In succumbing to a lust for the limelight, the ASIO director, Mike Burgess, is not making it easier for the government and citizens to retain confidence in him and the organisation he’s trying to run.

Unlike his predecessors, all of whom kept low profiles, Burgess has thrust himself into the public square with statements and speeches in which he’s shown an appetite for lurid half stories, boasting, questionable judgment and a fragility with evidence.

In the last few years Burgess has said that:

• the “Indo-Pacific is home to some of the planet’s fastest growing populations” – that’s not true. Indeed, a key strategic point for Australia is that the big Indo-Pacific countries have slow rates of population growth.
• “trust in institutions is eroding” – that’s not consistent with data from the Australian Public Service Commission, more of which a little later.
• “a former Australian politician… sold out their country, party and former colleagues to advance the interests of a foreign country” – as this politician was not named or the nature of the betrayal specified, the reputations of many were impugned with people left to fear the worst.
• “investment” in ASIO reaped a return of $12.5 billion in 2023-24 – this claim was based on figures as woolly as Shaun the Sheep.

In early November, Burgess was at it again in a speech at the Lowy Institute in which he included the headline-grabbing claim that “there is a realistic possibility a foreign government will attempt to assassinate a perceived dissident in Australia”. According to Burgess, “at least three nations are willing and capable of conducting lethal targeting here”. Who on earth might they be? Burgess hasn’t said. Well, the US and Israel have form in this field of endeavour, so could it be they’re in Burgess’ sights? And Russia would do well to keep its stores of Novichok within its borders.

It’s possible another country might try to assassinate dissidents in Australia, yet the risk must be so inestimably low as not to warrant Burgess giving it prominence. The government and the community would do better to concern themselves more with the killing of women in their homes, now a weekly occurrence. Still, anything to snag a headline, just like the allegations about the traitorous Australian politician.

But most of Burgess’ Lowy Institute speech was given over to a befuddling consideration of “social cohesion”.

Burgess allows that “Fractured community cohesion is not one of the specific matters ASIO is empowered to investigate and assess…”. That’s right. Community or social cohesion is nothing to do with ASIO’s legal responsibilities. Indeed, social cohesion in the hands of security organisations can easily morph into social repression and the last thing citizens need is ASIO telling them who they can cohere with. If some want to chum up with Barnaby Joyce or Pauline Hanson, why not, but let’s not make it compulsory.

Yet, notwithstanding pointing out that social cohesion is not a matter ASIO “is empowered to investigate”, Burgess spent a vast amount of this November Lowy speech excitedly talking about it. Evil forces are “clawing” and “ripping” at “our social fabric”, the “threats facing our social cohesion are unprecedented” and “organised groups” are taking “advantage of weaknesses in our social fabric”.

Burgess concludes that “social cohesion is eroding” and “trust in institutions is declining”, although he doesn’t provide evidence in support of these disquieting conclusions.

Inconveniently, they’re notably inconsistent with those of other organisations with professional standing in the analysis and assessment of social cohesion and trust in public institutions. For example:

• The Australian Bureau of Statistics says that there is now greater community acceptance of diversity, less experience of discrimination and a slight decline in the proportion of people who feel lonely.
• The Scanlon Institute on Social Cohesion says that while “social cohesion in Australia is under pressure” it “has been resilient” and has “remained steady”. It adds that that senses of “connection and belonging” are “one of the country’s greatest strengths”.
• The Australian Institute of Health and Welfare says that “feelings about social cohesion” in Australia “are generally either similar to or better than” in other OECD countries.
• The Australian Public Service Commission’s latest report on Australian public services says that trust in them “has increased significantly in the past year”.

There’s no sign Burgess has taken this evidence into account in forming his views about social cohesion and trust in government or, indeed, that he is even aware of it. Anyway, people can take their pick whom they believe – organisations with professional standing when it comes to questions relating to social cohesion or Burgess and the ASIO.

If Burgess’s apparent misstep on social cohesion were a one-off, allowances might be made. But there are reasons for suspecting that his incautious attitude towards evidence in this case could be part of a pattern. Indeed, in his Lowy speech he also says that “it says a lot about Australia” that he, as “the son of ten-pound Poms can become director-general of Security”. What? That says absolutely nothing of significance “about Australia”, the observation being merely a reflection of the director’s ego.

Government and public confidence in ASIO rests almost wholly on its ability, carefully and dispassionately, to gather and assess all information relevant to matters within their legal responsibilities. This will not always be easy as information will often be incomplete and come in various shades and, where that is so, the reliability or otherwise of any evidence and the weight that could be given to it should be clearly indicated. These sorts of requirements are not reflected in Burgess’ speeches with all their adamant, rhetorical, unnuanced and self-congratulatory flourishes.

The former prime minister, Paul Keating, has called Burgess “the resident conjuror” and reckons Albanese should have sacked him when the ALP won the election in 2022. Albanese has been constant in expressing confidence in Burgess and has reappointed him. Keating may be too harsh and Albanese may be too soft.

Whatever, Burgess’ speeches contain enough to cause a twinge of unease about the degree of confidence the government and citizens can have in the intelligence and information ASIO is providing. Thus, ministers should closely interrogate all advice from ASIO and fully satisfy themselves about its reliability, and the weight, if any, it should be given in policy or any aspect of government administration. Others reliant on ASIO assessments should do likewise.

Three staff of the Australian Strategic Policy Institute recently wrote that “the frequency with which Australia’s director-general of Security now addresses the public should give us pause”. It sure should, if not quite in the sense intended by the institute’s predictable worthies. Indeed, the director should reflect on the studied reticence of his predecessors and leave speeches about intelligence and security to politicians. It can be better sometimes to have people merely suspect one’s fallibilities than to open one’s mouth and prove them.

The views expressed in this article may or may not reflect those of Pearls and Irritations.