The man nominated by the prime minister to head the latest family court inquiry has refused to condemn Pauline Hanson’s claims that women are routinely lying about domestic abuse to win custody cases, because he wants to stay “impartial”.

Kevin Andrews, who said he was personally asked to head up the inquiry Scott Morrison ordered into the family court system, said he believed Hanson would be elected deputy chair in the committee dominated by government MPs.

But he repeatedly refused to denounce Hanson’s claims that women made up domestic violence allegations, or whether she would benefit from the Law Council’s suggestion of family violence awareness training, saying it wasn’t his role.

“I’m not going to provide a running commentary on what people may or may not say during the course of the inquiry,” he told the ABC.

“It’s important for me to be impartial, which I intend to be, and if I start to provide commentary on what anyone says or inferred or implied by that, that undermines my ability to try to chair this committee in a way that everyone coming before it can feel confident that they’ll be heard, they’ll be listened to sensitively and proper civility will apply so far as the proceedings are concerned.”

Pressed on the damage the repeated comments from his expected deputy could have on the inquiry, Andrews said to give his opinion, or even refute Hanson’s claims as inaccurate, would “compromise my ability to be an impartial [member] of this committee”.

“What is factual or not will be found out in this inquiry and it will be done impartially,” he said.

“… As I said, I am going to repeat myself ... I am not going to give you a running commentary about what other members of the committee say because my role is to try and share it, to be impartial, and if there is a necessity to speak on behalf of the committee, I do not think it is helpful for me to become a commentator.”

Andrews said the inquiry “as far as humanly possible” would be conducted “in an appropriate, impartial and civil manner”.

“Yes, people can put questions, as they should, as part of a parliamentary inquiry. My job is to make sure as best I can this inquiry is conducted in a very civil, civilised way.

“I’m not going to get into a situation where I’m distracted from that job by commenting on what people don’t or do say. No one should imply I support any particular comments. Once I get into this, I’m going to get asked questions every week.”

Hanson sparked outrage on the day the inquiry was announced when she claimed, without evidence, that women made up domestic violence claims to ensure family court cases went their way.

Her fellow One Nation senator, Malcolm Roberts, was found to have previously blamed the family court for “driving violence”, a view Hanson first stated when taking her place in the Senate in 2016.

Legal experts and advocacy groups have roundly condemned the One Nation leader for her comments, with growing concerns Hanson’s involvement could lead to women giving evidence to an inquiry where committee members have a preconceived view.

Andrews said he would be warning the committee to treat witnesses with respect.

“I will be saying to all committee members that this is a very sensitive issue and we need to treat it accordingly,” he said.

“That is the way I will approach it and I expect that is how other members of the committee will approach it.

“Having been on sensitive inquiries in the past, then we can do this in a way that respects where everybody is coming from and that they can have their say. Because at the end of the day it is what people have to say that comes back to us and we have then got to try and deliberate on it as a group and try to reach some common ground as a group.

“I don’t think that is going to be easy but that is at least my aspiration.”