Controversial Senator Pauline Hanson’s recent attack on our Family Law system made headlines but now I’m inviting Ms Hanson to spend a week experiencing life at the sharp end of family law.

I have a challenge to Ms Hanson- Rather than stand up in the Senate and deliver an ill-informed rant against family lawyers, try spending a week in my shoes. Come with me to the Family Court and experience first hand what we have to deal with.

Senator Hanson’s recent Senate diatribe in which she attacked the Family Court system and called for it to be dismantled displayed an astonishing ignorance of family law practices.

Without giving her rant any extra oxygen, she is in effect saying our Family Court should be scrapped and replaced with some quasi tribunal made up of so-called ‘mainstream’ Australians.

Ms Hanson reckons Family Law is the most discriminatory, biased and unworkable policy in this country; The whole system is broken and family breakdowns drive people to suicide every day because it’s the only way out for those who feel there’s no future after years of costly legal battles.

In her argument, children are used as pawns in custody battles where women make frivolous claims and believe they have the sole right to the children. The only ones to gain are lawyers, who Ms Hanson describes as rubbing their hands together watching the thousands of dollars coming their way.

My invitation for Ms Hanson to experience the real world of Family Law is genuine and serious because Ms Hanson is doing more harm than good spreading a message of factual negativity.

The single biggest problem with our Family Law system right now is lack of funding to ensure more judges are available to hear cases. The people who end up in Court either have complex problems, have been unable to resolve their differences through mediation, or one of the parties has been unwilling to attend mediation. The longer people are in the court system, the more intractable their disputes become.

With a current backlog in Brisbane of two to three years before a case is decided on a final basis, that means families are enmeshed in conflict for an extended period.

Factual disputes such as allegations of abuse or domestic violence need to be decided earlier. The only way that can happen is with more funding for more judges.

The wait list for family relationship centre dispute resolution is also too long and also needs a funding and resources boost. Legal Aid should be funded for Family Law services too. Recent cuts to the legal aid budget mean that it is exceptionally difficult to obtain Legal Aid funding for parenting cases and it is almost non-existent for property matters.

As a Nationally Accredited Mediator and Collaborative Lawyer, I think Ms Hanson could do well by putting increased focus on mediation and Collaborative Law to reduce friction in resolving relationship breakdown issues and reduce pressure on the Courts.

Collaborative Law is the way of the future. It enables couples to take charge of the divorce process specially in resolving parenting and property decisions and allows them- rather than the Courts- a method of separating with dignity and divorcing without court.

The key difference between Collaborative Law and conventional divorce

is the pledge by all parties to reach an agreement that works for the whole family and not go to court. The separating couple keep control of the decisions, rather than giving them up to a judge. It is far more likely to lead to positive co-parenting for children of divorce than a litigated outcome.

Ms Hanson’s portrayal of lawyers in a negative light, especially when it comes to divorce, depicting us as just moneygrabbers is personally and professionally insulting.

The reality is the family lawyers – particularly the many who are trained mediators and/ or Collaborative Lawyers- I have dealings with agree that compassion, co-operation and consideration should drive us throughout the divorce process. Ultimately our duty is to the court and to the child first and foremost.

I wonder whether Ms Hanson truly understands or appreciates the pressure on our Family Courts and on Federal Circuit Court judges?.

Does she know that on a typical day we could see 20 to 30 or more matters listed on interim hearing days with only seven hours available for hearings?. That only allows about 14 minutes per family – unless judges sit longer hours, which adds a burden to the Court staff but also takes away time judges need to write judgements for matters that have gone to trial. Our nation’s children deserve more than 14 minutes of justice, but the Government won’t pay for it.

I suggest if Ms Hanson is serious about improving the family law system she could familiarise herself with the New Zealand family law system, which, if adopted in Australia, would do away with Australia’s multi-layered courts system.

What we need is one court to address family court matters and also domestic violence matters because quite often they are interlinked. At present our family law system is stretched across various State and Federal laws and needs an urgent overhaul to fast track cases and especially allegations of domestic violence.

Domestic violence victims here have to navigate different courts and state and Federal law. The system is ponderous and badly fails several victims. Ms Hanson was selective in how she perceived family law failings.

Many of the Family Court matters awaiting trial involve serious matters such as family violence or abuse. The backlog means many are waiting up to two years to go to trial in Brisbane, and then often waiting many more months to receive a judgment.

The system used in New Zealand channels all domestic violence orders through the Family Court which has a unique and effective online option for urgent intervention.