‘Spying at unprecedented levels': ASIO boss sounds alarm on espionage threat
ASIO director-general Mike Burgess said the organisation had disrupted 24 major espionage and foreign interference operations in the past three years – more than the previous eight years combined. Yet more than 35,000 Australians have exposed themselves to danger by 'recklessly' boasting on professional networking sites that they have access to sensitive information.
Burgess revealed that spies recently gained access to official Australian documents on free trade negotiations by recruiting someone with a security clearance, while others convinced a state bureaucrat to obtain the names and addresses of dissidents being targeted by a foreign regime.
Spies have also hacked into the computer network of a major Australian exporter to gain an advantage in negotiations, tried to place an agent in a media organisation by masquerading as a researcher and stolen tree branches from a horticultural facility to reverse-engineer Australian research.
'Nation states are spying at unprecedented levels, with unprecedented sophistication,' Burgess said while delivering the Hawke Oration in Adelaide on Thursday, a speech named in honour of the late Labor prime minister.
Loading
'ASIO is seeing more Australians targeted – more aggressively – than ever before.'
Burgess said that foreign spies were taking a 'very unhealthy' interest in the AUKUS defence pact, describing Australia's defence sector as 'a top intelligence collection priority for foreign governments seeking to blunt our operational edge, gain insights into our operational readiness and tactics, and better understand our allies' capabilities'.
'Targets include maritime and aviation-related military capabilities, but also innovations with both commercial and military applications,' he said.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Sydney Morning Herald
32 minutes ago
- Sydney Morning Herald
Trump was never that interested in Australia. Albanese made sure to keep it that way
Washington: Australia fought hard for an exemption to Donald Trump's steel and aluminium tariffs early in the year and got nowhere, despite positive signs from people close to the US president. The next time around, it took a different tack. Partly that was out of necessity: the 'reciprocal tariffs' went into effect just as Australia entered a federal election campaign. But there was also a view among Australian officials that there was little value in being one of the first movers. After all, Australia copped the lowest possible rate on April 2 – 10 per cent – so it was difficult to protest too much, even if it seemed unfair. And the risk was that the United States would demand more than we were willing to give. That view intensified when the United Kingdom became the first country to strike a deal – of sorts – with Trump, but still got lumped with a 10 per cent tariff. The baseline is the baseline; there's not much you can do. Prime Minister Anthony Albanese was lambasted by his political opponents for failing to secure a face-to-face meeting with Trump, and being stood up at the G7 when Trump left early. And perhaps in the counterfactual, he would have charmed the president and secured the complete tariff reprieve Australia seeks. You never know. Loading But the better analysis is probably that lying low paid dividends, and leaves Australia in a position to negotiate down the track – which the White House is open to doing. Other countries weren't so lucky. New Zealand's tariff was hiked to 15 per cent, from 10 per cent, which its trade minister, Todd McClay, said appeared to be due to the (small) US trade deficit with Wellington. The US enjoys a trade surplus with Australia, and we have a free-trade deal (supposedly), which is why Canberra feels the tariffs are egregious. But it also means we were never likely to be whacked with a higher tariff, unless everyone else was, too.
The Age
32 minutes ago
- The Age
Trump was never that interested in Australia. Albanese made sure to keep it that way
Washington: Australia fought hard for an exemption to Donald Trump's steel and aluminium tariffs early in the year and got nowhere, despite positive signs from people close to the US president. The next time around, it took a different tack. Partly that was out of necessity: the 'reciprocal tariffs' went into effect just as Australia entered a federal election campaign. But there was also a view among Australian officials that there was little value in being one of the first movers. After all, Australia copped the lowest possible rate on April 2 – 10 per cent – so it was difficult to protest too much, even if it seemed unfair. And the risk was that the United States would demand more than we were willing to give. That view intensified when the United Kingdom became the first country to strike a deal – of sorts – with Trump, but still got lumped with a 10 per cent tariff. The baseline is the baseline; there's not much you can do. Prime Minister Anthony Albanese was lambasted by his political opponents for failing to secure a face-to-face meeting with Trump, and being stood up at the G7 when Trump left early. And perhaps in the counterfactual, he would have charmed the president and secured the complete tariff reprieve Australia seeks. You never know. Loading But the better analysis is probably that lying low paid dividends, and leaves Australia in a position to negotiate down the track – which the White House is open to doing. Other countries weren't so lucky. New Zealand's tariff was hiked to 15 per cent, from 10 per cent, which its trade minister, Todd McClay, said appeared to be due to the (small) US trade deficit with Wellington. The US enjoys a trade surplus with Australia, and we have a free-trade deal (supposedly), which is why Canberra feels the tariffs are egregious. But it also means we were never likely to be whacked with a higher tariff, unless everyone else was, too.
Sky News AU
an hour ago
- Sky News AU
'They taught him this nonsense': Pauline Hanson lashes out over gender education in schools after grandson questions gender
One Nation leader Pauline Hanson has slammed what she describes as 'radical gender ideology' being pushed in classrooms, after her young grandson returned home from school with questions about his gender identity. The One Nation leader shared her concerns on her party's website and personal social media, accusing Australian schools of pushing radical ideas on children as young as four. According to Hanson, her seven-year-old grandson asked his mother confronting questions about anatomy and gender identity after a classroom lesson. 'School told me I can choose to be a boy or a girl… When do I get to choose?' Ms Hanson said the boy asked. 'These aren't questions kids just come up with. They're being taught this nonsense in classrooms,' Hanson said. 'This madness needs to stop. Schools should be focusing on reading, writing and maths, not telling children they might have been assigned the wrong sex at birth.' Hanson slammed the content being delivered under banners such as health education and inclusion, claiming parents are being left in the dark as to what is being taught. 'This isn't education. It's brainwashing,' Hanson stated. She further alleged that schools are smuggling radical gender theory into everyday lessons. In a TikTok video from Hanson's speech in the Senate, the Queensland Senator declared she would not back down from her position. 'I'll keep fighting this dangerous agenda.' 'Parents have a right to know what their children are being taught, and our kids deserve to grow up without this pressure or confusion,' she said. Her remarks have sparked a wave of support online, particularly on TikTok, where users backed Hanson's views. 'Pauline is correct, like always,' one user wrote. Other comments questioned the inconsistency in school consent policies. 'We need permission for religious classes. Where's the consent for this?' Critics argue that inclusive education around gender identity plays a vital role in supporting students who may be questioning their identity. They warn that removing such discussions could harm students who already feel isolated or misunderstood. Meanwhile, Hanson remains firm in her opposition, calling on state governments and education departments to be held accountable. She is pushing for stronger parental rights and transparency around curriculum content, insisting families must be given more control over what their children are being taught. 'In many cases there's no permission, no transparency, and no respect for family values,' she said.
