Mr WAKELIN (5:26 PM) —I have become aware of the phenomenon described as SLAPP suits and I welcome the opportunity to make a few comments on the motion of the member for Calare. As I understand it, the government has no plans to introduce legislation to prohibit corporations from bringing actions against individuals, as is permitted under the general law. Nor is the government aware of any conclusive evidence that commercial enterprises in Australia are prone to launching proceedings to stifle community debate. The fact that there has been one case—the Gunns litigation, which has attracted significant media attention—does not mean that there is a widespread problem in this area. The Federal Court already has a range of mechanisms available to it to deal with vexatious litigants. The Commonwealth has been consulting with the Federal Court about improvements to vexatious litigant provisions. As the member for Fisher alluded to, the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General has been discussing ways to improve the range of mechanisms available to state and territory courts to deal with vexatious proceedings.

The Australian government is committed to the protection of human rights and recognises that the protection and promotion of rights in Australia is best achieved through strong and robust democratic institutions such as an independent judiciary, responsible and accountable government, the rule of law, well-resourced and respected opposition parties and a free media. The Australian government believes, as I do, that the right to freedom of speech is a fundamental human right, but recognises that this right is subject to limitations that are reasonable and necessary in a free and democratic society. The framers of our constitution put great thought into the issue of rights. They consciously put their faith in the capacity of parliamentary democracy to protect individual rights.

As far as the background to the SLAPP suits is concerned, certainly such suits are much less frequent in Australia than in the United States. There are some well-known SLAPP suits in the UK, apparently known as the McLibel actions. I have already alluded to the issue of Gunns.

In terms of human rights protection in Australia, let me remind the House how human rights are protected in Australia in many ways. There is the separation of judicial power from executive and legislative power. There is responsible government, with a representative government that is democratically elected. There is an accountable public service: decisions of all public servants are generally available and the public service is apolitical. There is an administrative law system where the government’s administrative decisions are transparent and reviewable. There is a transparent legislative process: laws are made by the legislature; regulations are made under enactment and are disallowable. That is all fairly straightforward stuff. There is a fair and transparent criminal justice system. There is a constitutional right to freedom of religion and implied freedom of political communication. The High Court has given direction on this.

Other institutions that play a role include HREOC, the Ombudsman, the National Committee for Human Rights, the Australian Law Reform Commission and royal commissions. At the federal level laws protecting human rights include antidiscrimination laws, privacy laws, evidence laws, criminal laws and sentencing laws.

Freedom of speech itself is subject to limitations. Under international law, fundamental rights are not unqualified and may be restricted to preserve other human rights. For example, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights recognises these rights in accordance with the law. The Commonwealth Racial Discrimination Act 1975 prohibits racial vilification.

In all of these processes we can see—and most people throughout the world, including people within our own country, would agree—that we have a healthy, robust and open democracy that does not exhibit the sorts of excesses that I suggest the member for Calare’s motion is alluding to. I am therefore quite confident that our existing system is coping well and that it will continue to do so in the future.