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

Minister, I don't agree with what you've just said. The fact is that the presumption of parents is that they have a fifty-fifty right. Isn't it funny that one day both parents can be in a house looking after their child and the child's best interests, and then, just because there's been a separation and they're not living under the one roof anymore, you want to deny the other parent the presumption that they can have that as a starting point. If it was a starting point, at least they'd get fifty-fifty shared responsibility in parenting rights with their children. But all of a sudden that's out the door. It's: 'Sorry. You moved out of the house. You've lost your rights to be a parent to that child anymore.' Things were alright the day before, but within a matter of hours you want to take that full responsibility away from them. How are these parents supposed to feel? Shouldn't you give them some hope that they are going to at least be listened to? Your bill is taking that right away from them.

You talk about the safety of the child. All of this is presented in the courts. This is going to be presented by the lawyers. If there are real concerns for the wellbeing of the child, they will be taken into consideration by the courts. These parents should at least go into the courtroom thinking that they're going to have a fair hearing, that they will have some time with their children. I don't know if you have many people contact you about the problems they've had with the family law courts and being denied the right to see their children. I've got fathers who haven't seen their kids for years. I've even had some mothers contact me to say they can't see their children. I can tell you about one case. A woman contacted my office and said, 'The ICL'—this is an ICL, mind you; they can be biased—'declared a mother to be negligent because she hadn't had a COVID vaccination and neither had her two teenage children.' Do you know what the ICL's recommendation was? The ICL reported to the court that she was a negligent mother, and, hence, the court ordered that she couldn't see the children. Even to this day she can't see the children. It was the ICL's decision, just because she hadn't had a vax and the teenagers didn't want to have the vaccination, and she was denied the right to see her children.

That's why I'm saying that the ICLs should be recorded. The parents should know what's being said. They have a right then to defend their case before the courts. They don't know the reports that are being put up before the judge. They don't know what they should be answering to the judge in some sort of defence. This woman has been denied the right to see her children based on an ICL's biased opinion as to whether or not someone should have a vaccine. I think that's absolutely disgraceful.

That's why I said to you that it should not be at the discretion of anyone. It should be in this legislation. People have a right to have a recording of the court reporters and of the ICLs with the children. They have a right to know what's being said behind closed doors. Some of these biased people with their own views are not giving parents a fair go in the family law court system. That's why we have more problems going on now, because people are distraught. Suicides are happening. This is why we have the harm that is happening among males and females who are fed up with the family law court system. They're finding no justice there. That's why we have the problems that are happening, the murders that are happening. It is all because of the family law courts. It is because of sheer frustration. They've had a gutful of it and they can't take it anymore. Until you get this right and give people a fair go, you're not going to change anything. You're making it worse.

Minister, I don't think I'm going to get a different answer out of you, so I'm going to go to another section.