The identity of the recent former federal MP who betrayed Australia remains a secret, despite extensive speculation and complaints that the head of ASIO, Mike Burgess, had besmirched the reputations of every recent parliamentarian.
In retrospect, Burgess’ “revelation“, replete with references to an “A-Team” seems as much a stunt as anything else — one designed to feed directly into the media’s reflexive parroting of unevidenced claims made by our national security establishment, particularly when China is involved.
If it wasn’t a stunt, it seems curious indeed that no MP has ever been charged under espionage laws. Burgess appeared to hand-wave this problem away by saying “several individuals should be grateful the espionage and foreign interference laws are not retrospective”. Except, Burgess specifically says the MP in question “sold out their country, party and former colleagues to advance the interests of the foreign regime”.
This is strong stuff. Was Burgess overstating what happened for rhetorical effect? The vague examples he gives involve “bringing a prime minister’s family member into the spies’ orbit”, which didn’t succeed, and inviting “leading Australian academics and political figures” to a foreign conference attended by spies. “One of the academics started giving the A-team information about Australia’s national security and defence priorities,” Burgess breathlessly reported.
As we know from the absurd and extraordinary prosecution of Alexander Csergo, simply pointing out information already in the public domain falls within ASIO’s definition of “giving information about Australia’s national security and defence priorities.” Perhaps Burgess’ claim wasn’t merely a stunt, but evidence of how paranoid and Kafkaesque ASIO has become around any contact with China.
In any event, if federal Parliament has some basic transparency, determining the veracity or otherwise of Burgess’ assertions might be somewhat easier.
A requirement for publication of the meeting diaries of all MPs would provide a database of who is in contact with whom in the political system. These are officials on a public salary, working in offices funded by the public, ostensibly engaged in public business. There’s no rational argument that who they meet with should be kept secret. An exemption from identifying details of people representing only themselves in meetings with MPs would cover constituents and whistleblowers who would have a right to privacy. Everyone else, engaged in the task of seeking to influence MPs, should be publicly identified.
An MP meeting with diplomatic representatives of a foreign power — say, Israel, China or the United States — would be required to publish where and when the meeting occurred, and its purpose. It’s good enough for ministers and the leader of the opposition in the Queensland government, and ministers in NSW, the ACT and, soon, Victoria. Former NSW premier Dominic Perrottet was moving to extend the requirement to all MPs when he lost power.
If Parliament is resistant to imposing such a requirement universally, there are some compromises that would still deliver added transparency and protection of national security without as great an administrative burden. There are dozens of members of Parliament and senators who are members of parliamentary or joint committees relating to defence, foreign affairs, intelligence and law enforcement. All of them are potentially privy to sensitive information that is not in the public domain, particularly that arising from confidential submissions or in-camera hearings of those committees.
These are in addition to the security, intelligence and defence briefings that the leader of the opposition and relevant shadow ministers receive, and the chairs of backbench committees that vet legislation before it is publicly unveiled. Along with government frontbenchers, they all should be required to publish extensive meeting diaries to indicate with whom they’re meeting.
If the problem of foreign interference is as bad as Burgess — and the mainstream media — claim it is, then detailed meeting diaries for everyone with access to sensitive information in Parliament is a national security no-brainer. It’s a small price to pay for protecting Australia — and, after all, politicians have asked voters to tolerate many curbs on their basic freedoms in the name of security in recent decades, so perhaps it’s their turn. Allowing the current obscurity that shrouds MPs’ meetings to continue creates ample space in which foreign spies can influence and recruit. Or was Burgess’ claims just another example of national security theatre?
Should MPs be required to publicly disclose who they’re meeting with? Let us know your thoughts by writing to letters@crikey.com.au. Please include your full name to be considered for publication. We reserve the right to edit for length and clarity.
