Page 1063 - Week 05 - Tuesday, 29 May 2007
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
DR FOSKEY (Molonglo) (10.52): I am sure that members are aware that this report is one that the Greens welcome. I want to go over some of the history of this legal affairs committee inquiry and say how pleased I am with the report and recommendations.
A bit over a year ago, I tabled in this house a bill called the Court Procedures (Protection of Public Participation) Amendment Bill 2005. That bill was modelled on a pro forma developed by a barrister, Brian Walters, in Victoria. It was included as an appendix in a book called Slapping on the Writs, which he wrote.
The Greens saw that bill as a starting point. As the inquiry went on, it became clearer that it was a bill that could be refined a great deal. I believe that the committee process indicates the value of our committee system in the ACT. In this case, three people from three different parties got together, listened to evidence, heard submissions and provided a focus for groups that were concerned about the increasing difficulty in Australia for people to stand up and speak out against injustices—environmental injustices as well.
We know that freedom of speech is one of the most valued of all our freedoms. I believe it is one of the rights that are valued by the Liberal Party as well as the Labor Party. Anything that intrudes on people’s right to free speech is something that, in a human rights compliant jurisdiction like the ACT, should be removed.
During the process of the inquiry, a new form of the bill emerged. It is very similar to the one that has been tabled in the South Australian parliament by the Greens member there, Mark Parnell, whose experience as an environmental defender illuminated his understanding of the need for a bill and the kind of bill it should be.
As a result of the committee inquiry, the ACT Assembly now has before it a very robust piece of legislation—one that has responded to many of the criticisms that were raised by people who gave evidence to the inquiry in our sessions. For instance, down in Melbourne we had a hearing with Brian Walters, who indicated that the new form of legislation that the committee was about to receive was agreeable to people like him—people in the civil rights movement and barristers who deal with these kinds of cases.
In the ACT we do not have too many public SLAPP cases that we know of—SLAPP suits—but we need to realise that there may very well have been instances that did not come to light because the whole nature of SLAPP suits is that they are meant to deter people from going to the courts. We know from anecdotal experience that many people fearful of losing their homes, their savings and their private lives have been silenced by just such a move. In fact, self-censorship is part of the aim of these suits, and it has the effect of stopping people putting forward their views. It is true that the uniform defamation laws and tort law reforms have made it harder for companies to pursue their legal actions, but experience in America and other jurisdictions has shown that, when one avenue is closed off, people who seek to abuse the legal process, and have the money to look for it, will shift their emphasis to another course of legal action. We know that the government must remain vigilant in order to identify where SLAPP-type actions migrate to.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .