Spy Agency Boss Defends Decision Not to Name ‘Traitor’ MP

Australian Security Intelligence Organisation (ASIO) Director General Mike Burgess poses for a portrait ahead of his annual threat assessment speech at ASIO headquarters in Canberra, Australia on Feb. 28, 2024. AAP Image/Mick Tsikas

ASIO Director-General Mike Burgess has defended his decision not to name a former Australian politician whom he revealed had “sold out their country, party and former colleagues” in the agency’s Annual Threat Assessment earlier this week.

He has since come under intense pressure to name the person, including from former treasurer and ambassador to the United States, Joe Hockey, who said remaining silent “besmirched” every former politician and put at risk Australia’s security relationships.

“It raises questions for the Five Eyes relationship, and there’s sharing of intelligence particularly with existing members of parliament and former members of parliament for Australia,” he said.

“Over here in Washington D.C., I was just asked about it,” he said.

“They’re wondering who they can trust. If it comes down to that, who is the politician that they dealt with that may have been the agent of a foreign nation. It’s extraordinary stuff, and I’m sure that if the reports are correct and Mr. Burgess’ words are correct, then everyone serving in parliament now or who has served in parliament has a right to know who this person is.

“He’s saying there’s a traitor amongst the ranks and he now has to say who that person is.”

Should the 2018 Laws Apply Retroactively?

Foreign interference laws came into effect in late 2018, so it’s possible that the politician was active before then and had been stopped by that time, or that authorities did not have enough evidence to support a prosecution, according to international law expert Professor Don Rothwell.

Most current MPs have expressed reservations about retroactively applying the law, despite being appalled at the former MPs behaviour.

The focus needed to be on the current regime and ensuring it was fit for purpose, one said.

But another wanted all levers to be used to ensure the person faced justice and did not get away with “betraying their country.”

“There’s a line and this crosses party politics,” they said.

Name and Shame, Dutton says

Opposition Leader Peter Dutton said he supported discussing retrofitting the laws.

“The most egregious act is from somebody in public office who betrays their country and I wouldn’t have any tolerance for it whatsoever,” he said.

He was also in favour of naming the person.

“I think it is unfair on a lot of former MPs who are patriotic, as 99.9 percent on both sides are, and if there’s one that they’ve identified who’s not, then, frankly, that person should be outed and shamed,” Mr. Dutton said.

Coalition Leader Peter Dutton said in a radio interview that he'd "put his money" on Beijing being the country involved in the latest spaying revelations. AAP Image/Darren England

Asked in a radio interview whether he believed the country in question was China, Mr. Dutton replied, “That’d be where I put my money.”

Coalition foreign affairs spokesman, Simon Birmingham, agreed there was a risk of suspicion falling on all politicians if the government does not provide more detail.

“The home affairs minister [Clare O’Neil] should make a statement to the house providing as much detail as is possible to provide clarity around this to avoid that type of smear against all …politicians,” he said.

Shadow Home Affairs Spokesman Also Hints at Beijing

Shadow Home Affairs spokesman, James Paterson, claimed he had “a fair idea” of who the politician was, but took a different view saying, “I won’t be publicly speculating about that. That wouldn’t be appropriate and in a sense, it doesn’t matter.”

He also hinted that he knew the CCP was behind the so-called “A team” spy ring, saying: “It’s a person who led a delegation with academics to a foreign country and that they were cultivated. Very, very few people who have ever led a delegation to China, [so] it doesn’t cast an aspersion about everyone.”

Opposition Defence spokesman, Andrew Hastie, said it was difficult to prosecute anyone under foreign interference or espionage laws, “because it requires using classified material which they don’t want to get into the public domain.”

ASIO’s Mr. Burgess defended not naming the politician, saying it was a “historic matter that was appropriately dealt with at the time” and the person was no longer a security concern.

“I am not going to name the individual: we are a rule-of-law country, and if they’re not doing it now, they’re not breaking the law, so there’s nothing our mates in the Australian Federal Police can do, nor should they. If we see them go active again, and they need our attention, the task force’s attention, or the federal police’s attention, I can guarantee they will get it.

Most Politicians ‘Resistant to Approaches’

“Our democracy remains robust, our parliaments remain sovereign, our elections remain free and the overwhelming majority of our politicians remain thoroughly resistant to even the most sophisticated and subtle approaches,” Mr. Burgess said.

His decision was backed by prominent members of Cabinet including Defence Minister Richard Marles, who said he did not know who the politician was but that he respected ASIO’s decision to not name them.

Treasurer Jim Chalmers echoed this view, saying he respected ASIO’s advice and did not intend to “second guess” it.

“I know Mike Burgess, I work with Mike Burgess and I know that he wouldn’t have said this without good reason,” Mr. Chalmers said.

Only one person has been prosecuted under Australia’s foreign interference laws. Former Liberal Party candidate Di Sanh Duong was sentenced on Feb. 29,  to 12 months in jail after he cultivated a relationship with Alan Tudge, at the behest of the Chinese Communist Party.

AAP contributed to this report