Clendon David; Mallard TrevorDAVID CLENDON (Green): That is fine Mr Mallard. I am sure you know it deep down somewhere. I should probably begin my short contribution on this bill with something of a mea culpa and perhaps even an apology to the member Joanne Hayes who has brought it to the House. I confess that when I first saw the title and just read the top line it occurred to me that the bill might be something of a solution in search of a problem. It simply proposed that 16- and 17-year-olds who wish to marry must go to the court. I have been aware all of my life anyway that 16- and 17-year-olds could marry with parental consent. I thought: if a system is not broken why fix it? Clearly I have learnt something in the intervening few weeks and more so this evening hearing the contributions from members—that actually there is a serious problem that young people are being forced into marriage and that is something we cannot tolerate in this country clearly.I think Tracey Martin indicated 1933 as the point at which—Hon Simon Bridges: Winston was born?DAVID CLENDON: —we allowed 16- and 17-year-olds—ha! That is unkind Mr Bridges. It was the point at which 16- and 17-year-olds could marry with parental consent. This will raise the bar clearly. It is sad to acknowledge that in some instances clearly parental consent is given even against the wishes of the young people involved. Marriage is at least nominally a life-long commitment and people should only enter into it obviously wishing to and at least with consent. I am aware of course that some people enjoy marriage so much that they try it several times but let us not go there.I think the process that the bill describes is a straightforward one. The Family Court is obviously the appropriate place to hear these matters. It is not a matter of dealing with offending or crimes obviously; it is actually about preventing something from happening that really would be in the nature of a crime. As I say the process is laid out. The applicant must be given an opportunity to put their case. Ideally the parents of the applicant ought to be there as is only reasonable because obviously parents always will and should have a view on these matters. It enables the presence of a lawyer and of course at some Family Court proceedings lawyers are either discouraged or not allowed in some instances. I think it is important that people do have legal representation because some of these situations could obviously be quite fraught.It excludes members of the public or media. The last thing one wants in these situations is any sort of a circus or any sensationalisation of a situation. It would be a very difficult and often very painful situation I suspect for people to go through these sorts of things. So I think that the process laid out—finally too that the court may hear evidence that may not otherwise be admissible. The strict laws of evidence do not apply in these instances. Again I think that is appropriate given that it is likely to be members of the public with very little experience or understanding. It gives the judges the widest-possible scope to make decisions on these matters. So I do think the process has clearly been thought through fairly carefully and is appropriate to the task.The point has been made by the MP—by Jo Hayes—that the problem exists primarily in the Pacific and Asian communities. I think it is important that we do differentiate between accepted or cultural practice and forced marriages which are not acceptable I suspect certainly in New Zealand culture more generally. It is also important that we do not get into any sort of a blame game to suggest that any particular cultural or ethnic group—that their practices around birth death marriage coming of age—is better or worse than any other. Every culture every ethnicity has these practices has these norms and that is as it should be. What a dull world it would be if we all did exactly the same thing.This bill clearly differentiates between traditional practice cultural practice and the notion of forced marriages. Forcing young people 16- and 17-year-olds—though I am loath to call them children because many people of that age obviously do not consider themselves children. But the fact is in the greater scheme of things they are very young people and they are very vulnerable in some situations so it is important they not be coerced into these matters.Just two minor things to wrap up that occur to me: the numbers here are not great but I am also aware that the Family Court is running very close to maximum a lot of the time. I think the issue of resourcing the Family Court might be something the select committee might take up and also perhaps support for people after these proceedings. Thank you.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): I do again apologise to the member. It was just a straight mental blank.