bill through the Parliament, and I would say, this is my 10th year in Parliament, there have been very, very few that have had the unanimous support of the House, so that in itself deserves to be on the record.

One of the other comments that a number of speakers before me have talked about is bringing what has been a very hidden issue to the surface. Members before me have talked about the fact that New Zealand has quite a despicable record in terms of family violence and I can’t think of any greater level of coercion that would occur within a family than parents forcing a 16- or 17-year-old to marry, to enter into what is seen to be a lifelong commitment with no freedom attached. As many members before me have reflected on their own families, and I think of my daughter approaching the age of 15; it’s quite hard to reflect on the fact that, unfortunately—although, fortunately, small in number—in this country we do have parents that would force their children into marriage.

One of the challenges in this legislation was looking at how many young people are affected by this legislation. It’s very hard to put a number on it. The very fact that the New Zealand Parliament has a members’ bill process and has the ability, for what may be seen by some as a small group of New Zealanders—but they absolutely deserve the protection of our laws like every other New Zealander. So whether it’s an issue that affects 10 or 100 or tens of thousands 16- or 17-year-olds a year, they deserve the time of this House, and I’m very pleased and very honoured to be able to say that we are delivering for them today, because we are delivering protection that will change the course of their future, and what better use of parliamentary time than to do that?

The other thing that I want so speak about is the fact that we’ve seen a significant amount of work in the family violence space and we made progress under our time. I’m pleased that the current Government is also picking up the baton and running hard with it, because New Zealanders need them to. There’s one particular request that I do want to put on the record and that is the fact that the family and whānau violence legislation, very much influenced by Jo Hayes’ work, put into that legislation that it would be an offence—so coercion to marry was listed as an offence—which is yet another piece of the protections that we think are necessary. This isn’t a day for politics; this is a day for Parliament agreeing on an issue that absolutely protects a number of young—mostly women but men as well—16- and 17-year-olds.

The other thing that I want to put on record is the importance of New Zealand being an early adopter of this sort of legislation. So, yes, I understand that there are similar laws in Australia, but I reflect on the 11th Commonwealth Women’s Affairs Ministers Meeting that I attended in Apia, Samoa in 2016. This was an issue that was debated by the countries present, and just as New Zealand led the way 125 years ago, giving women the right to vote, this Parliament does have a responsibility in leading the way in legislation that does advance women, that does advance gender equality, that does advance not just the interests but very fundamental rights of young New Zealanders.

So this is a proud day for Jo Hayes, for Jackie Blue, but for this Parliament. I think it is a day that we very tangibly see the importance of the work we do, the importance of our cross-parliamentary groups that do mean we are able to sometimes traverse areas that have been controversial. I don’t think there was much controversy in this one, but to be able to be here today and to pass legislation that means 16- and 17-year-olds will have protection from parents that may have attempted to force them into marriage by requiring the approval of the Family Court, I think, is indeed a proud day actually for each and every one of us, but, more importantly, history-making for young New Zealanders who will bear the benefit of it. Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker.

Kia orana e Te Mana Whakawā. It is an absolute privilege to be the last speaker to make a contribution on the Minors (Court Consent to Relationships) Legislation Bill. I would like to echo all the speakers before me in terms of their congratulations to Joanne Hayes, who also co-chairs the Commonwealth Women Parliamentarians branch of Aotearoa New Zealand, and, of course, to Dr Jackie Blue, who actually kick-started this journey to where we are now here today.

I want to extend my acknowledgment of the chair of the Justice Committee, Raymond Huo, and the seven men and the four women who were part of the select committee. I want to acknowledge their due diligence, as we’ve heard from many of the speakers before that it was a tricky and challenging area to navigate. I want to acknowledge Raymond Huo’s leadership in that select committee. I also acknowledge there were 30 submitters, and in particular the voice of experience from Shakti. We’ve heard many of our members refer to Shakti.

As the last speaker, I’d like to make a brief summary of what all the members today have contributed to this bill. The member Louisa Wall took us through a journey—the history of marriage in New Zealand, where it was legal to marry at the age of 12. She also took us internationally, and in her kōrero she shared the experiences, and we were vicariously traumatised by those experiences that she shared, but nevertheless they needed to be shared.

We heard the Hon Maggie Barry talk about the journey of the bill through the House, and how at one time her name was on this bill. I think her contribution was very insightful. I commented on my notes that it was very insightful.

Angie Warren-Clark talked about the role of the Family Court and the decisions that they would make. All those three speakers—Louisa Wall, Maggie Barry, and Angie Warren-Clark—also mentioned it that has been 125 years since New Zealand women fought for the right to vote. I want to acknowledge Maggie Barry for saying that it was actually a fight; it was not given.

