Duncan Lewis breached Section 20 of the ASIO Act-Liberal MPs looking at the wrong section of the Act

by Ganesh Sahathevan

The Australian has reported this morning :

Liberal MPs have countered suggestions that Australia’s spy chief has breached the spirit of the law by phoning backbenchers over their comments about Islam, as a dispute rages over the way Malcolm Turnbull has handled dissent within the Coalition.

In a new controversy over the affair, former Liberal minister Neil Brown warned that the head of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation had no power under the ASIO Act to deny “lawful advocacy” by MPs or others.

The MPs in question are concerned only with Section 17 A which states: 

“This Act shall not limit the right of persons to engage in lawful advocacy, protest or dissent and the exercise of that right shall not, by itself, be regarded as prejudicial to security.”

However ,as demonstrated in the article below published  yesterday, Mr Lewis has probably breached Section 20(a) and (b) of the Act .Section 20,as explained, is concerned with perception of bias,and in that sense an offence is easier to prove,compared to Section 17A. 

In addition, Section 20 is concerned with conduct, intentional or otherwise.Put in another way, it does not matter if one intended to  fail in one's duties prescribed under the Act.

Coming back to Section 17A, while the MPs who are said to have come to Lewis's defence say they do not "feel" Lewis actions in any way interfered with their lawful advocacy, their feelings are clearly not terribly relevant, What is relevant for the purposes of the Act is whether there has been interference in lawful advocacy protest or dissent ,based on an objective assessment of the facts. In this case, quite apart from Lewis's interference with the work of MPs, there were his public statements in the Daily Telegraph that were addressed to the public at large.That was clearly an  interference in lawful advocacy protest or dissent. To paraphrase Neil Brown:

If members of the public  fall out of line with Malcolm Turnbull's call for a "change in language" when discussing Islam and jihadism, they can expect a call from ASIO and if they still refuse to get into line after that warning, the implied threat is that they will have been noticed by ASIO and may be noticed in the future.

It is about us,not Turnbull and his MPs.

END 

Duncan Lewis " I don’t buy that at all" comment on Islam,jihadism , may have breached ASIO Act 1979-Sacking is inevitable

by Ganesh Sahathevan

ASIO chief Duncan Lewis made these comments on his own volition,and did so despite evidence  to the contrary here and overseas that goes back at least 40 years:

“I don’t buy the notion that the issue of Islamic extremism is in some way fostered or sponsored or supported by the Muslim ­religion. I don’t buy that at all. I think it’s blasphemous to the extent that I can comment on someone else’s religion.’

By doing so Lewis appears to have breached Section 20 of the ASIO Act 1979 which prohibits the Director General (which Lewis remains) from saying or doing anything that might lead to a perception of bias:

20  Special responsibility of Director‑General in relation to functions of Organisation

                   The Director‑General shall take all reasonable steps to ensure that:

                     (a)  the work of the Organisation is limited to what is necessary for the purposes of the discharge of its functions; and

                     (b)  the Organisation is kept free from any influences or considerations not relevant to its functions and nothing is done that might lend colour to any suggestion that it is concerned to further or protect the interests of any particular section of the community, or with any matters other than the discharge of its functions.

It might well be that Lewis' intention was to keep us all safe,and not "further or protect" the interests of the Muslim community (whose demands are many, are public, and include complaints against our ally, the State of Israel). However, Section 20 is clearly concerned with perception, hence the words "any suggestion"  and Lewis has clearly failed  that test. That being the case, Malcolm Turnbull must now contemplate Section 13 of the ASIO Act.

13  Termination of appointment

             (1)  The Governor‑General may terminate the appointment of the Director‑General by reason of physical or mental incapacity, misbehaviour or failure to comply with a provision of this Act.

         the Governor‑General shall terminate his or her appointment

https://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/C2015C00535

There are many reasons why intelligence chiefs do not give interviews, eschew public comment  and a public profile, and otherwise stay very much in the background. Lewis was never a spy, and did not seem to understand this, despite the provisions of the ASIO Act that contain a clear warning of the consequences. For these and the reasons stated previously (see below) he needs to be sacked immediately. 

