The government of Australia has said that it will censor almost 90 per cent of the document showings its plan to monitor browsing habits of the ordinary citizens in the country.

The 18 page document was obtained through a freedom of information (FOI) request however most of the document is blanked out. The government says that it does not want a premature debate on the issue and thus is censoring the details.

The censorship is so detailed that the document has several pages with a single word. The proposal has been criticized as the government has asked the internet service providers in the country to store some aspects of the user's online behavior.

The government has been discussing the proposal with the industry members as it would require snooping on even those who have not committed any wrong doing. All parties involved in the discussion have been asked to remain secret about the matter.

An expert from the uncensored part of the document states, "The UK experience has also shown the availability of information can be of great benefit providing exculpatory evidence, allowing police to rule out a person from an investigation, and to Coroners in determining circumstances leading up to death."

Attorney-General Robert McClelland has dismissed suggestions that the government would collect the individual web browsing history of every Australian internet user.

The details that government wants the service providers to store are available on the document which was handed to the industry members in a secret briefing held in March. The government reportedly wants the parties to respond within a month.

The Attorney-General's Department legal officer, FoI and Privacy Section, Claudia Hernandez said after releasing the document that the release of some sections of it "may lead to premature unnecessary debate and could potentially prejudice and impede government decision making".

She further said that the information in the document is about a government policy that has not been finalized yet and may be amended before it goes for public consultations. She added that the public's right to participate in Government policy making should be acknowledged but the premature release will only lead to confusion.

"In my opinion, the public interest factors in favor of release are outweighed by those against," she concluded.