Agreed
Understand your point, however it's VERY clear both in the act & made clear to all adults subject to a parenting order that ALL have a legal obligation that is created by that order... It does not specify custodial & non custodial (old terms) or lives with & not lives with...
The latest QLD state border restrictions (that the family court refers people with orders should refer to) clearly states that an exemption to non entry applies to those with a legal obligation relating to child access..
The words are above.
It's a question of what lawyers call "construction".
The technical question is whether or not "...give effect to..." also means "...exercise a right..."
as much as it means "comply with a duty".
Thing is, visiting a child is not a duty (what you called a "legal obligation relating to child access").
Rather, It's a right - a right created by the Parenting Order.
The typical methodology of Statutory Construction includes that a court will attempt to avoid reading one order
in such as way as to defeat that operation of another, or to avoid creating rights beyond the scope of the original Order,
and that arise only out of the conflict.
The obvious exception being where there is a safety or welfare question in play
(consider for example, how, in NSW, a Parenting Order (Cth) will not defeat an AVO (state)).
I haven't been watching the day to day enforcement activities on the Queensland side closely enough
to know if there have been any cases yet made it to court, or if nobody's actually been caught yet, or
if the Queensland authorities are simply taking an (atypical) light touch approach.