Mike Burgess is highly respected by both Labor and Liberal politicians. When they talk about him, they nearly always throw in praise, sometimes fulsome.
That’s to the good for the ASIO chief, because if he were less well regarded he’d have been in even more trouble for the tangle he got himself into trying to explain when a fleeing Gazan might or might not be judged a security risk.
After weeks of controversy, Burgess has now attempted to clean up the mess he left after his ABC Insiders interview last month.
Predictably, however, that’s just set off another round of the row between the opposition and Labor over the visas-for-Gazans issue.
Burgess says people chose to “distort” his initial comments. Perhaps, but the lesson is clear. If the head of a security organisation gives a major interview, they need to make sure what they say is crystal clear, to minimise the risk of any such “distortion”.
Usually, people in these roles live in the shadows, but Burgess obviously likes to be out in the open, arguing the importance of transparency and the need “to explain the threats to the people you protect”. That inevitably carries the risk of becoming part of the political argy-bargy.
Burgess told Insiders on August 11 that if a person expressed “just rhetorical support [for Hamas], and they don’t have an ideology or support for a violent extremism ideology, then that’s not a problem. If they have a support for that ideology that will be a problem” in relation to a security assessment.
This distinction raised some eyebrows. One, albeit not the only, reason was because Burgess didn’t emphasise adequately the distinction between an ASIO security assessment and visa assessments, which come under Home Affairs. The latter involve a “character” test, apart from (if appropriate) a security one.
Burgess is now back on ABC television, this time with a 7.30 interview that is yet to air. In his latest remarks, he has toughened and made more specific what he says ASIO will judge negatively for security purposes.
“If you think terrorism is OK, if you think the destruction of the State of Israel is OK, if you think Hamas and what they did on the 7th of October is OK, I can tell you that is not OK, and from an ASIO security assessment point of view, you will not pass muster.
"We focus on: Are you a threat to security, a direct or indirect threat to security? And if we find you such, we will do an adverse security assessment, which would result in you not getting a visa, most likely.”
Opposition Leader Peter Dutton welcomed Burgess’s clarification, but seized the opportunity to again accuse Anthony Albanese of misleading parliament by “suggesting that ASIO had checked each of these [Gazan] individuals – which they haven’t”.
“I think he’s put Mr Burgess in a difficult position. I think, frankly, the prime minister should be apologising to the ASIO boss for what they’ve put in place, which has made ASIO’s job much harder.”
Coalition home affairs spokesman James Paterson said he had assumed all along Burgess’s latest comments were the views he held.
“I didn’t think that he thought it was a good idea to bring Hamas supporters into our country,” Paterson said.
“My criticism and the opposition’s criticism has always been focussed on the government. And frankly, that criticism is even more acute today because what Mike Burgess has now said is that bringing Hamas supporters into our country is not a good idea, because they are a threat to our national security.”
Albanese hit back at the opposition, accusing it of undermining Burgess’s work. “It’s extraordinary, frankly, that the Coalition went into question time day after day after day and through their questioning, were questioning Mike Burgess’ determination to keep Australians safe.”
The PM reiterated that Burgess had his total confidence.
Oh and, “Mike Burgess is a big boy – he can speak for himself and he has,” Albanese said.
He didn’t say whether he wished the ASIO head had spoken a little less, or a little better, on Insiders.
Michelle Grattan does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.
