Well, that escalated quickly… Before consideration of a family law inquiry had even reached the Senate, left-wing fury was unleashed.

Now the Senate has given the go-ahead there is a momentary eerie calm hanging in the air as we all prepare for the next round of blazing fireworks.

The family law inquiry was fiercely criticised by anti-domestic violence groups after Senator Pauline Hanson dared to say that women make false accusations of domestic violence to stop men having access to their children.

Rosie Batty took to the airwaves quick smart to voice her anger.

Anti-domestic violence groups argued that family law should not be politicised.

Apparently, the irony was lost on them that wading in with such rigour simply serves to highlight the extent that this space has not only been politicised, but the truth is being actively silenced.

After they’d missed the irony they even dared to pitch for an increase in their multi-million dollar funding.

Deputy Greens Leader Larissa Walters voiced similar condemnation on the(ir) ABC that Hanson could dare to suggest that women lie.

Feminist writer Jess Hill swiftly shuttled from The Drum panel on the(ir) ABC to Channel Ten’s The Project, which really underlines this country’s problem with media bias.

Unfortunately, the fact is that women do lie.

Men lie too.

Come on, someone needs to re-read the definition of equality and remove this bizarre notion that women are morally superior to men.

In 2013 the Sydney Morning Herald published a piece entitled, “False abuse claims are the new court weapon, retiring judge says”.  Outgoing Family Court justice David Collier said allegations of child sexual abuse were being invented by mothers to stop fathers from seeing their children.

Batty slammed Hanson saying her remarks were “incredibly damaging”. Yet, she added, “Obviously there are some women who do abuse the system.”

Labor voted against the inquiry, which yet again underlines why they lost the last election. Labor leader Albanese said Hanson’s comments were “a real concern”.

However, several studies have underlined the problems around vexatious claims being taken to court, and found that some violence prevention orders are sought as a tactic to prevent their former partner’s being involved in their children’s lives. The Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research (BOCSAR) research from 2016 found that the majority of magistrates indicated they’d dealt with vexatious APVOs.

Magistrates will also talk about the issue of cross APVO applications, which underlines the fact that someone is often lying.

Anyone claiming that false allegations don’t exist may like to look at the actual evidence rather be blinded by this ridiculous religion of feminist ideology.

Prime Minister Scott Morrison told Channel Seven, “this isn’t about picking sides, it’s about listening to Australians. The lawyers have had their say through the Law Reform Commission and that’s a process, which has been important. But as we consider that, I think it’s very important that we go and hear [from people] directly.”

He is, of course, correct.

The family law court process is causing an ocean of pain and running lives. The government does need to hear both sides.

They are not hearing the full story from people who solely advocate for women, there is no minister for men, and they’re certainly not hearing the complete story from the media who yet again displayed clear left-leaning, anti-men bias.

It is outrageous that the government-funded ABC does not reflect this whole picture to the nation it is meant to keep informed.

If there was balance in the discussion yesterday, perhaps someone could have asked why on earth there is such strong, vocal opposition to holding an inquiry?

Perhaps they could have also pointed out that the Australian family law court process is an adversarial system where people have a lot to lose (their own children), so of course untruths are told?

Perhaps they could have underlined the fact that the UK family law court system has a fraction of the waiting time (three months) of the Australian system (three years), and then asked why?

Perhaps they could have raised a case from the UK where a man had 61 false allegations made against him before his ex-wife finally admitted on the stand that she had made it all up?

Or the case of a man from Melbourne who had 51 DVOs placed on him by a vicious ex which he had to find the strength to fight. One accusation was physically impossible as he was out of the country at the time his ex claimed he had stalked her, and he was in hospital in a coma at the time of another.

Perhaps they could have asked why perjury is not applicable in the family court?

Surely, “Believe women” is not being suggested as a progressive response in custody matters?

Crucially, if no one measures the outcome of family law court cases or orders, on what basis can anyone say that they are acting in the best interest of children?

Horror of horrors, what if an inquiry dared to ask that question?

George Brandis confirmed in 2015 when attorney-general that perjury in family court is rarely prosecuted.

Perhaps an inquiry can ask why?

There are many very valid questions to be asked – and that is precisely why an inquiry is important.

Got something to add? Join the discussion and comment below.

Get 10 issues for just $10

Subscribe to The Spectator Australia today for the next 10 magazine issues, plus full online access, for just $10.

SUBSCRIBE 10 issues for $10 REGISTER 3 articles a month

Already a subscriber? Log in