The claim refers to the **Telecommunications and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2015**, also known as the Telecommunications Sector Security Reforms (TSSR).
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].
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].
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.
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:
1.
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.
**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:
1. **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.
2. **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].
3. **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.
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**.
The claim's implication that these powers were uniquely alarming because they were Coalition-proposed ignores the bipartisan reality of Australian national security legislation.
The concerns raised by civil liberties groups and telecommunications companies about broad discretionary powers were legitimate and resulted in amendments.
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.
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.
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.
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.