How you could end up paying the govt’s ‘spy tax’
AAP
A mass spying program proposed by the federal government will come at a dear cost to consumers, industry and consumer groups warn.
The scheme, known as mandatory data retention, would force telcos to store customer records for two years, ostensibly to help police and spies to fight crime.
Consumers will pay for the scheme (which has been estimated to store the equivalent of more than 300,000 high-quality downloadable movies worth of private data each day) either through their tax bill or phone and internet plan.
• Govt fast-tracks anti-terror data retention laws
• Watch: Brandis’ embarrassing interview on metadata
• Unions slam Fair Work inquiry
The cost of the scheme has been calculated by accounting firm PwC, but the government is refusing to release these costings.
The peak body for communications consumers, known as ACCAN, has argued that it would be fairer for taxpayers to foot the bill.
“[T]his would reduce the impact on lower income consumers who already struggle to pay their phone and internet bills,” said ACCAN deputy chief executive Narelle Clark.
Consumers will lose out so that spy bosses, like former ASIO head David Irvine, can protect the nation. Photo: AAP
Making retention mandatory is the only way the government can ensure that private data is held, as many telcos already delete the data due to the high cost of storage.
Communications Minister Malcom Turnbull has promised that the government would make a “substantial contribution” to cover costs, but has released no specific details of this compensation plan.
In a recent joint submission to parliament, the Communications Alliance and the Australian Mobile Telecommunications Association said they were concerned about the “potentially enormous cost impost” that would be passed on to consumers.
Anything less than full compensation from the government would also put local telcos at a competitive disadvantage with off-shore companies, said the submission.
The telco industry is “far from convinced that a two year retention period for IP-related data is either necessary, justifiable, cost-effective, or in the public interest”, it said.
iiNet chief regulatory officer Steve Dalby told The New Daily that any additional cost imposed by mandatory retention would be “shamefully and deliberately wasteful” because there is no need for a retention scheme at all.
“The initiative is misplaced and will not achieve the stated aims of reducing terror threats and keeping Australians safe,” Mr Dalby said.
“The Government is not concerned about this wastefulness because it is ‘off budget’ for them as they offload the responsibility and costs for aspects of national security to companies in the private sector,” he said.
Greens Senator Scott Ludlum has described the scheme as an extremely costly “surveillance tax”.
“It amounts to little more than a surveillance tax, one that was not announced before the election. Industry presumably will pass on some of these costs to users, and the rest will be picked up by taxpayers,” Senator Ludlum said.
A leaked cabinet room document obtained by Fairfax Media anticipated this backlash against retention costs, but argued that protecting the lives of Australian citizens is worth the expense.
“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,” read the leaked document.
On Thursday, Victoria’s privacy and data protection commissioner David Watts told Fairfax Media he shared concerns about the potential cost of the scheme.
“There is no meaningful way to determine how much it will cost taxpayers or to measure whether or not it produces public value commensurate with its cost,” Mr Watts said.
Telcos have not released an updated estimate of the costs imposed by the scheme.
Last year, iiNet estimated that internet plans could increase by $5 or $10 per month, but now says this figure is probably too high after the government released more particulars of the scheme.