"We must counter multiple threats simultaneously," Mike Burgess told a packed room in Canberra, delivering the seventh annual threat assessment of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation.
Why the director-general spoke publicly — and to whom
Mike Burgess used a public forum that was rare before his 2020 inaugural address to signal multiple, overlapping messages. He spoke to adversaries—foreign intelligence services, hybrid operators and violent extremists—warning that “ASIO has their number.” He spoke to the Australian public and to Canberra’s national security and diplomatic community, reassuring them that ASIO is capable while also urging the nation not to be complacent. He spoke directly to specific professional audiences—security clearance holders, private investigators, lawyers and journalists—with tailored warnings and instructions.
Interconnected threats: cross‑ideological violence and social fragility
Burgess framed the security environment as one in which threats are “increasingly interconnected and diverse.” He warned that ancient hatreds such as antisemitism now motivate actors across ideological lines—“anarchist and Nazi, Christian fundamentalist and Islamist”—and that the boundary between terrorism and foreign intelligence activity has blurred. He described a “permissive environment for violence” in which cross‑ideological extremism, social fragility and an information environment “geared to outrage” normalise politically motivated violence. Examples cited included Iran’s proxy arson campaign against Jewish targets and the December 14 attack on Jews at Bondi, which Burgess said has sharpened public focus on how agencies managed threats before the event.
Foreign intelligence operations, coercive repatriation and espionage
Burgess delivered pointed criticisms and demonstrations aimed at foreign intelligence services operating in Australia. He described a 10‑year‑long intimidation campaign against an individual whom a foreign government sought to coercively repatriate, and flagged hybrid activities ranging from coercion of diaspora communities to cyber‑attacks on critical infrastructure and classic espionage. He also provided a case study of ASIO disrupting an attempt to cultivate an Australian security clearance holder to betray AUKUS and other defence secrets: ASIO confronted the intelligence officer operating under cover and then notified the foreign service involved—“And in case [that service] did not report it up [to their government] – I’m confirming it now,” Burgess said.
Terror threat levels and talks with Home Affairs
Burgess questioned the adequacy of Australia’s long‑standing terror threat levels. He argued the current “Probable” level does not accurately capture the present environment and noted that the next level, “Expected,” applies only when ASIO knows of a specific attack. In the following question‑and‑answer session he confirmed that ASIO was in talks with Home Affairs about reforming the system. Across his remarks he rejected the notion that ASIO should pivot from “single threat to single threat,” instead saying resourcing decisions are not mechanical but must respond continuously to a dynamic environment: “If we [ASIO] know about a serious threat, we address it. And if we have concerns about a developing threat, we inquire and investigate.”
What this means for security clearance holders, journalists, and private investigators
- Security clearance holders: Burgess’s account elevates the role of cleared individuals in counter‑espionage—both as potential targets for cultivation and as pivotal sources in disruption. He used the successful intervention involving a clearance holder as an example of how such cooperation can halt espionage.
- Journalists: Burgess advised the media to “report the news, but consider how you report the news,” urging caution to avoid inflaming an already volatile security environment.
- Private investigators and lawyers: Burgess warned those who might act for a foreign government that “ignorance is no excuse. You could be aiding and abetting foreign interference.” He also told individuals targeted by interference that “you do have a choice” and should contact authorities if they face coercion.
Burgess closed with a sobering refrain that pulled together his multiple audiences: ASIO is capable and effective, but national security is “the nation’s problem, not just ASIO’s” and Australians should expect to be shocked by future outrages but “not be surprised.” His speech left two clear managerial tasks on the table for government and the public: sustain the capacity to run many lines of work at once, and revisit how official threat levels reflect a complex, interconnected threat picture.
Full source: Many, varied audiences for ASIO’s Annual Threat Assessment
