Russia, Turkey, China and South Africa have expressed outrage over revelations that U-S and UK intelligence agencies spied on the delegates at the two meetings in London.
The revelations have been made in a Guardian newspaper report, based on documents released by United States former intelligence agent Edward Snowden.
Michael Kenny reports.
The Guardian report names Australia as one of the recipient nations of the intelligence gathered through the US program known as PRISM.
It's been reported PRISM works by tapping into the servers of a host of Internet giants, including Facebook, Google and YouTube, to collect data on non-US citizens.
The Guardian report has revealed Britain's GCHQ electronic eavesdropping agency was also involved in monitoring communications at the G20 meetings in 2009.
The revelations have been strongly condemned by Russia, Turkey, China and South Africa.
The Turkish government summoned Britain's charge d'affaires to explain the report that Finance Minister Mehmet Simsek was under surveillance during the talks.
The Turkish foreign ministry has issued a statement condemning the intrusion.
"The Foreign Ministry has got in touch with the British embassy, probably the ambassador, and officially asked whether these allegations or these stories from the Guardian newspaper are true or not."
Russia has also expressed concern that U-S spies had intercepted communications made by then-President Dmitry Medvedev while he was in Britain.
Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Hua Chunying says the international community deserves more information about the US's covert spying operations.
"We believe the United States should pay attention to the international community's concerns and demands and give the international community the necessary explanation".
The United States National Security Agency says it plans to reveal details about terror plots it says were thwarted by surveillance measures under the PRISM program.
US President Barack Obama has defended its current intelligence programs, saying they are overseen by the US Congress and by federal courts.
The Australian Government has not responded so far to the revelations in the Guardian report that it was a recipient nation of the intelligence obtained at the G20 meetings.
The Vice-Chairman of the Australian Privacy Foundation, David Vaile, believes the US surveillance programs are fundamentally flawed and Australia should not be associated with them.
"The question really here that's raised is whether the risks and the change in how we use information technology that goes with basically saying that everybody is a suspect. The old idea protected in the US 4th amendment to their constitution about not having unreasonable search and seizure powers unless there was reasonable suspicion because of the risk of terrorism - whatever that may be in a particular place or time - is that a basis for sort of throwing aside all those old protections and sort of accepting stuff on trust?"
The Australian Greens say they are deeply concerned about any moves to strengthen Australia's current electronic surveillance laws.
The Greens have introduced legislation closing what it calls a loophole allowing law enforcement agencies to collect Australians' private phone and internet data.
Greens Senator Scott Ludlam says his party's bill would ensure there were stronger privacy protections.
"It's a very simple bill that effectively says if you want Australians' private information, whether it be your phone records that show where you are every minute of the day or all of the people you're in contact with, you need to get a warrant. It's the same as if the police or intelligence agencies want to listen in on your phone call or read your e-mail."
Senator Ludlam claims there are 300,000 requests for private information made every year by Australian police and intelligence agencies without a warrant.
The Australian Privacy Foundation's David Vaile believes there has been a lack of public transparency around the collection of private data which needs to be addressed.
"In the Australian context, you've had what seems to be a relatively obscure behind-closed-doors discussion about the proposals for data retention which were not really put in context of this sort of broader surveillance practice that's going on overseas and the questions around the potential relationship between local programs and international programs weren't really addressed."
