Willis Nicola; Williams PotoParts 1 to 4 schedules clauses 1 and 2NICOLA WILLIS (National): 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.CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): I call Chris Bishop."