The Hon Tracey Martin spoke about her personal experience in terms of having known someone personally who has gone through this experience of what we are trying to protect children from: forced marriages. She also challenged us in terms of what happens when a licence is declined. What then? What, then, is the protection for those minors whose licence has been declined—protection from whatever inevitability that’s waiting for them after that decline? She also talked about funding and any follow-up that would be required. She also mentioned a member, in terms of the clarification of the difference between forced marriages and arranged marriages. That’s where the Minister the Hon Tracey Martin took us, on an insightful contribution.

The member Nicola Willis talked about the protection of vulnerable women. She also reminded us of what she believes marriage is all about. Jan Logie talked about the work of Shakti, the work of the select committee, and, of course, her aspiration and mission that New Zealand be a society that is free from domestic violence. My colleague Priyanca Radhakrishnan talked about the voice of experience. She dedicated her speech to the courage and the bravery of those young women who have sought help, and also of the tautoko from the other women that had supported these young women when they had sought help. She also talked about closing the loopholes.

Harete Hipango talked about her insight as counsel for a child—she shared it with us. Jo Luxton—quoting Maggie Barry, yet again—talked about the untold story tugging at her heartstrings of a 16- or 17-year-old being forced to marry somebody they did not want, and inevitably the life they lead after that. Louise Upston, the member who just finished, talked about the importance of members’ day and how we as a Parliament are united in this union, in terms of how we are all collectively united in this protection, bringing the voice of a group to Parliament.

So, then, what is my role then as the last speaker? As the chair of the Commonwealth Women Parliamentarians in the Pacific region, I know there is a call from Tonga, from their women, to change the laws of Tonga. I encourage Tonga to look at what’s happening here in New Zealand, because there is still more do to, but I know that they will look at Aotearoa New Zealand for leadership in what we’ve done. There is still more to do.

So, then, I would like to fondly call this piece of legislation the five eyes of love. Why? Well, (1) the journey to the Family Court to get a licence is about love; (2) the judge provides legal representation; (3) the judge asks for cultural advice; (4) parents’ and guardians’ contributions are also asked for and sought by the judge; and, finally, the last eyes of love lie with the judge. I can’t remember—I’m not on the Justice Committee—whether the judges had put in a submission in terms of their responsibility in this.

So if we believe that de facto relationships and marriages are kick-started by love, last year, in 2017, just over 20,000 New Zealanders declared their love through marriage. Just over 8,000 ended their love through divorce. Thirty of our children ended their child status through marriage. A child is still a child until that final flick of the pen that they’re married—16, 17, whether it be your parents, whether it be the judge, at the end of the day they are still a child until they sign that form. This is the importance of what today is all about.

We’ve heard our Prime Minister—maybe I’ll leave that till last. Gender equality talks about equality between men and women. In my summation of today there were no voices of men. There were no voices of men in our House to contribute to this legislation that protects our children. I don’t know why that is. I don’t know why that is. But in this final reading—there were 11 men on the select committee, subbing in and out, and there were four women. But I think it would be advantageous and show leadership to have a man, to hear their voice—hear their voice.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: I’m coming. I’m next.

Oh, you’re next? I’m not the last. My bad, man.

💬 Hon Member: Not that man.

Not that man.

Anyway, when we speak of marriage, of relationships, the three are: (1) a man marries a woman; (2) a man marries a man; (3) a woman marries a woman—those are the three relationships in New Zealand, whether it’s de facto or marriage, and in two out of three a man is involved. So please, the next time we talk about this, have your voice heard, because you make it a union. OK? So that’s my challenge to you.

So to conclude, I have to say something about our Prime Minister. She speaks about her aspiration for New Zealand to be the best country—not just in the Pacific but in the world—to be a child. This piece of legislation is evidence of our care and love for our children, not just our new migrants that come into New Zealand but all of our children. There is still more to do, but today, tonight, this evening, we want to celebrate this step that we’ve taken forward.

I want to end my kōrero by congratulating the co-chairs of the Commonwealth Women Parliamentarians New Zealand branch, Joanne Hayes and Louisa Wall, the work of Dr Jackie Blue and, of course, Jo Hayes as well. I want to end with this whakataukī: aroha mai, aroha atu [let mutual love and respect prevail].

I commend the Marriage (Court Consent to Marriage of Minors) Amendment Bill to this House. Faka‘apa‘apa atu, malo.

[Respectfully, thank you.]

