great ignorance, because it is a moving and developing feast. What a statutory cause does is it gets over that ignorance. A statutory cause of action goes beyond having an educative function.  Much more.  Bingle had a cause of action, Giller v Procopets is clear authority for that proposition.  But a statutory cause of action provides a better basis for framing a cause of action and a defence, if any was available on the facts (which was doubtful).  Like Article 8 and 10 of the Human Rights Act in the UK, it provides a far better basis to proceed. Damien Carrick : And Peter Bartlett, do you think that the privacy issues are slipping through the net, or do you think that we've got the balance right? Peter Bartlett : I think we've got the balance right. I think that if we did have a statutory cause of action it would not be 95 per cent of Australians who would take advantage of it; it would be the celebrities, it'd be the rich and famous. That is 95% assertion. Giller was not a celebrity.  That is like saying that defamation cases are confined to people taking action against the media.  From my experience as a practitioner that is far from the case.  Many large cases involve individuals suing newspapers and TV or radio but there are many cases of less note that involve individuals taking action against other individuals over quite outrageous smears.  Similarly with privacy egregious behaviour is not