The government's recently-tabled anti-spam legislation has drawn some fiery responses, with lobby groups and politicians tackling both the Bills and each other in statements over the past few days.

The Coalition Against Unsolicited Bulk Email, Australia (CAUBE.AU) has slammed recent criticism of the Spam Act 2003 by civil liberties group Electronic Frontiers Australia (EFA) and called the arguments raised by the group "entirely unjustified".

"None of the three case scenarios offered by EFA as examples of situations in which non-spam would be banned are correct," said Josh Rowe, founding director of CAUBE.AU. "In each case the conduct in question would be legal under the proposed law."

CAUBE.AU claims "the EFA analysis fails to reflect the flexible approach taken in the Bill which is designed to ensure that even if there are unexpected consequences, those consequences can be eliminated swiftly".

Rowe plays down EFAs concerns that the Bill allows representatives of the Australian Communications Authority (ACA) to conduct "search and seizure" actions without a warrant.

"The feared outcomes pay insufficient regard to the background of the common law, including the law of consent, administrative law, and the common law as it relates to search warrant powers, which render those feared outcomes not just unlikely, but unlawful," said Rowe.

However, Labor's position is similar to that of EFA, with the Shadow Minister for IT Kate Lundy releasing a statement that Labor would seek to refer the two Bills (the Spam Bill 2003 (PDF) and the Spam (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2003 (PDF)) to a Senate Committee to investigate the concerns the party has, along with the concerns of the Internet industry. One of those concerns is the "search and seizure provisions" that will be given to the ACA in the bills.

"In some situations, the Bill could allow ACA inspectors to enter and search premises - including private computer systems - without obtaining a warrant. We have to make sure people's civil liberties are protected," said Lundy.

Lundy said Labor would also seek to ensure that exemptions to the regime are consistent, exempted organisations be required to employ a functional unsubscribe facility in commercial e-mails and to clarify the definition of "consent" for single e-mails.

Rowe pointed out that the law would be reviewed two years after coming into effect, and this would include reconsideration of the exemptions for registered political parties, religious organisations, and charities included in the Bill. "Most of the exempted groups have strong reasons not to spam," said Rowe.

This view is not supported by Britain's All Party Internet Group, which recently released a report criticising Australian legislation for including those exemptions, and "recommending" the Australian Parliament "carefully consider the advantages" of changing the legislation to more closely follow the European Directive on Privacy and Electronic Communications (2002/58/EC).

"We are unaware of how many charities there might be in Australia, but in the U.K. there are about 188,000. There will also be a fair number of government bodies, political parties and religious organisations," said APIGs report. "Although we can see the political attractiveness of exempting bodies such as charities from anti-spam legislation, we fear that this may prove to be short-sighted if a significant number of them misinterpret the legislation as meaning that spam from all of them would be in any sense acceptable to the recipients."

The Australian Direct Marketing Association (ADMA) came out in support of the Bill.

"This legislation is necessary to restore confidence in e-commerce because spam is strangling the Internet and e-mail as a channel for on-line business and marketing," the ADMA's chief executive officer, Rob Edwards, said in a statement. "Most e-marketing is only conducting with existing customers or with prior consent because of the nature of the medium but companies will have to ensure that they fully comply with the new law to ensure they do not inadvertently incur the considerable penalties involved."

Copyright © 2009 CBS Interactive, a CBS Company. All Rights Reserved.
ZDNET is a registered service mark of CBS Interactive. ZDNET Logo is a service mark of CBS Interactive.