What has struck me for a while is that even those that are highly qualified in Political Science don't understand Political Philosophy. This is even more true of ASIO where but Burgess' educational background is probably sensitive information. The sad thing is even if Burgess recognised an intelligence gap the universities (where he could potentially obtain expertise to address the gap) and the political parties (that would partner on security outside of ASIO's brief) seem to be compromised.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_Burgess_(intelligence_chief)

In order to understand the threat due to different ideologies, it's first important to understand them, and how they relate to Australia's interest, and to Australia's principles, both historically and contemporarily.

I need to watch the interview many more times but I believe there is much more information that can be derived from it's study.

It's possible that PM Albanese is embarrassed that there may be a rise in the threat of Woke Marxist politically motivated extremism in his own sphere of politics. The problem is ASIO and Mike Burgess can't be seen to be politically biased, especially when the extremism could be coming from the PM's camp.

In the last few years ASIO appears to have made a big deal about so called Far Right Extremism, this seems to have been absent from the recent press conference.

Sometimes you need to listen hard to what isn't said

When I saw the ASIO Press Conference I thought about how a serving leader might be removed from office if they were complicit in espionage against their own nation. In the US it appears that a vote in congress is sufficient, and in Australia the Governor General would need to sack the Prime Minister based on evidence from the police executive or similar.

What could go wrong?

Apparently removal of a sitting ruler is very rare and so you could imagine that it would be very difficult and overwhelming evidence would be required and significant damage could be done by a small ideologically motivated group. In the case of Australia the Governor General could be said to be unbiased as in many cases they are chosen based on relatively uncontroversial figures. In the US I could envisage that the congress could easily block the removal of a traitorous president along party lines.