David Fawcett (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

Minister, I draw your attention to two points. Firstly, to the issue of the strict liability being applied to the party, who in this case would normally be the groom, the position you have taken, which is that he would be guilty because he probably would have knowledge, is very much the world view of the majority of Australians—that arranged marriages, hence forced marriages, are not the norm and therefore there could be some suspicion. But most of the circumstances that have been reported in Australia are where young women have been taken to another country where arranged marriages are quite often the cultural norm and where two willing participants may be commonplace. So it is well within the bounds of reason that somebody there may have no knowledge nor even suspicion that there has been coercion and forcing of the person—in this case the woman from Australia. So in regard to the oft quoted Edmund Burke who says that all it takes for evil to flourish is for a good man to do nothing, I concur that if there was knowledge by participating in the marriage that person would then commit an offence. But given the cultural norms in many of these countries it is quite conceivable that the other person is viewing this purely as an arranged marriage. So I have a concern that we would be making that person a criminal under Australian law when in actual fact they may have committed no crime.

My second point, and probably the one I am more concerned about, is the government's placing of strict liability on the other party. I ask you, Minister: who has done the greater harm to the victim, the other party or, as evidenced in the majority of the cases reported in the Australian media and brought before Australian authorities, the caregivers and, I believe, shockingly, the parents? It is they who have coerced or in some cases resorted to physical violence and imprisonment of their children in order to force them into the marriage. Surely they are the ones in the vast majority of reported cases who have inflicted the greater harm. So I wonder if you could explain to the Senate why the government has sought to put a strict liability on the groom—or, the other party—who may, because of cultural reasons, be quite innocent, and yet those who have actually inflicted the greater harm are not subject to a strict liability.