Ms PATTEN (Northern Metropolitan) — My question is to the Minister for Corrections, representing the Attorney-General. It has been reported this week that young Victorian schoolgirls are being unlawfully forced into marriage in record numbers, with authorities investigating dozens of child bride and forced marriage claims. I think we should call it what it is: this is child abuse. Despite numerous amendments to the Crimes Act 1958, why does the act include the defence of consent to sexual penetration of a child under the age of 16, indecent act with a child under the age of 16 and other child sex offences? So what I mean is: there is a defence in the act where the accused believed on reasonable grounds that he or she was married to the child.
Ms Tierney — Sorry, I missed the last line of the question.
Ms PATTEN — Within the Crimes Act 1958 — and we have had numerous amendments to the act over my time here — there is still a defence of consent to sexual penetration of a child where the offender, the accused, and I quote the act:
… believed on reasonable grounds that he or she was married to the child.
The PRESIDENT — Order! But what is the question?
Ms PATTEN — The question is: why is this still in the act?
Ms Document PATTEN (Northern Metropolitan) — Thank you, Minister. I look forward to that. As you say, as a Melbourne man is set to be the first person convicted under federal forced marriage and illegal child marriage laws, it has been reported that he pleaded guilty to marrying the girl only after prosecutors dropped a sexual abuse charge. So can the minister confirm on how many occasions the Director of Public Prosecutions has withdrawn child sexual abuse charges because of the existence of this child bride defence?
The PRESIDENT — Order! Can you focus on a period?
Ms PATTEN — The last five years.
