Barry MaggieHon MAGGIE BARRY (National—North Shore): Thank you Madam Assistant Speaker. I rise to speak to the Marriage (Court Consent to Marriage of Minors) Amendment Bill a member's bill in the name of Jo Hayes. May I begin by commending Jo Hayes for her tenacity her diplomacy and her ability to consult and talk and ensure that this bill had the support that it needed from all parts of this House and also of a larger section of society that was a little sceptical about its use and others who firmly believed it was important. It is a bill that reflects a small group of women who are very adversely affected and it's a story that is not often told. I think that as a result of this bill there have been discussions which have shone some light on some very unfortunate practices. So in a number of ways Jo Hayes I think that what you've done with this bill is commendable because it has raised consciousness as well as put this bill through the various paces it has needed to get to this stage.It has had a long history. I believe it was about 10 years ago that Jackie Blue the member of Parliament for National worked on this bill with a number of migrant communities and others—Priyanca I know and Louisa Wall. There were a number of people who were involved with this for a long time.Louisa Wall: From 2010.Hon MAGGIE BARRY: That was 2010 so it's been eight years' gestation. When Jackie Blue left Parliament she gave the bill to me. I gave it to someone else who was here briefly and Jo Hayes has picked it up from there. So this has passed through many hands within this House to get to the stage it has now and not without surprises around the amendments. It needed to become an omnibus bill because it amended so many Acts and as civil unions came through as de factos became discussed this bill needed to future proof itself and remain relevant within the law which is what it has done.There were indeed robust discussions at the Justice Committee not because people believed that this bill was wrong but because they wondered if it was still relevant. Was it still needed? Was there a requirement for a bill of this kind in this modern age? And the submitters and the information that we had through our select committee members who are in touch with these communities repeatedly assured us that it was essential.So it is with enormous pleasure that I state the words rarely uttered by me in this House which are that this bill enjoyed unanimous support. There's the argy-bargy that happens in the engine room that is the select committee it comes before this House and further arguments unfold but this is a bill that has unanimous support. It is needed it is wanted it's been a long time coming and I'm hesitant to take up too much more time in the House actually because it's taken long enough. This bill needs to be passed.If this is passed a Family Court judge will now need to consent to the marriage of a 16- or 17-year-old and that is appropriate because at that level the Family Court judge has the wisdom the capacity and the knowledge of how these things work to give a wise decision. If parents are coercing their children—and there is a very big difference between coercion and force. We looked at those definitions for a long time to come up with something that we felt would address the issue.So I think with all the to-ing and fro-ing and with all the things that have happened around this bill it has returned to this House for this final reading in a form that is one that we really can accept as being the best possible law that we can all make to protect this group of vulnerable people. So without hesitation or reservation I commend this bill to the House.