PETER VAN ONSELEN: The unsettling truth is that ASIO is telling Australians how to think

By PETER VAN ONSELEN, POLITICAL EDITOR, AUSTRALIA Published: 03:36, 30 June 2026 | Updated: 03:36, 30 June 2026 Your browser does not support iframes. A democracy should worry when an unelected intelligence chief becomes one of the country's most authoritative public moral commentators.  Mike Burgess isn't Australia's national conscience, he's the head of ASIO - who just so happens to issue regular sermons about the government's position on matters that go well beyond his station.  We obviously need and want an effective domestic intelligence agency that can identify terrorists, disrupt foreign interference, monitor violent extremism and warn governments about threats the rest of us can't see. No serious person would pretend otherwise. But Burgess no longer merely briefs the government or explains the broader security environment we face.  He tells us about threats, then widens the lens to the importance of social cohesion and beyond - even once telling politicians and the media to 'watch your words'.  The head of ASIO is starting to sound less like a spy chief and more like a civic preacher dabbling in sociology with some of his public commentary. This is not an argument that Burgess should never speak publicly. Australians have a legitimate interest in understanding the broad nature of threats facing the country.  ASIO chief Mike Burgess is starting to sound less like a spy chief and more like some kind of civic preacher... That has issues, writes Peter van Onselen  He doesn't have to be a faceless man. Terrorism is real. So is foreign interference, antisemitism and violent extremism. Some Australians are being radicalised online at frightening speed. We know all that. But real threats make boundaries more important, not less. ASIO's job is to protect democracy, not to instruct Australians on how to behave within it. Burgess increasingly crosses that line, in my view. ASIO's annual threat assessment is no longer some sleepy closed door briefing for ministers and officials. It has become a national event directed at 'multiple audiences', according to the Australian Strategic Policy Institute. Its language travels fast through the political system, becoming a reference point for ministers, bureaucrats, journalists and lobbyists. That is power without the usual democratic constraints. And it comes with an aura too.  Burgess speaks with the authority of secrets, making claims most people can't test, citing intelligence we cannot see, describing dangers but withholding the evidence underpinning the claims (assuming they are accurate and legitimate, more so than weapons of mass destruction hopefully). When a politician moralises, voters can punish them if they don't agree or take issue with the spin.  When a spy chief speaks from behind classified intelligence, the normal tools do not work the same way. It's problematic. The more public ASIO becomes - as it has under Burgess - the more accountable it absolutely must be Why is the national conversation being ceded to an unelected security figure? Burgess is the director-general of a secret intelligence organisation, not an elected representative.  He may be right about the threats he identifies. Well intentioned too. He may not have an agenda, ideological or otherwise.  The deeper concern is what the role he occupies is becoming. Elected government should not outsource civic instruction to intelligence services. When the head of ASIO starts advising journalists on how to report, Australians are entitled to bristle. Journalists should too by the way.  When he tells the country to lower the temperature, Australians should ask whether this is a security warning or a political judgment being made.  When he speaks about tolerance, cohesion and national values, Australians have a right to question who elected him. Burgess may believe public candour builds trust, and think the old model of silent intelligence chiefs is obsolete.  But the more public ASIO becomes, the more accountable it absolutely must be. The reach of a public commentator doesn't fit well with the immunity of a secret official.  The government can't pretend this is just harmless transparency. It's a profound shift in the public role of the intelligence state. The danger is subtler than dictatorship: it's the language of security swallowing the language of politics.  Dissent starts to be understood less as something citizens contest and more as something agencies assess. I'm not some civil liberties nut, but we already swallow all manner of interventions and invasions for the sake of giving the state the tools it tells us it needs to keep us safe.  The technological world we live in makes Orwell's warnings look timid compared to where we are now, much less where we are heading. ASIO should protect Australia from threats. It should not become the institution that tells Australians how to think, argue, protest, report, behave and feel. Democracy is not a security operation. No comments have so far been submitted. Why not be the first to send us your thoughts, or debate this issue live on our message boards. By posting your comment you agree to our house rules. Do you want to automatically post your MailOnline comments to your Facebook Timeline? Your comment will be posted to MailOnline as usual. Do you want to automatically post your MailOnline comments to your Facebook Timeline? Your comment will be posted to MailOnline as usual We will automatically post your comment and a link to the news story to your Facebook timeline at the same time it is posted on MailOnline. To do this we will link your MailOnline account with your Facebook account. We’ll ask you to confirm this for your first post to Facebook. You can choose on each post whether you would like it to be posted to Facebook. Your details from Facebook will be used to provide you with tailored content, marketing and ads in line with our Privacy Policy.