(Transcript from World News Australia Radio)
The latest revelations come from the United States intelligence fugitive, Edward Snowden.
It's alleged that the Defence Signals Directorate discussed sharing "medical, legal or religious information" with Australia's so-called 5-Eyes allies.
The federal government has sought to downplay the reports, attacking the credibility of the leaked documents.
Darren Mara has this report.
(Click on audio tab above to hear full item)
The report in the Guardian alleges the DSD, now known as the Australian Signals Directorate, told its partners it could share "bulk, unselected, unminimised metadata as long as there is no intent to target an Australian national".
The Guardian says it's proof of surveillance of Australians' personal metadata without any warrant.
But the federal Government says the document, leaked by intelligence whistleblower Edward Snowden on which the report is based, is unverified.
Attorney-General George Brandis says the document is also a draft which doesn't report or record any activity by any Australian intelligence agency.
Speaking in the Senate, he also offered reassurances over the legal framework under which Australia's intelligence agencies operate.
"There is a strong framework of parliamentary oversight, both through the joint parliamentary committee on intelligence and security and the Senate select committee on defence and foreign affairs, in particular. As well, there is ministerial oversight and oversight through the Inspector-General of intelligence and security."
The metadata was reportedly offered to Australia's 5-Eyes partners - the United States, Britain, New Zealand and Canada.
The reports allege the DSD indicated to its international counterparts at a 2008 intelligence conference in England that it could share material without some of the privacy restraints imposed by some other countries.
However, in the documents DSD acknowledges that more substantial interrogation of the material would require a warrant.
Prime Minister Tony Abbott says he's confident Australia's participation in intelligence-gathering and sharing is within the bounds of the law.
"I'm confident that we've got all the relevant safeguards in place and I have no reason to think that any Australian intelligence organisation has not acted in accordance with Australian law."
Deputy Opposition Leader and foreign affairs spokeswoman Tanya Plibersek says surveillance activities are justified so long as they abide by intelligence-gathering rules.
Ms Plibersek says it's impossible to say whether the activities alleged in the lastest leak break any Australian laws.
And she told Sky News the documents would be better out of the spotlight,.
PLIBERSEK: "Well I think it's disappointing that they were stolen in the first place. I think it's a shocking breach of security and I think it would be preferable if they weren't in the public arena."
REPORTER: "So you don't think media outlets should publish this stuff?"
PLIBERSEK: Well that's a judgement that media outlets have to make. I understand why they see it as a story but certainly I think it would be preferable if the documents had never been released in the first place."
But the latest allegations are likely to pile more pressure on the government over the activities of Australia's intelligence agencies.
It follows reports last month that Australian spy agencies tried to listen to the phone calls of Indonesian President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono, his wife and inner circle.
The government is still managing the diplomatic fallout from that episode.
The latest leaks have prompted the Greens to call on the government to be honest about Australia's intelligence-gathering activities.
Greens Senator Scott Ludlam wants an inquiry into the scope of Australia's intelligence agencies' ability to spy on foreign powers as well as Australian citizens.
Senator Ludlam says reports an Australian spy agency allegedly offered to share information collected about ordinary Australians with key foreign intelligence partners is very concerning.
"If you indiscriminately vacuum up somebody's private material, whether it be doctor-patient records, financial records, social media records, you're meant to destroy that material. You're not meant to offer it up to foreign intelligence agencies who may then do anything at all with it or, as these documents from 2008 show, hand it on to other agencies, whether they be policing agencies or whatever."
At the heart of the latest allegations is the sharing of metadata.
This refers to the information people generate when they use technology such as phones and computers.
Metadata can be the time or location of a call or message and the phone numbers involved, but doesn't necessarily include the contents of an email or a phone call.
David Vaile is from the Australian Privacy Foundation.
He says the latest allegations are the most dramatic to date of the information yet leaked by the US fugitive Edward Snowden.
"Because it focuses attention on the core question of control over mass surveillance, the implications of metadata, the awareness and consciousness among the services involved of the privacy, confidentiality, personal information, security issues that may be raised here and by the overall question of oversight."
Mr Vaile says legitimate intelligence-sharing does take place between Australia and its international partners.
But he says the latest allegations paint an Orwellian picture of state surveillance and intelligence-gathering.
He says focus should now be on the scope of surveillance and information-sharing.
"Whether it's in relation to specific threats, the equivalent of reasonable suspicion of offences about to the committed or having been committed or whether on the other hand it's a dragnet mass surveillance excercise with no suspicion, no warrant, no reason in particular to dig up information about you."
