OpinionJune 18, 2026 — 5:00amToo many abortions in this country, said Pauline Hanson at the National Press Club on Wednesday. Next target? Childcare. And that was after her angry and predictable rant against multiculturalism.Hanson’s views on family life in this country bear absolutely no relationship to what actually goes on in our homes.One Nation leader Pauline Hanson at the National Press Club on Wednesday. GettyMy guess? Her “policies” would lead to far more stress and pain among our families. And what would happen next? More separation, more divorce.What Hanson would do to the Family Court if, heaven forfend, she ever had untrammelled power is even worse. Hanson does not believe women. I don’t think she even believes in the experience of women. Take her position on the bullying of Victoria’s Premier Jacinta Allan.What drives her? Here’s my view. In 2016, her son Adam made national headlines when he pleaded guilty in a Cairns court to breaching a domestic violence order. We can’t really know what happens in a family, but we do know this. Hanson’s views on the Family Court hardened.Here’s what she told the Senate a year later: “Let me add in this debate that, apart from the many Australians that I meet when I move around Australia, this is a personal matter for me as a mother and as a grandmother. I’ve been through the court systems, and I’ve had to watch my sons go through the family law courts and how they were treated by their ex-spouses.“I’ve seen DVOs put on them that were not warranted. I feel for the men out there that are going through this, because it’s unjustified. They have no recourse, they are missing seeing their children and they are devastated by it to the extent that they suicide. How many men do we know that suicide because of this? They are heartbroken.”She’s provided no evidence of such suicides. She also claimed domestic violence orders are used as a tool by one parent to stop the other parent having access to their children. “Yes, it’s quite disgusting! Parents use their children as pawns and vengeance against the other parent. Often they are abusing our court process.”Again, absolutely no evidence.UNSW law scholar Henry Kha is on the case. He says Hanson has had a significant rhetorical impact on the Family Court, at least in the popular imagination of many Australians, especially on men who complain about how they are treated by the court. She’s claimed women are liars. She doesn’t think children should have a voice in the process. And if she had her own way, god help us, she’d turn the court into a tribunal, fund it less, and insist men get equal time with their kids (which would be fine if they stopped beating the mother of those kids).In other words, she’s given the multiple derangements of the men’s rights movement a boost.“She has encouraged the men’s rights movement when it comes to perceived injustices in the family law system,” says Kah. “There’s a view by some men that the courts have been hijacked by radical feminists and that the court is inherently biased against men and favours mothers in parenting matters.”Kha reminds us that equal parental responsibility means equal joint decision-making. As far as I understand, that’s more like where the kids live and decisions about their religion, schools, names and their health. But not equal time if it’s not in the best interests of the kids. Not if there’s been violence.One Nation’s link to its views on family law and child support are more like a caricature, but it does include this line: “One Nation supports the rights of a parent, as much as the rights of a child.”I asked Robyn Sexton what she thought. She spent 14 years as a judge on the Federal Circuit Court, retired from the bench in 2019 and was a mediator until last year. She said children have a right to know both parents. “Parents have responsibilities; they don’t have rights. Children have rights.”Margie O’Neill, accredited family law specialist and director of De Saxe O’Neill Family Lawyers in Sydney, asks her clients this question: “What do you think your children would say about how you’ve behaved during this time?” She says some behave so badly and expose their children to conflict in ways that cause long-term generational harm. “If they become dysfunctional, they can’t parent.”O’Neill is firm on this: “Children’s rights are paramount. They don’t choose their parents and we have a duty as a society to ensure that they are safe in every sense of the word.”Melbourne family lawyer Jodylee Bartal of KHQ Lawyers, puts it bluntly: “We know that children do best when the arrangements provide stability and predictability. We also know that children do worst when they are exposed to family violence, including post-separation parental conflict.”In stark contrast to Hanson’s opinions, UNSW’s Kha has clear views about what the Family Court really needs – and that’s a lot more funding than it gets now. He also points out that legal aid is reducing its services because its funding doesn’t meet the needs of Australians. Eligibility will be limited to domestic violence victims and Aboriginal people. Independent children’s lawyers will only appear in final hearings where one or both parental parties are self-represented.What does Kha think of the risks to Australian families if Hanson and her party have influence on legislation? “That would be a very dangerous situation. They will probably try to mandate equal custody between both parents and that’s problematic in situations where there is family violence. One Nation is fixated on trying to change how the law deals with parenting matters.”How do we know this for sure? In 2019, Hanson, then chosen by prime minister Scott Morrison to co-chair a controversial new inquiry into family law, said women made up allegations to win custody disputes against their former partners. We ended up with the kind of legislation that led to mass confusion. Shared responsibility is not the same as equal time.Law Council of Australia president Tania Wolff says that confusion had to be addressed. “Fathers and mothers thought there was an expectation that children should have 50 per cent for the time with each parent,” she says. “This was a myth that led to unsafe arrangements.”The Law Council made submissions to later inquiries – and the legislation was changed in 2024 to make it clear that equal time was not the point. It was indeed equal responsibility.We don’t know much about Hanson’s relationships. She says she was a victim of family violence herself, though won’t go into the details.It horrifies me that someone with lived experience of family violence extends so little understanding to others who’ve suffered.Jenna Price is a regular columnist for The Sydney Morning Herald and The Age.Get a weekly wrap of views that will challenge, champion and inform your own. Sign up for our Opinion newsletter.More:Family CourtOpinionFor subscribersPauline HansonDomestic violenceOne NationFrom our partners