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

As I said, that's a huge disappointment because that was one of the main things that was raised. People have lost their homes over this and are paying off debts years afterwards. They then have to pay child support on top of this—what has been awarded against them. All they are fighting for is the right to have contact with the children. So that's another blow to them. They thought there might be some justice and they would be able to rein in what these lawyers are charging, the overservicing and keeping cases going. What is happening is just outrageous, and you've turned a blind eye to this and are not listening to what the Australian people said in their submissions to the last inquiry that was held by the joint committee. I have another amendment that I will be putting up. It is about the family violence orders. It says:

(5) For the purposes of paragraph (2)(a), if the court is considering a family violence order, the court must have regard to the circumstances in which the order was made, including whether the making of the order was contested by a person.

(6) If a family violence order was not contested by a person the court must:

(a) consider whether there is actual proof of violence relating to the order; and

(b) if the court considers that there is no actual proof of violence, the court must not take the order into account when determining what is in a child's best interests.

(7) In considering the matters in subsection (6) the court may direct a party to the proceedings to adduce evidence that there is actual proof of violence relating to a family violence order that was not contested by a person.

(8) If the court considers that:

(a) there is no actual proof of violence in relation to a family violence order that was not contested; and

(b) that the order was raised for purely tactical reasons;

the court may make an order that the party to the proceeding who raised the order in evidence (including a legal practitioner representing the party) pay some or all of the costs of another party, or other parties, to the proceedings.

Would you support this amendment?