Decades after the party defined itself by the contest between wets and dries on economic questions, it is now buffeted instead by social disputes over gender, sex, women’s rights, marriage and family. The party of individual liberty, or at least some of its members, can be very exercised about your private life. Illustration: Andrew Dyson Credit: And the neon sign? It is about to be installed in Canberra above a new inquiry into family law, a social question that polarises the experts, divides many in the community and is likely to put some of the government’s own politicians on opposite sides of the argument. The parliamentary joint committee looks set to become a social affairs bonfire.

Prime Minister Scott Morrison, usually so careful to keep his party room together, has taken a significant risk with this inquiry. It will run for at least a year and will be followed by months of dispute over how to act on its recommendations. Loading The chance of satisfying all sides? Nil. The way it was announced hobbled it immediately. Morrison revealed the plan to the Coalition party room on Tuesday with no notice to most others in Parliament or the wider community. Pauline Hanson applauded the move within hours and asked that she be made co-chair alongside Kevin Andrews, the Liberal MP and former social services minister.

By Wednesday morning Hanson had got her way. Morrison decided the government would use its numbers to make her deputy chair – a role that would go to a Labor MP in most similar committees. In the search for a solution on a sensitive subject, the worst place to start was a surprise decision that played to Hanson’s agenda and shut Labor out of the conversation. This was a mistake. Illustration: Simon Letch Credit: With this sort of beginning, the inquiry is likely to be partisan throughout its hearings and could easily end with a split decision that drives the two major parties further apart and makes action in Parliament less likely. And what is the point if there is no action?

The government is yet to act on a review of family law by the Australian Law Reform Commission, which released its findings in April. The 60 recommendations included the dire conclusion that the power over family law disputes be returned to the states and the federal family courts be abolished. The government already has a report on family law from an earlier parliamentary inquiry, led by Victorian Liberal Sarah Henderson three years ago. And the Attorney-General, Christian Porter, is trying to revive draft laws put to the last Parliament to merge the Family Court with the Federal Court in the name of cutting the time and cost of resolving disputes. The blowback from family violence groups has been fierce because they know Hanson has made up her mind: her son was accused of domestic violence and she believes the system is stacked against men. In a dismal coincidence, the government announced the inquiry on the day Michelle Dörendahl was in Parliament House to try to persuade politicians to do more to protect women from violence. Dörendahl’s daughter, Eeva, died at the hands of her father five years ago during an access visit approved by the Family Court.

Dörendahl believes the system is used by domestic violence perpetrators to continue their manipulation of victims. Family violence campaigner Rosie Batty wants the new inquiry stopped on the grounds that Hanson has already declared the outcome she wants. Loading Morrison has committed more than $328 million to family violence programs in agreements with the states, as well as funding legal aid and programs to mediate property disputes after a break-up (in the Women’s Economic Security Package last November). So it is unfair to paint Morrison as soft on domestic violence when those policies are already underway. One of the arguments in favour of the inquiry is that elected politicians are hearing complaints about the Family Court from their constituents – for instance, over the way people are drawn into paying hundreds of thousands of dollars to lawyers.