Pauline Hanson (Queensland, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) Share this | Hansard source

There is a very important decision to be made with regard to this disallowance motion. I know the passion Senator O'Neill has about this. She's concerned about the Australian people, as all of us are. But listening to these speeches today—boy, I've heard some spin put on it, and the truth hasn't even come out. So, the people who are listening or watching are thinking, 'What's going on here?'

I don't favour either side in this place—neither the Liberal-Nationals or Labor. All the decisions I make here are based on research and from listening to both sides. I've had constant conversations with Senator O'Neill with regard to this; I've listened to her. I've had discussions with the government as well, about finding the right decision for the Australian people, for those people who deserve justice. There has to be justice. To say that it's only for the big end of town, if you've got the money to go to the courts—that's not the truth. The truth here is that we're talking about litigation funders. Let's talk the truth here.

Litigation funders have been coming into this country, backed by people around the world who've put in the money. And do you know where they pick to do litigation funding? Australia: 'Go down under. They have a lot of litigation there—big payouts'. Statistics show that, historically, litigants who use litigation funders lose up to 50 per cent of any judgement awarded—50 per cent! I don't hear you talking about that. Not only that, but they're not registered here in Australia. They actually send the money to the Cayman Islands. We don't even get taxes out of them. They're only doing it for the profits, for the money in their pockets.

We just had the litigation over robodebt. It was $1.2 billion. I wonder what they got out of that? How much did the Australian people get out of it? Have you spoken about that? Do you really care what the Australian people are getting out of it? No-one has really spoken about that. But I have been doing my research and talking to government about the Australian people getting money out of this. They're the ones who are hurting. And in my negotiations, in talking to the government, I have found that there is a minimum payout of 70 per cent, or even more, to others. But you're more worried about the litigation funders making their millions of dollars out of it. If they're represented by themselves, not by the litigation funders, they receive approximately 85 per cent of the awarded payouts. Isn't that important? Isn't that what this is all about? Don't we want to see a regulated industry here in Australia with this funding—that they are registered, that they are up-front, that they are going to represent the people, that it's not going to go into pockets around the world, to people who are not paying their taxes here in Australia? Isn't that what's important about all this? And don't say that they're not getting justice; there is justice. There will be justice, but they will be registered.

I know the Labor Party has a big interest in this, because of their firms: Slater and Gordon, Maurice Blackburn, and Shine—litigators. They take on these cases, because of the money. They get funded by litigation funders from around the world to take them on, to be the lawyers, and a deal's been done. So, they make a lot of money out of this, and I'm sure some of that money goes back into the Labor Party. There is self-interest here. That's what we need to stop, because these litigators can still represent the Australian people. Let the Australian people decide. If you allow non-profit organisations, people can go and represent themselves, and if they've got to be registered then so be it, because you don't want every Tom, Dick and Harry taking their cases to the courts; it's not feasible to do that. It has to be regulated in some way.

I have spoken to the government about this. I have no problem if it's held up—okay. The report was supposed to be brought down a lot sooner, earlier this year. We've had a hell of a year. It's been totally different to any other year, with COVID-19. Everything's been put on hold. But the fact is that this is moving forward. I'm not going to support this disallowance motion, because, in my working with the government, what I'm trying to do is bring forward an outcome for Australians where they will get a bigger payout—they are the ones that are hurting; not the litigation funders, not these lawyers that are making a lot of money out of it. They don't want to see the change. They're not interested. My position here is to look after the Australian people. It's quite interesting that Mark Dreyfus, a member in the other house, put out this tweet today:

URGENT: The Senate votes today on whether to overturn the Government's move to deny access to justice to ordinary Australians, particularly farmers and households in rural & regional Australia.

Where was the Labor Party and where was Mark Dreyfus when it was One Nation that pushed for the Select Committee on Lending to Primary Production Customers that we chaired? We listened to those farmers. We listened to those people. They were losing their land, being taken over by administrators and liquidators. That's why the royal commission came about. So how dare Mark Dreyfus raise this and say that we don't particularly care about the farmers? That's all I have ever talked about in this parliament: about the farmers and the man on the land. The tweet goes on:

Will @PaulineHansonOz … stand with farmers or with the Liberals?

It's not about whether I'll stand with either one. I have always backed the farming sector in Australia. No-one can ever deny that. So I think it was a below-the-belt punch from Mark Dreyfus. There was no need for that at all.

I'm sick and tired of getting bullied in this place and being told that I'm supposed to make decisions based on what you think is right—both sides of government here, whether it's Liberal or Labor; whoever is in government. Do you think you've made the right decisions? Do you think that you've never done wrong? The Labor Party stands up there and criticises the Liberal Party now, because it is in government. What the Labor Party has done has not been up to the standards of the Australian people either. The fact is that I will make decisions based on what I think is right for the people, and I won't be bullied by either side.

My decisions will be based on what I think is right for the Australian people, and I will keep working with the government and pushing for the outcome that I want. I want a regulated industry where people have to be registered here in Australia—not litigation funders from overseas, who are funding it and getting millions and millions of dollars out of Australian people without paying Australian taxes. I also want the people who are awarded the money to get the money, not these rich lawyers—you know: 'Here comes another sucker; we're going to get as much as we can out of them.' That's who we should be supporting: the Australian people. That's why I will be continuing to work with the government so that this is dealt with, and it's the end of the year so I am hoping this is going to be dealt with ASAP. That's where I'm at. And I'll put it on the record in case you think this is the case—and it always gets thrown in my face by the Labor Party: what deals has she done?—no deals have been done. I don't do deals. I actually state the case. I research it, I look at it, and I make my decisions based on what I think is right for the people in this country. This is the way I'm going with it. Congratulations on all the work you've done, Senator O'Neill, but we will not be supporting you in this disallowance motion. I hope that next year we can celebrate, when changes are made to give fair and balanced—