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

by leave—I'm proud to be playing a role as the deputy chair in such a wideranging and honest review of the family law system. I wish to thank Prime Minister Scott Morrison for allowing this very important joint committee inquiry to be established. I am disappointed that the interim report that has been tabled has neglected a number of issues that I believe are important and which I will outline later in this speech. Other people who I have spoken to also feel the same disappointment.

The family law system has been, and continues to be, plagued by deep emotions, sadness, financial hardship and bankruptcies, long-term psychological damage, abuse, stress, suicides and, in some cases, murder and filicide. Unfortunately, there are those in the community who thrive on the pain of those going through separation and the courts, lawyers who charge exorbitant fees to the point of bankrupting clients, feminists who relish the toxic anti-men rhetoric and jaded partners who will stop at nothing to use their separation and the court system to crush their rivals, including unfounded claims of domestic violence. Unfortunately, they are also harming their children in the process.

Of course there are outcomes, but the horror stories are too common, and that is why this inquiry is being held. Put simply, we need to revamp the system to make it better for everyone involved. The Family Court is in an unusual position of being a rigged, formalised judicial body that is tasked with overseeing challenges that are human, all unique, emotional and characterised by vulnerability. As I've said previously, a one-size-fits-all approach in this arena will always fail.

My office has been inundated over the past year and longer with heartbreaking stories from everyday Australians whose lives have been made the poorer due to a family break-up and their dealings with Family Court. The inquiry process has also been very emotional for members of the committee. It is difficult to listen to these stories and not be affected deeply in some way. It has been very moving to hear these stories, especially from those private witnesses who revealed their experiences to the committee members behind closed doors. If the committee members feel those emotions, it is clear that those actually going through the challenges would feel it even more, which is a strong motivation for us to make sure we get this right.

There has been criticism of this inquiry, that there have already been countless inquiries into family law—that is, four major inquiries in the past two decades. But this one is different in that it is holistic and we are listening directly to the people involved. My goal and the goal of other committee members has been to hone down and accurately identify the true issues that make the courts unfair, costly, time consuming, inefficient, confusing and emotionally damaging to separating and separated partners and their loved ones. Then the aim is to make informed and sensible suggestions that will help rebuild the family law system to become more workable and user-friendly for those directly involved, their families and, most importantly, their children. I guarantee the people of Australia that I will follow this process through to achieve the best outcomes possible for all those people impacted and bring much-needed support and hope to those who are in the midst of family law matters.

In an ideal world, when an unavoidable break-up occurs, both partners would deal with the challenges maturely and sensibly, causing as little stress and harm as possible while always making the welfare of the children a priority. Unfortunately, we don't live in a perfect world, so we must make sure the systems are in place to manage the needs of all those involved while recognising their humanness.

One of my key attitudes throughout the inquiry has been to make sure that the welfare of children is not forgotten as couples negotiate through the pain and difficulty of break-up. If the wellbeing of children is prioritised, many of the other problems will be resolved. Children are often used as ammunition by warring partners to seek some sort of advantage; gain greater support payments from the paying partner that can, at times, be used for other purposes while the children's needs are neglected; qualify for greater Centrelink payments; hurt the absent parent by preventing them from spending time with the children, whom they love, for no rational or justifiable reason; further parental alienation categorised by bad-mouthing; erase the absent parent from the child's life by forbidding photos or discussion; sew seeds of danger and fear of the other parent; force the child to choose between parents; and even prevent contact with the extended family of the absent parent. All these tactics are unforgivable. Research shows that it is also damaging to the child, who benefits from contact with both parents. These attitudes must be resolved in the best interests of the children.

I have a number of personal suggestions to improve the family law system. These are nowhere near the full extent of my concerns. The full list will be submitted for consideration and inclusion in the final report. I believe the arbitration tribunal should be the first step after separation to organise what should be shared access to the children. This contact arrangement should be the basis for calculating child support payments. Shared parenting should be a requirement. Mediation between parents should be mandatory. Just like the requirements placed on the parent paying the child support, the custodial parents must also provide proof of their total household income. This income must be taken into consideration when calculating the paying parent's financial liability. Grandparents should have visitation rights with their grandchildren for at least five hours per month. Custody orders must be handed down after property matters are finalised.

The Family Court system is also plagued by delays, with some matters even taking six years to be resolved, leaving the parties living in limbo as they wait for outcomes so that they can get on with their lives. I believe call-overs should be thrown out, with matters dealt with promptly. Vexatious litigation and claims should be very quickly identified and thrown out.

Unsubstantiated allegations of domestic violence should not be grounds to stop access to children. Perjury was raised in the evidence. That is not addressed by the courts. It must be regarded seriously, with charges laid and punishment for the perpetrators. No-contact orders cannot be made to be permanent by a judge. Circumstances change and both parents deserve to spend time together with their children.

To ensure cases proceed promptly judges must have reasonable case loads that don't see them overloaded. Vacancies of judges need to be filled promptly. The court system needs to be inquisitorial rather than adversarial to require judges to consider evidence and minimise conflict in what is already a highly charged situation. Presumptions in court should not be favoured over actual evidence. When a court order is handed down there should be a follow-up six months later. A questionnaire to determine its success could be filled out by both parents.

In relation to these points, when there are claims by either party of domestic violence, charges must be laid and DVOs taken out only if there is genuine evidence. It should not be based on hearsay or an affidavit. False claims of domestic violence and sexual assault should be punished.

The costs related to processes in the family law system are also considerable and can destroy lives. I believe legal costs should be capped and the maximum legal fees chargeable to the parties should not exceed 10 per cent of the total value of each parent's property. People should not lose their homes over this or be paying off their debts for the rest of their lives. Property settlement should not include the costs of setting up a job or business, such as tools, equipment or vehicles. Prenuptial agreements should be mandatory. Child support payments should be calculated based on the net income from an ordinary 38-hour week. Overtime and wages earned from a second job should be immune from calculations.

I believe these suggestions will help improve the family law system. They will help streamline the separation process, support children and allow separated partners to get on with their lives. I believe families and children are worth fighting for. The so-called support systems for those mothers and fathers who are going through the difficulties that come with separation and afterwards should not make their situations worse. It has been reported that, on average, three men suicide each day and one woman is murdered each week due to the emotion, stress and hopelessness experienced through the lengthy delays and demands and the unsupportive, unjust and life-changing decisions made through the family law and child support regimes. The pay-off of addressing these issues will be a much better society, well-balanced children who grow up to become mature well-functioning adults, and parents who are able to more quickly sort out their separation and get on with living their lives.

Question agreed to.