Pauline Hanson (Queensland, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) Share this | Hansard source

Minister, if you say it's in the objectives, basically it's not in the legislation. When a court looks at legislation, that's where they can determine the outcome on behalf of the parents. If this is not reflected in the bill whatsoever, the court has to determine what is in best interests of the child. The fact is that the UN Convention clearly states that the child has a right to a relationship with both parents. That is not clearly defined in the bill whatsoever. Therefore, in the court's decision, they are going to look at: 'What's in the best interests of the child?' It depends on the argument that's put up before the courts, as well. If a lot of parents are representing themselves, they cannot have the advantage of clearly putting across their case to the judge and of expressing their concerns; therefore, a lot of parents are denied the right to see their children. Evidence has also stated that a lot of lies are told in a courtroom, as we have heard from a former judge of the family law courts, David Collier, who said that allegations of child sexual abuse were being increasingly invented by mothers to stop fathers from seeing their children. That's directly from a judge who was in the courts for 14 years. He said:

I'm satisfied that a number of people who have appeared before me have known that it is one of the ways of completely shutting husbands out of the child's life.

I think is important for you to put directly into the bill that the child has a right to see both parents. I want you to explain to me the rights of the child. Please explain to me and the people of Australia your definition of, and where you've put in your bill, the rights of the child or the best interests of the child. What is the definition of 'the best interests of the child'?