Australia's domestic intelligence chief, Mike Burgess, is increasingly taking on the role of a public moral commentator, a development that raises significant concerns about accountability and the nature of democratic discourse. Peter van Onselen, writing for the Daily Mail, argues that while an effective intelligence agency is crucial for national security, Burgess's public pronouncements have extended beyond his mandate, effectively telling Australians how to think and behave.
ASIO, tasked with identifying terrorists, disrupting foreign interference, and monitoring extremism, has traditionally operated with a degree of secrecy. However, under Burgess's leadership, its annual threat assessments have become public events, reaching audiences far beyond government officials. This increased public visibility, while intended to foster trust, also grants Burgess significant influence without the democratic checks and balances inherent in elected office.
Van Onselen contends that Burgess's commentary now often touches on social cohesion, national values, and even advises media on their reporting, straying into areas that should be the domain of elected representatives. When a politician makes similar pronouncements, they are subject to public scrutiny and potential electoral consequences. In contrast, the authority derived from classified intelligence makes it difficult for the public to challenge or verify the claims made by the head of ASIO.
"The more public ASIO becomes - as it has under Burgess - the more accountable it absolutely must be," the article states. The concern is not necessarily with the accuracy of Burgess's assessments of threats such as terrorism or foreign interference, but with the evolving role of the intelligence agency itself. The argument posits that elected governments should not delegate civic instruction to intelligence services.
This shift represents a "profound shift in the public role of the intelligence state," where the language of security begins to overshadow political discourse. Dissent may be reframed as an issue for security agencies to assess rather than a legitimate part of democratic debate. The piece cautions against a subtle danger where the state's security needs could lead to an erosion of freedoms and an expansion of surveillance beyond what is strictly necessary, making Orwellian warnings seem mild in comparison to current and future technological capabilities.
Ultimately, the piece suggests that ASIO's role should remain focused on protecting Australia from threats, not on dictating how citizens think, protest, report, behave, or feel. Democracy, it concludes, is not a security operation.