O Two MPs said the meeting, which was called on Wednesday evening, appeared to be a "rubber stamp" for the government's metadata retention plans. AFP Commissioner Andrew Colvin, Communications Minister Malcolm Turnbull, Attorney-General George Brandis and Director-General of Security Duncan Lewis address the media. Credit:Alex Ellinghausen In a surprise move, the federal government announced the new legislation on Thursday. It would require telecommunications companies to store customers' telephone and email records for two years under new legislation. The bill would allow law enforcement agencies to access two years' worth of customer "metadata" without a warrant.

The bill does not explain exactly what constitutes metadata, but it will not include the content of calls or emails, web browsing history or website addresses (URLs). One MP said there appeared to be three outstanding issues to resolve: the cost impact on telcos, the definition of metadata and what happens to metadata after it had been stored two years. Attorney General George Brandis's attempt to explain metadata while proposing the changes earlier this year was described at the time as a "car crash interview". Other concerns about limiting the agencies that have access to the data had, however, been addressed, the MP said. During the meeting, it is understood that Liberal senator Cory Bernardi and MP George Christensen flagged concerns about the bill.

According to the submission, which is designed to brief MPs on the details of the bill, "metadata is central to virtually every counterterrorism, organised crime, counter-espionage and cyber security investigation". The fact that ISPs are not currently obliged to retain metadata means that "less information is being retained for shorter periods of time. This is having a critical impact on law enforcement and national security capabilities", the briefing note says. Anticipating the campaign against the laws, the submission notes "there is a strong likelihood that opponents will refer to the regime as an 'internet tax' that will be passed on to consumers. This is not an internet tax." "The government will consult closely with industry to determine how to manage additional compliance costs. Costs should also not be the reason that the safety of Australians is compromised," it notes. And the submission does admit the bill is "silent on cost" and that "there will be some cost implications should the government agree to contribute to the cost of data retention".

Loading The briefing paper also anticipates and rebuts arguments that data retention constitutes an invasion of privacy, arguing the scheme will not provide agencies with new powers and says it is not true the data retention regime will allow agencies to access web browsing history. Follow us on Twitter