Stirling Griff (SA, Centre Alliance) Share this | Hansard source

I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

I seek leave to table an explanatory memorandum relating to the bill and to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The speech read as follows—

This bill gives back some power to the people. It seeks to give consumers and voters more control over unsolicited electronic and telephone communication from political parties and registered charities, which currently enjoy broad exemptions from laws that otherwise prohibit or limit telemarketing calls and spam messages.

This problem was highlighted most recently when Mr Clive Palmer spammed voters nationally with SMS messages, prompting hundreds of complaints to the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA).

It is not the first time this is happened and, unless the measures in this bill pass, it will not be the last. We know voters are unhappy about receiving these SMS messages, but ACMA is largely powerless to act on these complaints.

This bill seeks to address this situation, and to do so in a way that strikes a balance between the rights of consumers and the implied freedom of political communication protected by the Constitution.

The bill amends the Spam Act2003 to require that any electronic electoral message – essentially messages designed to influence voters in a federal election - must include an unsubscribe function.

It is a simple yet effective means of managing this type of mass unwanted texts from political parties and candidates.

Under the provisions of the bill, each electronic electoral message needs to make a clear statement advising the recipient that they can unsubscribe from further electronic communications and provide an electronic link to do so. The unsubscribe link must be functional, and able to handle a reasonable amount of traffic at all times of the day for at least 30 days after the message is sent.

Including an unsubscribe function in these messages allows voters to control whether they wish to continue receiving these messages, based on whether the message, party or candidate is of interest to them.

It would also mean ACMA would not bear the brunt of voter discontent over unsolicited political texts, and it could ideally deploy the resources it uses on these complaints to other productive work.

Should parties or candidates get an unsubscribe request, they can feasibly send one last message acknowledging the request and providing a subscribe link in the event the voter changes their mind down the track.

The bill also seeks to ensure more honest telephone campaigning during elections, by ensuring that the use of actors in voice calls is disclosed at the outset.

The bill amends the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 to require actors performing in electoral voice calls to be identified as actors.

Unless the use of actors in political propaganda and messaging is properly disclosed, there is always a risk that the actors can be misrepresented as real people, or mistaken by voters as real people, and that their stories and experiences may be taken as genuine rather than illustrative or manufactured to make a point.

Frankly, if a political party can't persuade voters of the merits of their argument without relying on pretence, then their argument has no real merit.

And finally, this bill will also seek to give consumers some control over unsolicited and unwanted calls from registered charities.

Under the Do Not Call Register Act 2006, Australian numbers registered on the Do Not Call Register may receive telemarketing calls from registered charities, among others, and consumers have little recourse should they wish to "opt out" of these.

We all recognise and value the work of charities. However, we also know from news reports and consumer advocates that charity telemarketing calls can become a nuisance, and worse, for some vulnerable consumers.

A 2017 survey published by ACMA, Telemarketing calls in Australia: Consumer experience research, found cold calls from charities were the most common type of telemarketing call received on landlines, and that almost half of all those surveyed found telemarketing calls from charities to be "a problem".

Another survey, conducted by consumer advocate CHOICE in 2016, found charities to be the main source of unwanted calls. Its Who's on the Line report found about 25% of respondents received calls from a charity to their landline at least weekly, and 20% received them to their mobile. About 5% reported receiving daily calls. This was despite some respondents saying they had made repeated requests to be taken off contact lists.

The survey also found 74% of respondents thought charities should not be allowed to call numbers on the register, and 88% agreed with the statement, "I wish there was more I could do to stop these unsolicited calls".

These nuisance calls impacted their view of the charity and their desire to donate in future, and some respondents also expressed concern over the sometimes heavy-handed and emotionally manipulative tactics of telemarketers.

The UK experienced the worst of this in 2015, when 92-year-old Olive Cooke took her own life in part because of the distress caused by the avalanche of cold calls she received and letters requesting donations – reportedly up to 3000 letters in a year - from charities and their authorised marketing agencies who shared her contact details between them.

A UK review of fundraising self-regulation released that year, chaired by Sir Stuart Etherington, touched on Ms Cooke's death, and made recommendations including the creation of a new regulator.

The Regulating Fundraising for the Future report succinctly stated: "…we are clear that charities and voluntary organisations must be allowed to raise funds from the public. We are equally clear that this right to ask is not unbounded. For the public, the right to be left alone, or approached with respect and humility, is equally strong. This is not simply a matter of public interest, but is also key to the long-term sustainability of charities".

The UK now has a Fundraising Preference Service, operated by the new Fundraising Regulator, which allows members of the public to opt out of communications from their specified charities.

This bill proposes a simpler solution than that: allowing consumers on the Do Not Call Register to opt out of receiving any telemarketing call made on behalf of a registered charity.

It is not the intent of the bill to curtail the important work of registered charities or make it difficult to fundraise.

As of June 2016, the Do Not Call Register had 10.65 million registered Australian numbers and it is envisaged the vast majority of numbers would remain as charity-contactable numbers, as defined in the bill.This is because the bill requires consumers to take action to 'opt out' of receiving telemarketing calls from charities - as opposed to making them 'opt in' to receiving calls – and it is expected that only those consumers who are particularly distressed or annoyed by charity telemarketing calls would be motivated to take that action.

The bill does not contain a similar opt out provision for political parties and candidates because the public is much more comfortable - happy even - hanging up on these calls than they are about terminating a call made on behalf of a charity.

I believe the provisions set out in this bill are measured, responsible and responsive. These amendments will give people a more satisfactory level of control over unwanted calls and texts without unduly interfering with the operations of political entities and charities.

I commend the bill to the Senate.

I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.