Solomon Islands government moves to raise legal marriage age to 18
Photo:
UNICEF/Naftalin
The Solomon Islands government is making moves to raise the legal marriage age to 18.
At the moment, someone can legally marry at 15 with parental consent, something that may change following a review of the Islanders' Marriage and Divorce Act.
Additionally, children can be married in accordance with customary law, which provides no minimum marriage age.
Local media reported that Foreign Minister Peter Shanel Agovaka told parliament this week that a proposed change in a section of the Act aims to align marriage laws with other legal matters, such as the voting age.
He said the move is in line with international human rights standards and growing calls for stronger child protection laws.
World Vision, ChildFund and Save the Children, as members of the Solomon Islands Endim Vaelens Agenstim Pikinini (SIEVAP) Coalition, started the 'Make It 18' campaign to advocate for a change in the Marriage Act to set a minimum marriage age of 18.
A
report led by the coalition of charities
said one in five girls in Solomon Islands is married before the age of 18, and this increases to one in four in rural areas.
Around six percent of girls are married before the age of 15 in Solomon Islands.
Save the Children advocacy and research director Jacqui Southey said there was widespread public support to increase the age.
"There was consensus between children and adults, parents and community members that children's experiences should be playing with their friends, being at school, learning skills," Southey said.
"They also thought that children getting married too young could lead to problems and we know that through the data that problems such as increased risk of domestic violence is a real concern, the inability to finish school, the inability to have good earnings prospects later in life and greater risk of exploitation."
In June,
the Koleasi Community Bylaw
, developed in partnership with Hope Trust and Tearfund, came into force - explicitly prohibiting marriage under the age of 18.
A breach carries a maximum fine of SI$1000. Penalties also apply for organising a forced marriage or harbouring someone against their will.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
RNZ News
16 hours ago
- RNZ News
Mediawatch: 'Surprise' rise in Trump's trade tariff?
One of many headlines calling the 15 percent tariff rate imposed by the US 'a surprise'. Photo: The Post "If the name of New Zealand is seriously so threatened, why didn't New Zealand First introduce this bill 12 months ago? Why not six years ago? Why not negotiate it into the coalition agreement when they formed a government?" Jack Tame asked on his Newstalk ZB show last weekend . He was talking about the New Zealand (Name of State) Bill freshly proposed by NZ First MP Andy Foster, which would legislate New Zealand as the official name of the country. "Could it possibly be that a few hours before ... Australia and the UK achieved lower trade tariffs with the United States, while our government's top officials were apparently surprised to learn that our tariff had been increased?" he asked. Party leader Winston Peters didn't like it. On social media, he pointed out that on the same show five years ago, Jack Tame had backed 'Aotearoa New Zealand' as the official name for our nation. In a long interview about the Bill on the alternative news platform The Platform, Peters said he was delighted his "counter-attack" on Jack Tame was getting good online engagement. The hike in US trade tariffs didn't come up until Peters himself mentioned it at the very end. "Before you go, you know, we've got this thing with the United States and everybody's alarmed. I've seen all the headlines on Radio New Zealand and all the newspapers today. We'll turn this thing around. You watch," the foreign minister said. Since 5 April, US importers of New Zealand products have been paying a 10 percent tariff on all goods - and 25 percent on steel and aluminium. While Tame said the 15 percent tariff the US confirmed late last week seemed to be a surprise to our government and trade officials, the media seemed surprised too. Many news stories - and many headlines - called it a 'surprise' rise . But ahead of that, Trade Minister Todd McClay himself said the tariff could rise to 15 percent. At a media conference earlier, President Trump himself told reporters that the universal tariff could increase to 15 or 20 percent for countries that had not struck deals with the US. Todd McClay also told reporters last week, if the tariff rate goes to 15 percent our exporters have already adjusted and will be able to deal with it. If so, they adjusted a bit better than the surprised media this past week. On Newstalk ZB, Mike Hosking told his listeners the lower rate charged across the Tasman was the real shock. "Australia can land their beef and their wine at 10 percent, we land ours at 15," he complained. But to those surprised by that, Scoop's Gordon Campbell said they shouldn't have been. "We sell them more than they buy from us. In Trumpland, any country that runs a trade surplus with the US is a bad country that is ripping the US off. How bad have we been? Pretty bad, in Trumpian terms," New Zealand is a victim of its own export success, Gordon Campbell said - a bit like butter buyers in our duopolistic supermarkets. Trade Minister Todd McClay also confirmed that 15 percent was no surprise on NZME's rural