Head of Spy Agency Justifies Choice to Withhold Identity of Disloyal Parliament Member

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

There has been significant pressure on him to reveal the person, including from former treasurer and ambassador to the United States, Joe Hockey, who stated that staying quiet “besmirched” all former politicians and jeopardized Australia’s security relationships.

“It raises concerns for the Five Eyes relationship, and there’s intelligence sharing with current and former members of parliament in Australia,” he explained.

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

“They’re wondering who they can trust. If it comes down to that, who is the politician 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 reservations about applying the law retroactively, despite being outraged by the behavior of the former MPs.

One mentioned that the focus should be on the current regime and ensuring it was suitable, while another insisted that all measures should be taken to ensure the individual faces justice and does not escape the consequences of “betraying their country.”

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

Name and Shame, Dutton says

Opposition Leader Peter Dutton expressed support for discussing the retrospective application of 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 stated.

He also advocated for disclosing the person’s identity.

“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.

When asked in a radio interview if he believes the country in question is China, Mr. Dutton responded, “That’d be where I put my money.”

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

“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 suggested.

Shadow Home Affairs Spokesman Also Hints at Beijing

Shadow Home Affairs spokesman, James Paterson, claimed to have “a fair idea” of who the politician was but chose not to speculate publicly. He mentioned that it wouldn’t be appropriate and doesn’t matter in a sense.

He also hinted that he knew the CCP was behind the so-called “A team” spy ring, stating: “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, explained that it’s challenging to prosecute individuals under foreign interference or espionage laws due to the need for using classified material that they don’t want to become public.

ASIO’s Mr. Burgess defended his decision not to name the politician, emphasizing that it was a “historic matter that was appropriately dealt with at the time” and that the person is 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 supported by key members of the Cabinet, including Defence Minister Richard Marles, who stated that he didn’t know who the politician was but respected ASIO’s decision not to disclose their identity.

Treasurer Jim Chalmers echoed this sentiment, emphasizing that he respected ASIO’s advice and had no intentions of questioning 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 mentioned.

Only one individual 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 cultivating a relationship with Alan Tudge at the request of the Chinese Communist Party.

AAP contributed to this report