In the wake of backlash surrounding the barrage of messages the Australian public is receiving from Clive Palmer’s Trumpet of Patriots, Independent MP Zali Steggall has called for changes to electoral laws that give voters the option to opt out of receiving election text messages.
Appearing on Nine’s Today program this morning, Steggall made it clear that the push for change was already underway, telling viewers that the crossbench had “repeatedly” been advocating for reforms to the Australian Electoral Commission laws.
Calls for reform come amid growing public anger over a flood of abrupt, grammatically questionable text messages promoting the Trumpet of Patriots’ policies. Beginning on Thursday, Australians across the country reported receiving messages.
“Solve housing fast trains 20 minute CBD. Super for deposit 3 per cent interest, cut immigration by 80 per cent,” the messages read, linking recipients to the party’s website and authorised by H Fong Trumpet of Patriots.
The backlash was immediate. Social media users vented their frustration, labelling the messages “annoying” and “invasive.” However, despite widespread criticism, the Australian Electoral Commission (AEC) confirmed that the texts are legal, pointing out that political parties are exempt from both the Spam Act and the Do Not Call Register.
“It is legal,” an AEC spokesman told Daily Mail Australia. “Political parties are exempt from the Spam Act and the Do Not Call Register. The AEC does not supply phone numbers to parties and doesn’t know where they get that information from.”
The only real legal requirement for political text messages is that they must be authorised, clearly identifying who is responsible for sending them. In this case, the Trumpet of Patriots’ texts linked to a website where the required authorisation was visible and also clearly disclaim within the message that it was authorised by “H Fong Trumpet of Patritots”.
Under Australian law, commercial electronic messages — the kind promoting goods or services — must comply with strict consent and unsubscribe requirements under the Spam Act. Political messages, however, are not classified as commercial communications.
According to the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA): “An electronic message which is seeking to influence your vote or opinion is unlikely to be commercial. If a message is not commercial, the sender does not need your permission to send it and does not need to include an unsubscribe option in the message.”
Similarly, political phone calls and polling calls are largely exempt from telemarketing rules — even for individuals listed on the Do Not Call Register.
Where political parties source voter phone numbers remains a grey area. The AEC has stressed that it does not provide phone numbers to political parties. Instead, parties typically obtain them through a combination of public directories, marketing databases, previous campaign interactions, or by purchasing information from commercial list brokers. Despite growing concerns around voter privacy, there is currently no legal requirement for parties to disclose how they collect these contact details.
Stegall isn’t alone in voicing outrage over the messaging. Mark Aldridge, a Trumpet of Patriots candidate for the South Australian seat of Makin, has quit the party, citing its spam SMS messages among other concerns.
In a post to Facebook yesterday, Aldridge said he does “not support various aspects of the upper management actions”.
“From day one, my decision was based on false promises, the marketing is not my thing, I will never be just a name on a Ballot paper, The preference deals offended me, and still do, and the SMS issue is just annoying, but enough for me.”
While the texts were a major part of Aldridge’s decision, he said it ultimately came down to “misinformation”, saying he isn’t suited for the party’s style of politics.
“I am a grassroots up type of guy, not a top-down, do as you are told bloke,” the post read.“People matter, every voice does to me, I am not certain the party felt the same as me. I assume those that know me, understand”.
As frustration mounts among voters, Steggall’s intervention highlights a broader gap in electoral regulation — one where political parties are increasingly able to reach Australians directly without consent or transparency. With early voting underway and the barrage of election messaging unlikely to slow, pressure is building for electoral laws to catch up to public expectations around digital privacy and choice.