show The Country . "If we had run a trade deficit with the US like Australia, would we have got 10 percent?," host Jamie McKay asked McClay on Wednesday, in Bangkok en route to Washington to plead our case. "It is as simple as that," the trade minister replied, confirming he had been told as much previously by US trade representative Jamieson Greer. "He said it didn't matter if you had camped out here in Washington, if you'd had a trade deal or you're negotiating one. For any country that had a trade surplus against the US last year - it is 15 percent or more," McClay said. Todd MaClay dodged the next question, about whether we would agree to buy more stuff from the US to reduce our trade deficit. This week McClay and columnist Gordon Campbell both pointed out that the trade surplus has in previous years been flipped by one-off purchases of big-ticket items like aircraft. The deal Trump struck with the EU earlier this month included billions of dollars-worth of energy and military equipment. Many people in many industries are now watching this space, including the media - surely not so surprised by now. Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero, a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
RNZ News
17 hours ago
- RNZ News
What you need to know about Regulations Review Committee and the new law undermining it
Labour MP Arena Williams chairing Parliament's Regulations Review Committee. Photo: VNP / Phil Smith Among Parliament's many committees there is a small cross-partisan powerhouse that receives scant attention. Unlike the 12 subject committees, it isn't a regular forum for critiques of government bills or finance. Unlike Privileges it isn't about scandal and politics, unlike Petitions it doesn't regularly bring human emotion into Parliament. The Regulations Review Committee is small, calm and cooperative. It is like Parliament's off-field referee; a committee for the legal nerd and the constitutional swot. It inspects the government's use of its delegated powers to weed out government overreach. But the Regulatory Standards Bill proposed by ACT leader David Seymour would duplicate and likely undermine its role, by giving a regulation oversight role to a government-appointed group . Recently on The House we reported a briefing to the Reg's Review Committee (as MPs describe it), about the proposed law. As a follow-up we wanted to discuss the committee itself with the MPs that run it, so we met with the leaders of the committee to discuss its purpose, powers, history and how it's responding to the new challenge. By convention, Reg's Review is chaired by an Opposition MP-currently Labour's Arena Williams. The Deputy Chair is National MP Nancy Lu. Rather than acting as political rivals, they operate as a team. "Most of the committee's power is… because it's cross-partisan," Williams said. "I mean, that's what's important here, that we are able-me and Nancy-to work together, to chair the committee in a way which gets buy-in from everyone around the table." Regulations Review manages this cross-partisan approach because its fundamental drive is not about policy, but good law. "Basically, we want good lawmaking," Nancy Lu said, "and we want ministers and departments who have the power to make regulations, to actually make good use of their power and make good regulations for New Zealanders… Sometimes things come to us because there may be inappropriate use of the power (in making regulations), or there are complaints from New Zealanders. And therefore it is our job to look at it bipartisan[ly] and with one common purpose-which is better good lawmaking." National Party MPs Joseph Mooney & Nancy Lu in Parliament's Regulations Review Committee. Photo: VNP / Phil Smith When governments want to change the law in New Zealand they have to ask parliaments to do that. Parliament is sovereign, government is only a subset of Parliament. But primary legislation (the Acts that parliament agrees) can't possibly include all the necessary details for efficient government, so laws often delegate authority to ministers or their departments, to specify or update legislative details later. Those post-hoc details are regulations. "Most New Zealanders will come up against the law," Williams said, "but it'll actually be in regulations. "…So if you've ever tried to, say, install a toilet in your bathroom, you will have run up against what's in the building code. "It's not actually in the primary legislation, but that building code has a big impact on your life." The law that delegates that authority to make regulations is agreed by the House, but the regulations themselves are not approved by the House before coming into force. The Regulations Review Committee fills that gap. It tests existing regulations, and any proposed laws that give regulation-making power. Anyone can make a complaint to the committee about a regulation. The committee can investigate regulations and recommend that the House strike them down ("disallow" them). The committee was created in 1986 in the parliamentary reforms of Labour's Geoffrey Palmer. It was a Labour campaign promise, deemed necessary because Robert Muldoon's National Party government had been using vastly powerful regulations to achieve things that ought to have been approved by Parliament. Things like wage freezes, price fixing and carless days. "Regulation-making was getting to be seen by the public as an overreach in itself," Williams said. "The power of