Rebekha Sharkie (Mayo, Centre Alliance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

Australia is a country that embraces freedom of speech. A country that embraces freedom of political association.

We respect the right of individuals to espouse their political views with few exceptions. Appropriately, we don't allow speech that is defamatory, is obscene, incites violence or hate, or is racially discriminatory.

Implicit in these freedoms, however, is respect for the speaker and respect for the listener, the intended audience—'respect' in this context meaning that if a person does not ascribe to someone's political views they should not have to listen to them.

In most circumstances we can choose not to listen. If a political party wishes to promote their policy on television or radio, we can change the channel or simply turn it off. We can flick the page of a newspaper with nothing more than a cursory glance and completely ignore the pamphlets that overflow our letterboxes, if we so choose.

Electronic communication on the other hand is quite different. At its very core it intrudes our most personal devices, our mobile phones. A text message or a recorded phone message is immediate, directed and an invasion of privacy. And currently there is no escape. If a member of this House, a political party or candidate is prepared to buy a database they instantly have access to each and every voter they wish to target.

What makes receiving political text messages particularly annoying is that individuals don't sign up for it. Unlike commercial messages, which are subject to the Spam Act, individuals have typically opted to have their details registered with a retailer or another commercial entity. As such there is tacit acceptance that they will be contacted by these entities. Importantly, they can opt out at any point as commercial messaging must contain an unsubscribe feature. This is not the case for political text messages.

Do people really care about this? The answer is an emphatic yes.

In recent months my electorate office has received many calls from constituents who are angry at receiving multiple text messages from a member in this chamber. They have wanted answers to questions like: Why are they receiving these texts? How did the sender get their details?

They didn't sign up to receive political texts and they wanted to know how they could stop receiving them.

My staff, bearing the brunt of these calls, had to advise constituents that, despite these annoying intrusions into their lives, the texts were legal. This was met with complete astonishment and respectful demands that something be done about it.

This anger is not restricted to my electorate either. Australians across the country have voiced their concerns; they do not like receiving political texts. They have simply had enough. This is evidenced by the more than 4,000 complaints made to the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) in 2021 alone.

However, ACMA is completely powerless to act on the thousands of complaints because political messages are exempt from the laws that prohibit unsolicited communications.

Instead, political parties, sitting members and candidates are free to harass Australians with a bombardment of unwanted messages. This is unfair, and I seek the support of this House to make this stop.

This bill gives power back to Australians. It amends the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 and the Spam Act 2003 with the express purpose to give consumers more control over what they receive from political parties and individual politicians. At the very essence of the bill, it requires the sending party to provide an unsubscribe option, an opt-out feature for the receiver, just like commercial entities do.

It strikes a fair balance between the rights of political parties, Independents and candidates to freely communicate with voters on political and electoral matters and the rights of consumers to decide which political messages they wish to receive.

The bill does not deny political freedoms or the rights to communicate one's political beliefs. It does not deny political parties, politicians or candidates the right to campaign or communicate their political ideology. Rather, it rightfully gives everyday Australians the power to stop receiving persistent and unwanted calls and texts.

The bill also requires actors in voice calls featuring electoral material to be identified, to make it clear to those listening that the actors are performing a part, so that actors posing as a nurse, a teacher or a small-business owner for example, are not mistaken for 'real' people. It provides honesty and transparency, which is badly needed in this place.

My Centre Alliance colleague, Stirling Griff, introduced a similar bill in the other place back in 2019. The original bill was ultimately rejected by the Environment and Communications Legislation Committee because the proposed changes would have unduly affected the charity sector.

This bill addresses these concerns by restricting amendments to political communications only. The previous charities clauses are not present in this bill, leaving no justification for this bill to be rejected by the House.

The implied freedom of political communication, protected by our Constitution, is not impinged by this bill. As such, I say to all members in this place: if you truly respect the opinions and rights of Australians, you will support this bill. Thank you.

Trent Zimmerman (North Sydney, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Is the motion seconded?

Helen Haines (Indi, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm proud to second this bill, and I thank the member for Mayo for this very important legislation. The election hasn't even been called, and Australians have started preparing to be bombarded with intrusive and unwonted political text messages pinging our phones at all hours of night and day. Already you can hear a collective groan go up around the nation as Australians are spammed by the millions, interrupting family moments, our work or our downtime. Indeed, the last time I got a spam message was in this very chamber, and at least, when I was in the same room as the member who sent it to me, I could approach him and say, 'Not just now.' If only every other Australian could say the same, but unfortunately for them, there's nothing they can do. The Australian Communications and Media Authority has received 4,000 complaints about unsolicited texts this year, and it can't act on even a single one, and boy, are my constituents furious. The member for Mayo's bill introduces a simple amendment to the Spam Act to require all electronic messages containing electoral matter to include an unsubscribe or opt-out option. I was frankly shocked to learn that this wasn't already required.

But it's no accident that politicians and political parties have a blanket carve-out from spam rules. It's by design. In many cases, if a business or individual centre spam message like this, they could be prosecuted—but not us. When the United Australia Party first started sending texts, both the coalition and Labor were quick to criticise, but I would ask: where are you now? This chamber is practically empty of government and opposition MPs. There's lots of big talk about protecting our democracy, but, when it comes to legislating, they are nowhere to be found, and I think I know why.

Our Constitution has an implied right of political freedom, which recognises that politicians need to communicate with their constituents. This is very important, but in every other form of communication you have a choice: you can switch the channel, you can close the browser or you can walk out of the room. With unsolicited texts, you don't get a say.

The member for Mayo's bill strikes the right balance between legitimate political contact and the right to say, 'No, thank you,' and I am very pleased to support her on this bill. It's what my constituents have asked me to do, it's what the Australian public are calling for, and I think it's something we could all get behind if we were serious about this. Now is the right time to clean up this aberration before the onslaught of our next election. I commend the member for Mayo for this piece of legislation, and I encourage every member of this House to get behind it and pass this bill.

Trent Zimmerman (North Sydney, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There being no further speakers, the debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.