END 

Duncan Lewis " I don’t buy that at all" comment on Islam,jihadism , may have breached ASIO Act 1979-Sacking is inevitable

by Ganesh Sahathevan

ASIO chief Duncan Lewis made these comments on his own volition,and did so despite evidence  to the contrary here and overseas that goes back at least 40 years:

“I don’t buy the notion that the issue of Islamic extremism is in some way fostered or sponsored or supported by the Muslim ­religion. I don’t buy that at all. I think it’s blasphemous to the extent that I can comment on someone else’s religion.’

By doing so Lewis appears to have breached Section 20 of the ASIO Act 1979 which prohibits the Director General (which Lewis remains) from saying or doing anything that might lead to a perception of bias:

20  Special responsibility of Director‑General in relation to functions of Organisation

                   The Director‑General shall take all reasonable steps to ensure that:

                     (a)  the work of the Organisation is limited to what is necessary for the purposes of the discharge of its functions; and

                     (b)  the Organisation is kept free from any influences or considerations not relevant to its functions and nothing is done that might lend colour to any suggestion that it is concerned to further or protect the interests of any particular section of the community, or with any matters other than the discharge of its functions.

It might well be that Lewis' intention was to keep us all safe,and not "further or protect" the interests of the Muslim community (whose demands are many, are public, and include complaints against our ally, the State of Israel). However, Section 20 is clearly concerned with perception, hence the words "any suggestion"  and Lewis has clearly failed  that test. That being the case, Malcolm Turnbull must now contemplate Section 13 of the ASIO Act.

13  Termination of appointment

             (1)  The Governor‑General may terminate the appointment of the Director‑General by reason of physical or mental incapacity, misbehaviour or failure to comply with a provision of this Act.

         the Governor‑General shall terminate his or her appointment

https://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/C2015C00535

There are many reasons why intelligence chiefs do not give interviews, eschew public comment  and a public profile, and otherwise stay very much in the background. Lewis was never a spy, and did not seem to understand this, despite the provisions of the ASIO Act that contain a clear warning of the consequences. For these and the reasons stated previously (see below) he needs to be sacked immediately. 

END 

SEE ALSO:

Wednesday, December 16, 2015

Duncan Lewis provides evidence that he has in fact been compromised:ASIO trying to influence how politicians speak about Islam.

by Ganesh Sahathevan

Readers are referred to the this earlier post:

Was Duncan Lewis compromised when in Jakarta ?Are we seeing another Harvey Barnett?

Given that context, it is hard now to see that he has not been compromised,and that Lewis must be sacked:

ASIO chief Duncan Lewis ‘is playing politics’ on Islam

• THE AUSTRALIAN
• DECEMBER 17, 2015 12:00AM
• SAVE
• PRINT

• Greg Sheridan

  

  Foreign Editor

  Melbourne

  https://plus.google.com/101372426793016687263

ASIO director-general Duncan Lewis is said to have told MPs that their more robust comments risked becoming a danger to national security. Picture: Kym Smith

ASIO director-general Duncan Lewis has phoned Coalition poli­ticians to urge them to use the soothing language favoured by Malcolm Turnbull in their public discussion of Islam.

In what is thought to be an unprecedented intervention in politics by a head of the spy agency, Mr Lewis is said to have told the MPs that their more robust comments risked becoming a danger to national security. It is believed the Office of the Prime Minister has been involved in arranging for these phone calls to take place.

A number of Liberals are angry at what they see as an improper ­intervention by the ASIO head into legitimate political issues.

The Australian submitted a ­series of questions to Mr Lewis through the ASIO media office, ­including whether he had made the phone calls to the politicians. The ASIO spokesman declined to answer questions regarding the phattone calls.