the Executive was seen as a bit out of control. Your fruit and your vegetables, your trip in your car. It was all heavily regulated." The solution was to bring Parliament back into the equation. Williams described the response in 1985 to "out of control" regulation as: "a power for elected officials (who get chosen every three years by their communities), to actually strike that [bad regulation] down. "And so that's what the disallowance power is about. …It was enabling this …pressure valve… to turn off some of that overregulation." In fact very few regulations have been disallowed over the years. This is because the committee - being bi-partisan - tends to opt for soft-power, getting ministers to change poor regulations without resorting to the House by spotting the potential for regulatory over-reach within bills under debate. Williams agreed that soft-power was opted for by the committee. "Ding, ding, bingo! …That's 100 percent true. Most of the committee's power is soft power because it's cross-partisan. "I mean, that's the importance here, is that we are able, me and Nancy, to work together, to chair the committee in a way, which gets buy-in from everyone around the table." Asked whether it might be bad for a new National MP's career-prospects to point out the missteps of senior colleagues who were Ministers, both Lu and Williams laughed. "Great question," Williams said. "Most of the feedback that we have received from our ministers and ministries have been actually quite positive," Lu said. "You know, mostly 'hey, thanks for letting us know. We didn't realise that, but now we know', and… 'we'll make it better next time'. "I think that's what makes the… committee powerful and very unique in its way," Lu said. "And I think it's needed, because we want to make sure that we are using our powers within the appropriate realms and to make sure that we're setting good laws. "So maybe hopefully by calling them out, or by investigation, we can make it better in that way." Green MP Lawrence Xu-Nan in Parliament's Regulations Review Committee. Photo: VNP / Phil Smith Reg's Review is, on paper, one of Parliament's smallest committees, with just five MPs. Three from National and two from Labour. Despite the official membership, recent changes to parliament's rules allow MPs to attend and participate in select committees they are not official members of. A recent Reg's Review meeting included Labour's Vanushi Walters, and apparently Green MP Lawrence Xu-Nan attended often. Williams, as Chair, had a more-the-better philosophy. "It's getting harder in an MMP environment, when we have minor parties that have more sway in any executive government agenda, or indeed, in opposition politics. "It is really great that we have Dr Xu-Nan from the Greens coming along to every meeting and participating in that. "We don't have an ACT member who comes to the committee. And we need more of this ability as parliamentarians to come together and go, 'hang on, does this regulation make sense? Let's do something about it if it doesn't.' " ACT's absence is notable. ACT's brand includes being the natural enemy of bad regulation, but they neither have representation on, nor attend the one parliamentary committee tasked and equipped to fight against it. ACT have instead chosen a different approach, one which may threaten Reg's Review. Their coalition agreement with National includes the passing of a Regulatory Standards Bill, something previous ACT parties have tried and failed to achieve. The bill would, among other things, create an external Regulatory Standards Board, appointed by the Minister for Regulation (currently David Seymour). At first glance, the Board's task appears similar to the current Reg's Review Committee, but it is not. The Board does not have the same powers - it cannot refer regulation to the House to be disallowed. It is a creature of the Executive, not Parliament, and so is on the government side of the governance relationship. It also has a very different idea of what bad law looks like. The new Board would evaluate legislation and regulation against a set of principles embedded in its enabling legislation. The principles consider the effect of legislation on: "existing interests and liberties, including the rule of law, liberties, taking of property, taxes, fees and levies, and the role of courts; and good law-making processes, including consultation, options analysis and cost-benefit analysis." The bill contains a much more detailed list of these principles. While the Board's inquiries could be self-determined, they would also be "in response to stakeholder concerns" and ministerial "direction". The Regs Review Committee also has a list of principles to judge good law-making against. The grounds for referring regulations back to the House are outlined in Standing Order 327. The grounds are that the secondary legislation: While there are concepts that appear in some form in both sets of principles, one set of principles appears focused on good legislative form within constitutional boundaries while the other includes more political philosophy. Regulations Review Committee Chair, Arena Williams said the committee had been "thinking deeply" about the proposed law's impact on the committee's powers, place and processes. She said the prospect of another competing entity was "pretty challenging". Arena said the two bodies appeared similar, but her committee "has this special constitutional place, and traditions that have been built up over many years around the way that we consider whether regulations are doing what they say they will do 'on the tin'." She said MPs had an advantage over appointed board officials, as they represented the affected community. "They get to put us back into Parliament (or not) every three years. …and it makes us all quite focused on… things like, 'how does this really affect someone's life?' "It will ultimately be this committee and the Standing Orders Committee (which proposes changes to Parliament's rules) which have to make some decisions and probably some accommodations …about how to work alongside [each other]. "But ultimately I would say that in our constitutional framework as it is now, that [Reg's Review] has a sort of system of constitutional preference about how it should engage in those issues." That constitutional preference comes from the fact that Regs Review is an instrument of Parliament (which is sovereign). The Regulatory Standards Board would be an instrument of the Executive, which is subservient to Parliament. "I really want to see the Regulations Review Committee as [something that] we can agree as parliamentarians, including ACT members, …is a special part of our constitutional framework. "I think New Zealand is on the good stuff here, when we've got parliamentarians …earnestly and diligently work[ing] through secondary legislation from the perspective of how it's affecting our communities. That's really special. "If [David Seymour] is [saying] there is too much regulation and that there's not a strong enough mechanism to disallow regulations, then this [committee] is the place where I think we should be focussing our attention. "[He should be putting that energy into improving the current] mechanism, so that it is parliamentarians-who are accountable to the people-who are ultimately making the decisions." RNZ's The House, with insights into Parliament, legislation and issues, is made with funding from Parliament's Office of the Clerk. Enjoy our articles or podcast at RNZ.
RNZ News
2 days ago
- RNZ News
CNMI to request 60-day extension on comment period for US military's plans for the territory
Tinian North Field, Northern Marianas, the largest US air base during World War II. Photo: Wikimedia Commons The Commonwealth of Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI) wants more time for residents to share their thoughts about the United States military's plans for the territory. CNMI's delegate to the US Congress Kimberlyn King-Hinds said the CNMI administration will be requesting a 60-day extension on the comment period for the Revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the proposed Mariana Islands Training and Testing and CNMI Joint Military Training. "I know that the governor will be submitting a request for an additional commenting period, 60 days," she said. She said CNMI's leaders might have to sit together and be very strategic in terms of responding to the plans. The first-term congresswoman said the draft EIS is the CNMI's best opportunity to make requests on the impact of heightened military activities in the Commonwealth and the mitigations that need to be built in. "I do know there are a lot of conversations happening both in the House and the Senate with regards to additional footprints here today and making additional investments, whether it be the port rehabilitation at the roads back to the North Field. "But that we should put our collective heads together and work with the governor and have a firm statement, a firm statement in terms of specific asks in response to the EIS," she added. King-Hinds said she agreed with Senator Jude Hofschneider's comment during the town hall meeting that the impact of the CJMT will be significant on Tinian. She said that is why the CNMI should make its specific asks now, so those requests can be included in the National Defense Authorisation Act. "I've been tracking and communicating with Alan Perez [Tinian Mayor Edwin Aldan's chief of staff] with regards to some of the asks for remaining funds for the roads, for example. And so, you know, there's more than one way to skin the cat, and we're all, we're doing it all. "I'm really happy that the governor, if you know what I mean, is down to put our heads together and begin to work," she said. Last month, four community groups from the CNMI and Guam-From Luta, For Luta, Micronesia Climate Change Alliance, Tinian Women's Association, and Our Common Wealth 670-as well as dozens of concerned community members and the diaspora, called for a 45-day extension on the comment period for the Draft EIS. The original draft EIS 75-day public review and comment period started on 6 June and its deadline is 20 August. Aside from the Apatang-Mendiola administration's request for an extension, King-Hinds also discussed and answered a myriad of questions from the around 50 people in attendance during the townhall meeting. The venue of the From the Hill to the Vill event-the Tinian Youth Center-represented King-Hinds' first foray into government services as she served as its director in the early 2000s. During her time as head of the Tinian Youth Center, King-Hinds said she used creative ways to pay staff by seeking the help of the Work Investment Agency. The center also used to have a swimming pool, and she commissioned a replica of the Washington Monument on its premises-a portent of things to come as far as her political career went.
