Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)

I acknowledged in my opening remarks that it is an improvement on what was there. I have acknowledged that. It is clear that it narrows it into this area of financial harm. However, the language is still ambiguous and "likely to cause" can be parsed in different ways. Those who are in a large body corporate will be very willing to take multiple case examples until they get the precedent they want in that regard, whereas individuals will be daunted. I gave multiple examples of individuals who have been financially impacted, those who have stopped highlighting issues of considerable public interest because they were intimidated by a legal case, and circumstances where organisations have been unable to get insurance because of a pending lawsuit which effectively inhibits them from operating.

Those are significant consequences. I am worried the legislation as it stands does not do enough to narrow those consequences and address them. As I say, "likely to" is still wide enough. I am not talking about somebody having immunity. It is not about saying who is immune from prosecution. Nobody is creating a 007 designation whereby people can go without prosecution. Nobody should have immunity but my point is that cases have to be taken on relevant grounds. I can sue people on grounds but where it could get caught as being vexatious and inaccurate. At the moment, the legislation does not really capture it because it goes back to the definition the Minister read out. Defamation is defined as being likely to cause harm to a person's reputation, or likely to injure a person's reputation in the eyes of reasonable people and so forth.

Let us say I am giving a fact, such as that a particular company failed 20 safety tests last year or another company has been indicted in three other countries for breaches of child labour regulations or whatever it may be. If I am giving a piece with a factual basis, it can be said that is likely to have an effect on the reputation but the question is whether my making the utterance is what is having an impact on the reputation or is it the fact the company used child labour that has impacted on its reputation and customers' willingness to engage with the company that has been using and found to use child labour. Does the Minister know what I mean?