Warren-Clark AngieANGIE WARREN-CLARK (Labour): 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."