Hanson unveiled her plans for family law in her maiden speech in the Senate. Source: JJ Harrison

BY LUCAS BAIRD

While majority of the nation was distracted by the theatrics of her opening statements, Pauline Hanson snuck in a proposal to radically change family law in Australia.

As the family law reforms went under the radar to most, legal professionals and disgruntled fathers listened and came away with radically different impressions.

“It doesn’t sound like a balanced policy at all, it sounds like a father’s rights policy from a particular group of disgruntled dads.”

To much anticipation, Pauline Hanson rose in the pale red room to give her second maiden speech to the Australian parliament. She launched into an all too familiar rhetoric, “Australia is now in danger of being swamped by Muslims,” echoed through the Senate as a similar statement about Asians had 20 years ago in the Lower House.

While anti-islamic sentiment was always expected from Hanson, this bombastic opener captivated the nation. After 20 years out of parliament, Hanson had returned and with a new target.

However, the attention garnered by this statement allowed a similar radical policy to slip through the cracks – family law reform.

If Hanson is to be believed, women in this country are dead because they had made “frivolous” claims in family court that led to their murder at the hands of “frustrated” former partners who had the system weighted against them.

This claim is only the opening salvo in One Nation’s war against family law, as they look to tear down the system, which according to them embodies misandry in the 21st century, and surprisingly this line of attack has won them numerous supporters.

While many of the online commenters who pledge their support for the tear down of this entire system haven’t gone through the struggles of divorce; Mark Jelic is one that has.

Nearly a decade ago, Mr Jelic went through a bitter divorce that left him without custody of his kids. While he now has a joint custody agreement with his with former wife, he is convinced the system was against him.

“The system needs an overhaul because it can be used as a weapon,” he said.

“I have and am still living through the unbalanced and unfair current situation in both law courts and child support system,” he said.

As he goes through the proposed reforms from Hanson, he uses one word answers to judge them.

“The system needs an overhaul because it can be used as a weapon.”

A formula that recognises the new cost of maintaining two households – “Yes.”

A new formula for child support that doesn’t take into account a second job or overtime – “Good.”

Recognition that a child’s standard of living will never be the same – “100 per cent.”

Mr Jelic continues like this through the other reformations providing traction for One Nation who have used experiences like his to not only inform a new approach to Australian Family Law but draw people towards it.

This has already worked in the case of David Truman, who while unaffected by the family law courts believes that a new perspective on the courts is required.

“I haven’t had any experience with the family court problem. However, I do understand in particular, a fair number of men believe that they have been discriminated against because of the predilection of the court,” he said.

“So I think they’re probably right, when they say we need to look at the courts with a different perspective rather than automatically taking one position.”

However, There are a few obstacles for Hanson and Co’s reformations: There is little to no evidence to support her claims and the legal community hate the reforms.

Lise Barry from Macquarie University is one legal professional who believes the ideas for the reforms are cause for concern.

Surrounded by books and literature, Ms Barry jumps quickly on her first opportunity to criticise the reforms, claiming that the reforms are a “mix of things”, but none of them good.

“It doesn’t sound like a balanced policy at all, it sounds like a father’s rights policy from a particular group of disgruntled dads.”

“I’m particularly concerned about their idea to shift things out of court and into some sort of super tribunal and it just seems to be that they think tribunals can operate outside the law, rather than there being an understanding that they are an administrative law procedure.”

As the disapproval flows out of her mouth she stops for a second to regather some structure. She takes a pause, before diving into an exercise similar to Mr Jelic’s.

“These proposed reforms sounds to me that someone may have had a bad experience and are not looking at it with objective eyes.”

She runs through the policies one by one, but instead of one word answers, she provides reasons.

A formula that recognises the new cost of maintaining two households – “That’s a terrible idea.”

“It seems to suggest that if you set up a second house, then you are no longer responsible for the first house and your children and to me, that is just condemning me to a life of poverty.”

A new formula for child support that doesn’t take into account a second job or overtime – “A really bad idea.”

“Parents who have separated have a shared responsibility to provide for their children and it should be based on their income.”

From the University of Wollongong, John Littrich agreed with Ms Barry.

He claimed that over his 14 years as a practicing solicitor, he had seen nothing as strange as One Nation’s plans.

“These proposed reforms sounds to me that someone may have had a bad experience and are not looking at it with objective eyes… There is definitely a poor understanding of family law in One Nation,” he said

Mr Littrich claimed that there was no need to reform the law as the language in the legislation is non-gender specific. Which provided an even playing ground in court.

However, he also had another important point to make.

“If anything, the current legislation is designed to keep the best interests of the children.”

“Whoever has been the primary carer during the child’s early years, it tends to be in the best interest of the child for custody to go to them.

Mr Littrich believes that with the emphasis placed on caregivers, One Nation is placed to miss one of the key points of the current legislation.

It’s not like they’ve missed it before.

Lucas Baird is a second year journalism student at UTS. He currently writes for the local City Hub newspaper in Sydney’s Inner-West.