Radhakrishnan Priyanca; Williams PotoPRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN (Labour): 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 When we come to this House there are some bills that are tweaks there are some bills that bring legislation that is outdated into the 21st century and then there are some bills that will actually change lives and it's into that category that this bill squarely falls.I want to begin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.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): I understand this is a split call. You have five minutes—Harete Hipango."