Mr WINDSOR (5:21 PM) —I support today’s motion by the member for Calare. Even though most of the contribution of the member for Fisher was in support of the concerns that the member for Calare expressed, I refer him to a book, Slapping on the Writs, by Brian Walters QC. It details a number of issues dating back to the seventies where these sorts of issues have been raised—the use of defamation law on organisations or individuals by corporations. The member for Fisher made the point that Gunns is the only case where this has raised its head in Australia. That is not the case. I refer you to that publication.

Both the member for Calare and the member for Fisher spoke about freedom of speech. It is something that we should preserve within this nation. I have often used the phrase ‘the world is run by those who turn up’. In a democratic nation, within limits, we should, as individuals and groups, have the right to turn up and make a contribution in terms of policy and the various debates that take place. Obviously, there are cases where you have conflict, as is occurring in Tasmania at the moment—and it has occurred there in recent years—but in other cases there have been various development issues, and views both pro and against. There is the example of the water debate in New South Wales and Queensland at the moment—on the border. It is not always about green groups versus other groups; it can be the other way around. Where we can, we must preserve the right of those individuals and groups to play their role in relation to the political process and the democratic process.

If we look at what has happened recently, and we look at the history of the United States in particular, we should take the current happenings on board as a warning to Australia. We must safeguard our position and make sure that we do not tie up in long, expensive litigation people who, in my view, have the right to make a contribution to the broader debate. Obviously, there are corporations. Some people have suggested that the law of defamation has been around since the Middle Ages. Corporations have not been. We are seeing a creeping in of the use of the law of defamation, which was put in place for right and proper reasons. We are in fact seeing a possible abuse of the legislation or the defamation law by corporations trying to outspend individuals or groups who might believe that what a corporation is doing is not completely appropriate.

When I was in the New South Wales state parliament, an issue similar to this was raised. I will not get into the detail of it, but a major bank was using its financial muscle to crush an individual in a court case. In the long run, the individual was found to be correct, after a very expensive ‘how much can you spend’ operation. That individual won, but he took an enormous risk, even though he was right. There is a valid point to be made here. Being right does not mean that you actually win in terms of the law. There is the use of large amounts of money to protract cases, and a lot of cases run out for 10 to 15 years. The use of money can protract those cases. As I said, being right does not mean that you necessarily win. What money does is remove people from the scene in terms of their right to protest about various things that might be happening within the community—whether those are the development issues that arise from time to time or the current example that the member for Calare referred to.

The member for Fisher alluded to the US experience. I think that there has been something like an 87 per cent failure rate in SLAPP writs in the United States. A number of states over there are starting to outlaw them.

In conclusion, I urge the Attorney-General—it has been rumoured that the federal government is looking at putting in place legislation that enshrines the right to issue SLAPP writs—(Time expired)