So while Raymond Jones, the President of the Insurance Council of Australia and head of QBE insurance, the insurer of asbestos manufacturing giant James Hardie, tells the media that the insurance industry will withdraw cover from the local pony club unless tort law reform is introduced, he is also telling shareholders, and I quote: "It is a fantastic environment. We are exceeding our budget in every region of the world in terms of rate increases on all classes of insurance."

It reinforces my point that these moves limit the capacity of citizens and their legal counsel to access the court, and are driven by shareholder agendas rather than principles of justice.

More importantly though the common law is a legal avenue for the citizen to challenge the exercise of power. For all its limitations, the common law is one of the few remaining legal methods by which a citizen can challenge the power, and decision making of an increasingly powerful State, itself increasingly beholden to corporate power.

The private right of access to the courts by ordinary people, has fettered abuse of power by the government in fundamentally important ways. The conspiracy proceedings against Corrigan and Reith; the challenge over Tampa; the actions over police bashings at Richmond secondary college; the police strip search cases, are all examples.

And that check on the abusive exercise of power by the State is not just the result of successful cases . . .

� it extends to the state and big corporates knowing that the law is there;

� and that there are lawyers out there . . . union lawyers, refugee lawyers, legal centre lawyers, civil liberties lawyers, who are prepared to use it.

So to limit court cases to success, and to define success as a judgment in damages, is to miss the point. One brings (some) cases

(a) to change the law; or

(b) to publicise the injustice of the present law; or

(c) to publicise a corrupt or bad behaviour by the powerful.

All of this might be stopped by this law.