Nick Xenophon (SA, Nick Xenophon Team) Share this | Hansard source

by leave—I move amendments (1), (2), (3) and (4) on sheet 8229 standing in my name:

(1) Schedule 1, page 11 (after line 7), after subclause 321D(5), insert:

Bulk voice calls

(5A) If a notifying entity communicates, or approves the communication of, electoral matter to a person by bulk voice call, the notifying entity must ensure that:

(i) the particulars required to be given in respect of that communication by subsection (5), or any other particulars determined under subsection (7) for the purposes of subsection (5), are given at the beginning of the call; and

(ii) immediately after those particulars are given, a statement is given that the call is an automated political call and the call will not proceed unless the recipient of the call takes the necessary steps to allow the call to proceed.

Note: This provision is a civil penalty provision which is enforceable under the Regulatory Powers Act (see section 384A of this Act).

Civil penalty: 120 penalty units.

(5B) A notifying entity contravenes this subsection if:

(a) the notifying entity communicates, or approves the communication of, electoral matter to a person by bulk voice call; and

(b) the notifying entity has not ensured that a facility is available to the recipient of the call to enable the recipient to take steps to:

(i) allow the call to proceed; or

(ii) terminate the call.

Note: This provision is a civil penalty provision which is enforceable under the Regulatory Powers Act (see section 384A of this Act).

Civil penalty: 120 penalty units.

(2) Schedule 1, item 10, page 12 (line 3), after "(5)", insert ", (5A) or (5B)".

(3) Schedule 1, item 10, page 12 (line 19), after "(5)", insert ", (5A) or (5B)".

(4) Schedule 1, item 30, page 27 (after line 7), after subclause 110C(5), insert:

Bulk voice calls

(5A) If a notifying entity communicates, or approves the communication of, referendum matter to a person by bulk voice call, the notifying entity must ensure that:

(i) the particulars required to be given in respect of that communication by subsection (5), or any other particulars determined under subsection 321D(7) of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 for the purposes of subsection (5), are given at the beginning of the call; and

(ii) immediately after those particulars are given, a statement is given that the call is an automated political call and the call will not proceed unless the recipient of the call takes the necessary steps to allow the call to proceed.

Note: This provision is a civil penalty provision which is enforceable under the Regulatory Powers Act (see section 140AAA of this Act).

Civil penalty: 120 penalty units.

(5B) A notifying entity contravenes this subsection if:

(a) the notifying entity communicates, or approves the communication of, referendum matter to a person by bulk voice call; and

(b) the notifying entity has not ensured that a facility is available to the recipient of the call to enable the recipient to take steps to:

(i) allow the call to proceed; or

(ii) terminate the call.

Note: This provision is a civil penalty provision which is enforceable under the Regulatory Powers Act (see section 140AAA of this Act).

Civil penalty: 120 penalty units.

These are what would colloquially be known as the 'robocall amendments'. These amendments relate to bulk voice calls. What these amendments essentially do is the following. If a notifying entity communicates or approves the communication of an electoral matter to a person by bulk voice call—that is, a robocall—the notifying entity must ensure, essentially, that upfront you are told who is the body responsible for it, whether it is the Liberal Party, the Labor Party or a union. It is all about ensuring that upfront you know who is authorising the call. Secondly, the important safeguard is that you are then given an option to specifically opt in if you want to take that call. This amendment is technology-neutral in relation to that, but you can decide—it could be a voice command for yes or no, or 'Press 1 to hear the rest of the call.'

What we are seeing with robo-calls is that you get a spiel that goes on for quite a while. At the end of it, you find out who is authorising it. I think that the party responsible—that is, the entity responsible—should be upfront as to who is behind the robo-call. The voter should get a chance to decide whether they want to hear that call. The method of authorisation, the method of giving voters the power to say yes or no to that call, ought to be reformed. That is what this particular amendment seeks to do. Otherwise, I think this will be an increasing issue. Of course, this does not constrain political communication. What it does is give the power back to the voter—firstly, to know who is authorising these calls upfront and, secondly, to make a decision as to whether they want to hear the message.