ASIO chief freelances on social cohesion and values

ASIO chief Mike Burgess made dubious claims about social cohesion and trust in institutions and values in his recent Lowy Conference speech, writes Jaron Sutton.

EVERY year in February, the Australian Security Intelligence Agency (ASIO)’s general manager of security, Mike Burgessprovides a public address called Annual Threat Assessment. In the speech, which Burgess launched in 2020, the spy chief outlines what ASIO considers to be the key threats facing Australia and throws in an operational success story for good measure.

It’s a good thing Burgess is starting these annual addresses. Intelligence agencies are quarantined from public scrutiny in a way that other branches of government are not. Defense strategy and procurement, for example, is discussed quite openly in Australia. thanks to now there is AUKUSIt’s a cottage industry of safety experts who publicly share their views on which submarines Australia should buy and why.

Just last week ABC’s Four Corners program, the deputy chief of the Australian Defense Force (ADF) pinpointed the location of Australia’s seven northern air bases on a map, revealing which bases are home to F-35 fighter jets and MQ-4 Triton surveillance aircraft. As an organization, the ADF is also subject to strict public scrutiny. management failuresserious issues, such as the rate of self-defense suicides or allegations of systemic sexual violence.

But there is still a generally accepted view that whatever is going on organizationally under cover in our intelligence agencies, the Australian public has no right to know. So it’s a good thing that Burgess goes out once or twice a year to engage with the Australian public; although he can answer moderately probing questions by invoking the old refrain of not discussing sensitive intelligence matters. We must trust Mike.

Last week, Burgess broke the rhythm of his annual threat assessments and said: 2025 Lowy Lecture. There is much in Burgess’s Lowy speech that is worth examining closely; especially as it moves towards the realm of social harmony, which he himself acknowledges. “It is not one of the specific matters that ASIO has the authority to investigate and assess.”. But evaluate what you have.

In his speech, Burgess focused on the risk posed by the so-called “erosion” of social cohesion and its role in exacerbating existing threats such as foreign espionage and interference (or vice versa). Burgess used the word harmony 18 times in his Lowy speech. It appeared only four times in the threat assessment in February. It did not appear even once in the 2024 threat assessment. Unfortunately, Burgess did not define social cohesion in his speech and did not provide any evidence to support the claim that social cohesion is being eroded.

Fortunately, academics keep track of this sort of thing. In the conclusion of the last one Mapping Social Cohesion report by Scanlon Foundation Research InstituteThe authors state that: ‘Most of our social cohesion indicators have been reasonably stable over the last one to two years’. This is exactly the period when Burgess seems so busy.

In his speech, Burgess also claimed that trust in Australian institutions was declining. Last OECD data Given that trust in institutions in Australia and other OECD countries actually increased between 2021 and 2023, we argue that the opposite is the case. Mapping Social Cohesion The report found that trust in government in Australia increased from 2024 to 2025.

While intelligence chiefs’ refusal to provide details on most intelligence matters is laudable, verifiable claims about broader societal trends used to support a broader thesis that the national security environment is eroding must be supported by definitive evidence. This is especially true when the person making these claims also warns about the dangers of spreading misinformation. Perhaps Burgess has reliable research to the contrary. If so, he should share it.

During the Q&A, Burgess also overstepped the mark when answering a question. Lowy Institute executive Director Michael Fullilove about an alleged decline in civil discourse “There is something wrong with all our values”.

What values was Burgess talking about? Is opposing genocide one of them? Should the values of the Australian people be questioned, as Burgess did during the Lowy Q&A, by an intelligence official who congratulates the intelligence service of a country that the UN and many other credible experts have identified as committing genocide?

Do we have the right to ask Burgess what ASIO considers was the role played by the same service in perpetrating this genocide? Are we also entitled to ask Burgess whether ASIO thinks the genocide in Israel (and the Australian Government’s response to it) has played any role in reinforcing what his organization considers to be a breakdown of social cohesion?

Although Burgess wanted the main takeaway of his speech to be social cohesion, he did himself no favors by restating allegations he made in February that foreign entities were attempting lethal targeting in Australia.

In his Lowy speech, Burgess claimed:

“ASIO assesses that there is a realistic possibility that a foreign government will attempt to assassinate a perceived dissident in Australia. This threat is real. We believe there are at least three countries willing and able to engage in lethal targeting here.”

This claim, as Michael Fullilove told Burgess in the Q&A that followed: “The most dramatic thing you’ve said tonight… and I’m sure it’ll be at the top of tomorrow’s headlines.”. Fullilove was right about the media reaction.

Those who watched the Q&A or read the media coverage that followed the address would be forgiven for thinking Burgess’s “dramatic” statement was new information. But it wasn’t. What the media and Fullilove himself missed was that Burgess had made an almost identical claim nine months earlier. The media should have known this; they reported this at the time. So what did Burgess say in February?

in february 2025 Annual Threat AssessmentBurgess said:

“ASIO investigations have identified at least three different countries planning to physically harm people living in Australia. In a small number of cases, we have experienced serious fears for the life of the person targeted.”

Burgess described an attempt by an unnamed foreign intelligence service to lure an Australia-based human rights activist to a third country. “To seriously injure or even kill” them. He also mentioned an attempt by an unnamed regime in 2024. “To harm or possibly kill one or more persons on Australian territory.”. Both plans were blocked by ASIO, according to Burgess.

It’s surprising, then, that the Australian media are reporting Burgess’s remarks as if it were a dramatic new revelation. A closer examination of Burgess’s dubious foray into sociology would have been a better place for the media to focus.