CHOICE membership

Clive Palmer and his unsolicited SMS messages


Now that would be low.


I find it extremely offensive as my partner is still owed money from QNI. I have done the same too and to no avail.


Whilst attempting to solicit votes with SMS messages, Palmer has allegedly transferred his main company to New Zealand and is threatening to sue Australia for $45 billion.

I was amused to see the surname of his spokesman.


My response to spam sms is to add the number to a blocked contact called Z-SPAM. Z-SPAM is naturally out of the way at the end of my contacts, and at current count has 14 numbers. You don’t get the satisfaction of venting your irritation at the source, but I don’t imagine they give a toss about that anyway.


The problem with Clive’s spam is that there is no number, and no way to block it…


For Android Smart Phones
For iPhones


Great. Have done that so let’s see if it works.


Thanks for that, a feature I never knew existed! I’ll have to wait for the next one to find a suitable word/phrase, as I have deleted the 2 received so far.


It reminds me of when John Howard sent automated phone calls during his time on the election trails.


That’s a great tip, but For Samsung Smart Phones. The link refers to the Samsung Messages app, not the Google Messages app which is the ‘default’ for Android phones.

There are plenty of guides for getting the most out of Google Messages - this is one


An unsolicited message from a political party saying they will ban unsolicited messages.
Enough said.


Rather than venting at Clive Palmer / United Australia Party, people should answer a simple question: Should political parties be exempt from the Do Not Call register and other anti-spam measures?

If you think “no” (as many people will) then don’t blame the UAP. It was Lib/Lab that legislated this for their own benefit, long before the PUP was a twinkle in Clive Palmer’s eye.

We should have a mature conversation about the above question though - because it is a cornerstone of our democracy that the voter is informed. If we block all mechanisms for political parties to inform us (yes, with their propaganda and their slogans and their at least sometimes misleading claims and their attack ads) then it isn’t necessarily good for democracy. For example, it may make it easier for the winning party to introduce insidious legislation - and everyone will decry: why didn’t I know about this before now?

I have a feeling that by the time the 2019 election campaign (or campaigns in NSW) is over, the UAP will be the least of anyone’s complaints.


The other question is should indiscriminate political/election messages (emails, texts, robocalls etc) be restricted to the formal campaign period (after the election date is announced)?

Possibly if the texts were received through the formal campaign period, there would less of an issue with those from Clive Palmer. Sending them now sets a precedence for any political party/group to send through messages at any time they see fit.

Will the ALP./LNP/Greens etc follow suit and send through political messages about the policy position of the sitting government at any time? If this occurs, one may get numerous messages routinely from various parties. This is possibly something not acceptable to most constituents.


An article that I previously missed regarding Clive Palmer claiming his unsolicited SMS campaign was a success.

I also see that he plans to run for the federal seat of Herbert which includes his failed QNI refinery.

Presumably he is not expecting his former workers to get him over the line, or he will be the runner-up to Informal.


That is one possible answer (i.e. exempt during election campaign, subject to the same law as all the rest of us outside the campaign period) - but it is not consistent with current law. So you should vote for a party that would fix current law. :slight_smile: Oops.

If there’s an election campaign in NSW, can Lib/Lab call you if you live in Vic? For SMS / call to a mobile number, how will they know where you live?

FWIW, not the same thing at all, particularly in those states that have fixed parliamentary terms.


Success will be determined on election day.

Because he has changed the name of his party (always a problematic thing to do), he gets some benefit from

  • people now know that the party (UAP) exists
  • people are talking about the UAP

Courageous. :slight_smile:


I don’t imagine they are going to mention any of that in their spam!


No, but competitor parties could - if they are allowed to spam.


I don’t care which political party it is. I do not want phone calls or sms’s from any of them. The first time I was ever aware of political phone calls was when we were in the US at Presidential election time and our friends had more phone calls per day than you would think possible.


Then you should vote for a party that will change the law to give effect to that desire. :slight_smile: