The Claim
“Proposed new broad powers for the Attorney-General so that the government can demand that telcos do unspecified 'things', which could include filtering the internet, tracking everyone's browsing history and more.”
Original Sources Provided
✅ FACTUAL VERIFICATION
The claim refers to the Telecommunications and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2015, also known as the Telecommunications Sector Security Reforms (TSSR). The Turnbull government released an exposure draft on June 26, 2015, proposing to amend the Telecommunications Act 1997 [1].
The legislation would indeed give the Attorney-General (Senator George Brandis) powers to issue directions to telecommunications companies "in circumstances involving a risk to security" [2]. The bill required carriers and carriage service providers to "do their best to protect telecommunications networks and facilities from unauthorised interference or unauthorised access" [3].
However, the claim's framing that these powers "could include filtering the internet, tracking everyone's browsing history" is misleading. The legislation's stated purpose was specifically to protect telecommunications networks from espionage, sabotage, and foreign interference - particularly vulnerabilities arising from global supply chains for telecommunications equipment [4]. The government's official position was that these reforms would "help manage the national security risks of espionage, sabotage and foreign interference in Australia's telecommunications networks and facilities" [5].
Missing Context
The claim omits several critical facts:
Bipartisan Support: The legislation ultimately passed with bipartisan support. The Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security (PJCIS) recommended the bill should be passed, albeit with amendments [6]. The TSSR reforms were enacted in September 2018 after passing the Senate with "a bipartisan show of support for the legislation" [7].
Parliamentary Committee Origins: The proposed laws stemmed from bipartisan recommendations from a parliamentary committee, not solely from Coalition policy [8]. The Attorney-General's spokesperson specifically noted this when defending the consultation process.
Industry Consultation: While the Communications Alliance (industry body) raised concerns about the breadth of powers, the government was actively consulting with stakeholders. Telstra's chief risk officer acknowledged the shared goal of network security while requesting "light touch" intervention [9].
Cost and Implementation Reality: The Regulation Impact Statement estimated the average annual additional regulatory cost at only $220,000 per year - hardly the scale of investment required for mass internet filtering or comprehensive browsing history tracking [10].
Subsequent Refinement: The government revised the bill significantly between the 2015 exposure draft and final passage in 2018, addressing many industry concerns about the breadth of powers.
Source Credibility Assessment
The original source is the Sydney Morning Herald (via the Australian Financial Review and archive.org), which is a reputable mainstream media outlet. However, the framing in the AFR article ("do unspecified 'things'") uses sensationalist language that emphasizes the broad discretionary language in the draft legislation while downplaying:
- The specific national security context (foreign interference, espionage)
- The bipartisan parliamentary committee origins
- The consultation process underway
- The ultimate bipartisan passage of the bill
The SMH/AFR is generally credible but this particular framing leans toward emphasizing civil liberties concerns rather than presenting a balanced view of the security trade-offs.
Labor Comparison
Did Labor do something similar?
Search conducted: "Labor government telecommunications surveillance powers metadata retention legislation"
Finding: Yes, Labor has an extensive history of supporting and expanding telecommunications surveillance powers:
Metadata Retention (2015): The metadata retention scheme, which requires telecommunications firms to keep customer metadata for two years, was launched by the Coalition government in early 2015 but passed with bipartisan support from Labor [11]. This scheme is significantly more relevant to "tracking browsing history" than the TSSR network security reforms.
Labor's Own Surveillance History: Under the Rudd/Gillard Labor governments (2007-2013), significant expansions of surveillance powers occurred, including the 2008 and 2009 national security law amendments [12].
Bipartisan Support for TSSR: When the TSSR Bill finally passed in 2018, it received bipartisan support. Communications Minister Mitch Fifield noted it was the "ninth significant tranche of national security legislation the Coalition Government has passed since 2014" - legislation that consistently received Labor support [13].
Comparison: While the Coalition introduced the TSSR reforms, Labor's own metadata retention scheme (which Labor supported and maintains) is far more directly relevant to the claim's fears about "tracking browsing history." The TSSR was specifically about network infrastructure security, while metadata retention is about collecting communication records. Both parties have consistently supported expanding telecommunications surveillance powers in the name of national security.
Balanced Perspective
The claim presents the TSSR reforms as uniquely concerning Coalition overreach with dystopian implications ("filtering the internet, tracking everyone's browsing history"). This framing is misleading.