These phone calls are part of a broadbased effort by ASIO to ­influence how politicians speak about Islam.

A newspaper interview with Mr Lewis that appeared in News Corp newspapers on Sunday was widely seen as a slap down of ­former prime minister Tony ­Abbott. The interview took place on Thursday last week, a day after an opinion piece by Mr Abbott ­appeared in The Daily Telegraph,in which he argued that Islam as a religion was in need of reform.

Mr Abbott, although warning against the demonisation of Islam, said: “We can’t remain in denial about the massive problem within Islam.”

He said Islam had never had its own Reformation or Enlightenment and had not as a consequence developed a natural acceptance of pluralism and the separation of church and state.

In The Sunday Telegraph interview, Mr Lewis said that Muslim-baiting rhetoric could fuel a dangerous backlash against Muslims that would make it harder for ASIO to do its work.

He did not say who was guilty of the rhetoric.

“I think it behoves Australians to recognise the backlash is something very, very dangerous … we need to be very temperate,” Mr Lewis said.

Mr Lewis also said: “I don’t buy the notion the issue of Islamic ­extremism is in some way fostered or sponsored or supported by the Muslim religion. I think it’s blasphemous to the extent I can comment on someone else’s religion.”

Mr Lewis is a distinguished ­former general who once headed the SAS. He served as Julia Gillard’s national security adviser and held senior national security positions under John Howard.

Mr Lewis’s phone calls to Liberal politicians, the background briefings by the security agencies discrediting the language Mr ­Abbott used and the interview withThe Sunday Telegraph have angered Coalition figures on the backbench and the frontbench.

They do not see the issue through any prism of leadership battles or affection for Mr Abbott, but as one of free speech and the need to deal openly and effectively with issues of extremism.

Some Liberals believe their comments have been falsely conflated with those of Mr Abbott, and that Mr Abbott’s comments have been falsely conflated with overseas politicians who are much more extreme, such as Donald Trump, but the overall result has been to dampen free speech.

Some Liberals were also ­annoyed by the opinion piece by Concetta Fierravanti-Wells that appeared in The Australian yesterday, in which she denounced “megaphone politics” and specific­ally rejected some of Mr Abbott’s language.

Dennis Jensen, the Liberal member for Tangney, in response to Mr Lewis’s newspaper interview, last night told The Australian: “I understand what he (Mr Lewis) is saying on it, but I fundamentally don’t agree. I understand the majority of tips ASIO gets come from the Muslim community.

“But to say something is off limits and should not be discussed is extremely anti-democratic. It’s really a slippery slope. Free speech was not won easily. People paid for it with blood. To meekly roll over and give it away is very mistaken.”

Andrew Nikolic, the member for the Tasmanian seat of Bass and former government whip, who served for 31 years in the Australian Army, does not ­believe Coalition politicians who spoke out about the need for an open debate deserved to be ­censured.

In response to Mr Lewis’s newspaper interview, Mr Nikolic told The Australian: “I can understand why he (Mr Lewis) and the security agencies want to make sure of their ability to do their job, but the comments of myself and others that I have seen have not criticised Islam but those who seek to hijack and misrepresent Islam.”

Several Liberals told The Australian they believed the Prime Minister’s Office was involved in the timing and content of Mr Lewis’s interview with The Sunday Telegraph. The Prime Minister’s office emphatically ­denied this to The Australian.

In recent days, The Australian has canvassed Mr Lewis’s comments with a wide range of former senior national security figures.

All regarded Mr Lewis’s comments as a mistake. Several said they risked injecting ASIO into partisan politics.

Beyond Mr Abbott, a wide range of Liberals made comments critical of the initial response of the Australian Grand Mufti, ­Ibrahim Abu Mohammed, to the Paris terror attacks or calling for an honest discussion of the issues.

