By political reporter Eliza Borrello.
Pauline Hanson’s success at the federal election could put the Family Court back in the spotlight, with some Nationals believing her push to abolish it has struck a chord with angry dads battling custody issues.
Ms Hanson raised concerns about the system in her first speech to Parliament in 1996.
The Nationals Member for Flynn, Ken O’Dowd, said her decision to campaign on it two decades later went some way to explaining why more than 216,000 Queenslanders gave her their first preference in the Senate.
“I’ve had people in my office actually crying and very stressed,” he said.
“You know, we see suicides evolve from these marriage bust-ups and who knows who is to blame, but it does need certainly a lot of discussion and I think there is room for improvement [in the system].”
At the heart of Ms Hanson’s policy is for the Family Court to be replaced by a tribunal of people from “mainstream Australia”.
She has described the current system as “unworkable”.
“It’s destroying families, you’ve got fathers that are suiciding, it is not working,” she said.
Asked whether she felt the system was skewed towards supporting mothers rather than fathers, Ms Hanson said: “A lot of fathers tell me it is.
“A lot of fathers feel disenfranchised from their children.”
Issues surrounding child support payments
Mr O’Dowd said it was an argument he had heard from dads paying child support many times.
“One guy, he couldn’t get a job in the ambulance here in central Queensland,” he said.
Top Comments
Care of children should not be decided in a court requiring lawyers. It should be decided in a mediation room with qualified mediators and child and family counsellors, with the lawyers brought in only at the end to draw up the paperwork. The current Family Court system is a dismal failure because they don't enforce their own orders therefore, some parents blatantly ignore them and completely disrespect the court system because there are no repercussions. It can take over 12 months to get a hearing in front of a judge when a parent is being denied seeing their children. And the guilty parent can easily lodge false claims of domestic violence or child abuse to hamper that process even further.
The current system also favours the parent with the most money for lawyers, who continually block or over-inflate issues for their own personal greed. $380 per hour for a lawyer, for example.
The overhaul of this system is far too important to be left in Pauline Hanson's hands though. I fear she'll prevent progress on this issue, simply because she lacks so much respect and credibility, within and without the government. Let's hope some more reputable parliamentarians get behind it.
How is it that domestic violence is occuring in non married relationships with no kids then, if it is because of family courts and child support?!
there is no evidence behind her statements. She just unwittingly gives an excuse that violent men attacking wives and presumably killing them and the kids is because they didn't get what they wanted in court, or a CSA agreement they liked. Well if that thinking was applied to CSA agreements there are plenty of women who are screwed by that system too (it is an inherently rotten system) but I don't see women killing kids or their exs every week in Australia.