Reality: The TSSR reforms were:
- Based on bipartisan parliamentary committee recommendations
- Focused specifically on protecting telecommunications infrastructure from foreign interference and espionage
- Supported by both major parties upon passage
- A response to genuine national security concerns about vulnerable supply chains
The legislation was not about creating capabilities for mass surveillance or internet filtering - those powers already existed or were being established through other legislation (like the metadata retention scheme, which had Labor's full support).
Key context: This is not unique to the Coalition. Both major Australian parties have consistently supported expanding telecommunications surveillance and security powers since 9/11. The claim's implication that these powers were uniquely alarming because they were Coalition-proposed ignores the bipartisan reality of Australian national security legislation. When the TSSR passed in 2018, it did so with Labor's support [14].
The concerns raised by civil liberties groups and telecommunications companies about broad discretionary powers were legitimate and resulted in amendments. However, presenting this as a partisan issue or suggesting dystopian surveillance capabilities is inaccurate.
PARTIALLY TRUE
5.0
out of 10
The core claim is accurate: the Turnbull government did propose giving the Attorney-General broad powers to direct telecommunications companies to take unspecified actions for national security purposes. However, the claim is misleading in several significant ways:
- It omits the bipartisan origins of the legislation (parliamentary committee recommendations)
- It omits that Labor ultimately supported the bill's passage
- It exaggerates the surveillance implications - the bill was about network security, not mass surveillance
- It ignores that Labor supported the more surveillance-relevant metadata retention scheme
- The dystopian framing ("filtering the internet, tracking everyone's browsing history") was speculative and not reflective of the bill's actual purpose
The claim presents a bipartisan national security measure as a uniquely concerning Coalition overreach.
Final Score
5.0
OUT OF 10
PARTIALLY TRUE
The core claim is accurate: the Turnbull government did propose giving the Attorney-General broad powers to direct telecommunications companies to take unspecified actions for national security purposes. However, the claim is misleading in several significant ways:
- It omits the bipartisan origins of the legislation (parliamentary committee recommendations)
- It omits that Labor ultimately supported the bill's passage
- It exaggerates the surveillance implications - the bill was about network security, not mass surveillance
- It ignores that Labor supported the more surveillance-relevant metadata retention scheme
- The dystopian framing ("filtering the internet, tracking everyone's browsing history") was speculative and not reflective of the bill's actual purpose
The claim presents a bipartisan national security measure as a uniquely concerning Coalition overreach.
📚 SOURCES & CITATIONS (9)
-
1
Telecommunications Sector Security Reforms | Office of Impact Analysis
Oia Pmc Gov
-
2
Telcos draw the line at latest Federal Government changes to national security laws
New national security laws which would give the Attorney-General the power to issue orders to Australian telcos stoke a looming battle between the telecommunications companies and the Federal Government.
Abc Net -
3
Media Releases - Parliament of Australia
Media Releases
Aph Gov -
4
Telecommunications Sector Security Reforms (TSSR): Finally...
On 30 June 2017, the Australian Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security (PJCIS) released its report on the Telecommunications and…
Lexology -
5
Telco security is the new frontier | Gregory's Take
The Telecommunications Sector Security Reforms (TSSR) have now passed the Senate after a bipartisan show of support for the legislation that formalises the telecommunications industry’s responsibility to protect their networks.Read the original article on InnovationAusRead the article below
Markagregory -
6PDF
Telecommunications Sector Security Reforms RIS
Oia Pmc Gov • PDF Document -
7
Government acts to finally reform metadata regime
A loophole meant more organisations could access your metadata.
Information Age -
8
Data retention obligations
Home Affairs brings together Australia's federal law enforcement, national and transport security, criminal justice, emergency management, multicultural affairs, settlement services and immigration and border-related functions, working together to keep Australia safe.
Department of Home Affairs Website -
9
Joint Attorney-General - Senate Passes Telecommunications Sector Security Reforms
The Honourable Mitch Fifield
Rating Scale Methodology
1-3: FALSE
Factually incorrect or malicious fabrication.
4-6: PARTIAL
Some truth but context is missing or skewed.
7-9: MOSTLY TRUE
Minor technicalities or phrasing issues.
10: ACCURATE
Perfectly verified and contextually fair.
Methodology: Ratings are determined through cross-referencing official government records, independent fact-checking organizations, and primary source documents.