In a bombshell development that has sent shockwaves through Australia’s political and security landscape, ASIO Director-General Mike Burgess has publicly revealed via a cryptic tweet that he was stripped of his permanent membership on the powerful National Security Committee (NSC) of Cabinet — and that the decision was driven by a senior member of the Labor Party.

The tweet, posted just hours after a fiery live television interview where Prime Minister Anthony Albanese was grilled by ABC host Olivia Caisley, has thrust the government into the center of intense criticism, raising questions about national security priorities under the Albanese administration.

The controversy erupted during a prime-time ABC broadcast on January 8, 2026, when Caisley relentlessly interrupted Albanese, directly accusing him of undermining Australia’s safety by removing Burgess from key decision-making forums.

“Why remove an important person to protect the safety of Australian people from terrorist elements?” Caisley pressed, referring to Burgess’s earlier exclusion from permanent NSC status shortly after Labor took office in 2022.

Albanese defended the move, insisting Burgess was still invited to relevant meetings, but the exchange grew heated as Caisley highlighted the risks amid rising threats of espionage, terrorism, and foreign interference.

Hours later, Burgess — known for his measured public demeanor — broke his silence with a tweet that stunned the nation: a subtle yet pointed acknowledgment that he had indeed been “removed from the committee as a permanent member,” attributing the action to “one of the senior members of the Labor Party.” While not naming the individual, sources close to the intelligence community suggest it points to a high-ranking minister or advisor within the Albanese government, possibly linked to early structural changes in the NSC.

The revelation has fueled outrage across political lines. Opposition Leader Peter Dutton called it “a disgraceful politicization of national security,” accusing Labor of sidelining Australia’s top spy chief to consolidate power.

“At a time when threats from state actors like China and Iran are at historic highs, removing the ASIO head from permanent NSC access was reckless — and now we learn it was orchestrated by a senior Labor figure,” Dutton said in a press conference.

Shadow Home Affairs Minister James Paterson echoed this, labeling it a “major backflip” when Burgess was quietly reinstated in July 2024 amid escalating global risks.

Burgess’s decision to go public via tweet is unprecedented for the typically reticent ASIO chief, who has built a reputation for transparency through annual threat assessments and media appearances. Insiders say the post was a calculated move to defend his agency’s independence and highlight perceived interference.

“Mike Burgess doesn’t tweet lightly,” one former intelligence official told this reporter anonymously. “This was a direct response to the interview, signaling that the government’s narrative doesn’t match reality.”

The NSC, chaired by the Prime Minister, is Australia’s highest body for strategic national security decisions, encompassing terrorism, espionage, cyber threats, and foreign interference. Under previous Coalition governments, ASIO and ASIS directors held automatic permanent seats.

But in early 2023, just months into Albanese’s term, Freedom of Information documents revealed that Attorney-General Mark Dreyfus had formally notified Burgess of his removal from permanent status, shifting to an “as-needed” invitation basis. Critics at the time argued this diluted intelligence input at the top level.

Albanese has vigorously denied any slight, stating in parliament that Burgess attended all relevant discussions. “Mike Burgess is always in the room when intelligence matters are discussed,” the PM reiterated post-interview. However, Burgess’s tweet contradicts this, implying the removal was deliberate and party-driven.

Speculation swirls around potential culprits: some point to Home Affairs Minister Tony Burke or Cabinet Secretary Glyn Davis, who oversaw early NSC reforms. Others suggest influence from factional heavyweights wary of Burgess’s outspoken style on issues like Chinese espionage.

Public reaction has been swift and fierce. Social media exploded with #ProtectASIO trending nationwide, as Australians expressed shock and anger. “If a senior Labor figure booted our spy chief from key meetings, heads should roll,” one viral post read, garnering thousands of shares.

Jewish community leaders, still reeling from recent antisemitic incidents linked to foreign actors, voiced particular concern, noting Burgess’s pivotal role in thwarting Iran-backed plots.

Security experts warn the saga could erode trust in Australia’s intelligence framework. “Permanent access ensures seamless integration of real-time threats into policy,” said Dr. John Blaxland, a national security professor at ANU.

“Any perception of political meddling risks lives.” With ASIO’s latest assessments highlighting “unprecedented” risks — including state-sponsored cyber attacks and potential assassinations on Australian soil — the timing couldn’t be worse.

The government has downplayed the tweet as “cryptic” and not reflective of current arrangements, pointing to Burgess’s 2024 reinstatement and his reappointment for a five-year term. Yet opposition calls for a full inquiry are mounting, with demands to name the “senior Labor member” involved.

Albanese faces a grilling in Question Time, where Dutton is expected to press for transparency.

Burgess, meanwhile, has remained silent beyond the tweet, focusing on operational duties. His agency continues to disrupt plots — foiling several espionage and terrorism attempts in 2025 alone. But this public fracture exposes rare tensions between Labor and the intelligence community it inherited.

As Australia navigates a fragile global environment, the question lingers: Was removing Burgess a bureaucratic efficiency, or a partisan power play by a senior Labor figure? The Prime Minister’s leadership on national security is now under the harshest spotlight yet, with Burgess’s words ensuring the debate rages on.

This incident underscores the delicate balance between politics and protection. In an era of hybrid threats, Australians demand unity — not cryptic revelations that divide.