Pauline Hanson’s family law inquiry role ‘dodgy’: Chris Bowen

Chris Bowen has slammed Pauline Hanson’s election as deputy chair of the family law inquiry.

Chris Bowen appears on the ABC's Q&A.

Chris Bowen has accused the government of partaking in a “dodgy deal” by electing One Nation leader Pauline Hanson as the deputy chair of the family law inquiry.

The opposition health spokesman said the government was using the inquiry as part of “parliamentary horse trading” and vowed to work out what the deal between the two parties was.

“You should not trade issues of family violence and family law as part of parliamentary horse trading. It’s not on,” Mr Bowen said on ABC’s Q&A program on Monday.

“There’s some side deal. We will eventually work it out,” he said.

Mr Bowen was joined on the panel by journalist Kerry O’Brien, media commentator Jan Fran, Communications Minister Paul Fletcher and Fairfield City Councillor Dai Le.

Family law inquiry

The controversial topic of Senator Pauline Hanson’s remark last week that some women “lie” about domestic violence, was forefront of the panel’s discussion on the family law inquiry.

Fran said Senator Hanson had “already made up her mind” on the Family Court.

“To start an inquiry like this, which is so important — you don’t want to get this wrong.

“You’re talking about the future of children, anecdotes don’t necessarily amount to evidence. So it’s really concerning,” Fran said.

Mr Fletcher interrupted, asserting that Senator Hanson was the deputy chair and not the co-chair of the committee.

“That makes it so much better,” Fran hit back.

Will Labor boycott the inquiry into Family Law? #QandA pic.twitter.com/5OH6CL5mVC

— ABC Q&A (@QandA) September 23, 2019

Mr Bowen said it was “seriously disgusting” that Pauline Hanson was the deputy chair of the inquiry.

“There was a Law Reform Commission report, unacted upon.

“There was a House of Representatives committee on family violence last year unacted upon. This is part of some other side deal,” he said.

Mr Bowen said it was not “standard practice” for a One Nation senator to be deputy chair.

“The standard practice is for the government and the opposition to be chair and deputy chair. There’s some side deal. We will eventually work it out,” he said.

“It shouldn’t be happening. Why would someone come and give evidence to Pauline Hanson, who has made her mind up about this issue, and subject herself to that kind of frank abuse in return,” he said.

“It’s an abuse of the parliamentary processes and it’s quite disgusting in our view.

“If there’s legitimate issues, the government could have proposed to us, and said let’s have a proper bipartisan approach, let’s do it sensibly. They haven’t.”

Climate change strike

The first question of the night came from Daisy Jeffrey, who led the climate strike in Sydney last week.

She asked the panel why Australians should stay in school when the government “wasn’t doing enough” to fight climate change.

Mr Fletcher responded by saying Australians should judge the government by their $3.5 million commitment for a climate solutions fund.

“I would personally prefer you didn’t (strike) on a school day, but nonetheless, it’s evidence of significant concern about the future of our world,” he said.

“We have committed to a 26% to 28% reduction in emissions by 2030, on our 2005 levels,” he said.

Mr Bowen hit back, claiming that Mr Fletcher’s statement “doesn’t reflect reality.”

“Emissions have gone up last year. They have gone up every year for the last four years,” he said.

“The day before the climate strike, we had one of Paul’s colleagues stand in the House of Representatives and tell young Australians and all of us that climate change is not real and not caused by human activity”

“There’s missed opportunities because the Liberals and Nationals have been in office.”

“Why should young Australians stay in school when our government is doing nothing to preserve our future?” #QandA pic.twitter.com/ZsvRegH2TY

— ABC Q&A (@QandA) September 23, 2019

O’Brien said it was disappointing to know that in 1979 highly reputable scientists first started articulating the science of greenhouse gases and not much had changed.

“All that has changed in that time is the science has got more and more and more and more solid,” he said.

“There are ratbags who come out and make noises and people who lie, there are people who obfuscate, there are people who manipulate, but the bottom line, the world is still seriously lagging behind what needs to be done.

“I’m not fussed at all that these students took time out of school to do it.

“The school is supposed to be helping to secure their future. And yet, you’ve got, in contrast, this other thing, existentially threatening their future.

Scott Morrison snubs questions on Brian Houston

Mr Bowen said Scott Morrison was arrogant for failing to answer questions as to whether he invited Hillsong pastor Brian Houston to the US with him during his meetings with Donald Trump.

“It’s arrogance. It’s treating those journalists with contempt. He’s treating all of us with contempt.

“They’re (journalists) asking questions on behalf of the country,” Mr Bowen said.

O’Brien said it was “foolish” and “childlike” to consider the possibility of inviting any person, with a personal connection.

.@Bowenchris says the PM's refusal to answer certain questions is akin to treating the public with contempt #QandA pic.twitter.com/JNN4PNorRB

— ABC Q&A (@QandA) September 23, 2019

“It does not have a reason that elevates the country,” Fletcher said.

Mr Fletcher responded by saying it was a quirky angle” of the Prime Minister’s visit to the US to say that he denied answering questions about Brian Houston.

“What matters about this visit is the work that’s being done to underpin what is a very important security and trade relationship, and about $1.2 trillion in total of two-way investment,” he said.

Fran said it was a “very weird flex” by the Prime Minister to not answer journalists questions about whether he had invited Mr Houston as a guest.

“Just answer the question. Then we wouldn’t be here talking about why you wouldn’t have answered the question, or other questions that he may or may not have answered,” she said.