Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) Share this | Hansard source

Again, though, the only evidence you put forward other than stakeholder feedback is a reference from the AIFS, which says that courts are making orders for parental responsibility even if there are safety concerns. That is the evidence you gave to Senator Hanson. The point I'm making is that is what you are in part basing the Attorney-General's stance in relation to the repeal on. What I'm putting to you is we have a small issue with what you've said, because the courts know the presumption doesn't apply if there are reasonable grounds to suspect abuse or violence. They also know presumption is rebuttable. If you accept that, and I put it to you that you have to because its in the legislation, even if these issues have been raised and the courts have due duly considered them, they have then taken them into consideration and therefore have decided that, despite this, it is appropriate to make an order for shared parental responsibility. So, again, I put to you: the only way your reference to the AIFS evidence can in any way justify the repeal of the presumption is if you're saying the courts have got it consistently wrong. Is that what you're saying? It's the only way you can justify your evidence.