Can I compliment my previous speaker, Anahila Kanongata’a-Suisuiki, on her contribution and pick up her challenge for a male member of this Parliament to contribute to the positive support for this bill. It is an important step for women’s rights in New Zealand, it’s an important step for young people’s rights, and I also think it’s quite an important step, as our country becomes more multicultural and while sticking to those important principles of recognising and accepting diversity, in being clear that there are some values that transcend culture which we need to reinforce as part of New Zealand law.

I am the proud parent of two daughters; one of those turns 17 next week. I find it unconscionable to think of a young woman that age being forced into marriage. Whether it’s by some misread parental obligation or forcing—or however that comes about—it is right that this Parliament is saying no to that in New Zealand and introducing the important check of our Family Court, protecting young people in that situation.

I do agree with those contributions that have been made by many far more capable women colleagues on this issue that this is a form of emotional abuse, it is a form of sexual abuse, and, sadly, it can also be a form of physical abuse. As a member of the Justice Committee, which considered this bill, I was quite surprised and shocked—maybe I have a rather naive background in my lovely corner of New Zealand, in Nelson—to actually realise that there are young people in the situation, particularly where we have new migrant communities, where young women are being forced into marriage and into abusive relationships at a very young age.

I do want to acknowledge that this is not entirely exclusive to new migrants. There are some rather peculiar, strict religious communes of the sort of Gloriavale where I think New Zealanders are equally uncomfortable about the forcing of young women into relationships without them being able to enjoy the basic freedoms that we would want to see associated with New Zealand.

In the select committee consideration of this bill, I found the hardest part was actually in terms of dealing with the situation of de facto relationships. When you’re a legislator, it is relatively easy to say, “You can’t get married or you can’t enter a civil union.” because there is legislative and statutory processes that people go through. It is a whole lot more difficult when Parliament wants to get into trying to regulate as to where people might or might not have de facto relationships. When I visited my daughter at Otago University and was told about some of the people that were young—17 years old—in the equivalent of flatting situations, I had some concern about how we make sure that this legislation is practical as well as being effective in meeting its objective.

I do want to comment on the broader issue around how New Zealand deals with this issue of cultural tolerance, because, yes, we want to be a country that welcomes a diverse range of countries. I am one of those of the view that we are a richer country for the wide range of people that come to our country. Today, there’s been a very significant celebration in my own community of those that have come from Burma as migrants, as they’ve marked the “8/08/88” of their communities and the harshness, and their culture. But where is that line that we need to find as a Parliament between being culturally sensitive to people that may not see things in the way in which New Zealand’s own cultures have developed, and, on the other hand, being firm enough that, actually, no, these things, regardless of culture, are not right. That is where this bill has things in the right place.

I do want to join with others and compliment the members that have been responsible for advancing this bill. Firstly, our former colleague from this side of the House, Jackie Blue, who advanced this cause; obviously, the sponsor of the bill, Jo Hayes, who’s put a large amount of work into it; but I also want to acknowledge Priyanca Radhakrishnan, who I sat on the select committee with. I openly acknowledge your expertise and your contribution. You were very persuasive in persuading me in a number of details of this bill that were more realistic and more knowledgable than I have, and in that way, this is a good bill.

The final point that I want to make in this legislation is this really challenging boundary that we have between where people’s liberties are to be able to hold different religious beliefs, different family arrangements, and where Parliament draws some lines in the sand. I have to say, I don’t think this is a simple area. Yes, this particular issue has been relatively easy to draw the line, at 18, but if we are to be a culturally diverse society, if we are one that is going to be tolerant of religions, if we’re going to be tolerant of different family arrangements that people have, where does the State intrude?

In my early parliamentary career, I had a pretty controversial engagement with the Exclusive Brethren community about where our law works with their particular religious beliefs and the way in which they treat families and members of the community, or whether it be the Gloriavale incident, I still think Parliament has more work to do in this area, in introducing the role of the Family Court to protect vulnerable members of our society from some values and some particular points of view that I think the majority of New Zealanders find inappropriate—as is the marriage of young people under the age of 18.

I think it is entirely appropriate that Parliament tonight celebrates the passage of this bill. As a long-serving parliamentarian, I do pay tribute to the women members who have championed this cause, particularly those that’ve been involved in the Commonwealth Women Parliamentarians. It is the passage of this bill that is a reflection of a very strong, large number of women that now serve in this Parliament who make sure that our country addresses issues of this sort and ensure that New Zealand values protect woman, protect young people, and protect the values which New Zealanders collectively hold.

Bill read a third time.

Waiata