These include Immigration Minister Peter Dutton, Treasurer Scott Morrison, Energy Minister Josh Frydenberg and backbenchers Andrew Hastie, Mr ­Nikolic, Luke Simkins, Eric Hutchinson, George Christensen and Angus Taylor. There is no suggestion all of these people are critical of Mr Lewis.

Crouching (Turn)Bull, Hidden Rabbit Part 2: Was Darwin Port the reward for Keshik Capital funding

by Ganesh Sahathevan

Recent stories  in Australian media suggest that the matter of Malcolm Turnbull's son  Alex's  Singapore hedge fund Keshik Capital and its sources of funding should be looked at in the context of his father's decision to back the decision to privatize the strategically important Darwin Port to China's Peoples' Liberation Army linked Landbridge.

PM Turnbull was at first not interested in hearing any arguments against the Darwin Port transaction, even from US President Barack Obama (see story below). He did give the impression of someone locked into a deal that he would not back out of, regardless of the facts.Indeed, as the reports below show, he was prepared to lie to justify the decision.  Asian leaders caught misleading the public like Turnbull did are usually assumed to have a pecuniary interest in the matter, and it is hard to see why the same should not apply to Australian politicians, especially here where his son's business in Asia needs significant amounts of cash.

Compounding the impression that there are elements of the Darwin Port transaction that Turnbull is not telling us about is  the story published in the Sydney Morning Herald on Friday 15 December 2015 headlined  "Malcolm Turnbull aghast at Darwin Port sale a week before it was announced" . The SMH  story has clearly been leaked to  repair the damage to  Turnbull's image caused by his  approval  if not tacit  backing for the Darwin Port transaction. The SMH story suggests a Prime Minister desperately trying to defend what he knows is a wrong decision for it  does not sit well with these  statements  Turnbull made  in the weeks prior to the SMH story:

a) "The port that is being leased is not being used by the military, it is a commercial port," he said.

(But according to an announcement by the Darwin Port Corporation on November 16, the lease includes East Arm Wharf commercial port outside Darwin and the Fort Hill Wharf close to the city's CBD.Fort Hill Wharf is advertised as a "cruise ship and Defence vessel facility").

a) Mr Turnbull, speaking in Manilla, said the fact the port was being privatised was no secret and was announced publicly last year.  "The fact that Chinese investors were interested in investing in infrastructure in Australia is also hardly a secret," the Prime Minister said. "The NT Parliament conducted an inquiry. I had a committee that looked into it earlier this year and it reported in April and recommended that the ... NT Government consult ... with FIRB [Foreign Investment Review Board] and with the Australian Defence Department." Mr Turnbull said the department had no concerns because "it didn't affect the Australian Defence Forces". "And under our legislation, the Department of Defence or this Federal Government can step in and take control of infrastructure like this in circumstances where it's deemed necessary for purposes of Defence," he said (in fact it has since been reported that  Landbridge holds veto over Darwin military traffic).

b) PRIME Minister Malcolm Turnbull believes US President Barack Obama could have benefited from a subscription to the NT News to stay up to speed on the lease of Darwin’s port to a Chinese-owned company. Mr Turnbull said the deal was no secret and had been the subject of a number of inquiries, and was widely reported.

In talks in the Philippines, the president said the first the US heard of the deal was in The New York Times, to which Mr Turnbull joked that Mr Obama needed to subscribe to the NT News instead.

Given the above comments the very headline of the SMH story (copied below) screams damage control by someone desperate to hide something.The other articles provided below suggest a PM trying hard to justify his decision,regardless of the facts.

END 

Malcolm Turnbull aghast at Darwin Port sale a week before it was announced

Date

December 15, 2015

Heath Aston

Political reporter

Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull was so concerned about the sale of the Port of Darwin to a Chinese company linked to the Communist Party that he asked for a review of Australia's foreign acquisition law a week before the controversial deal was announced by the Northern Territory government.

An insight into the concern around the cabinet table when the port deal came before the national security committee was revealed by Defence Department secretary Dennis Richardson on Tuesday.

He told a Senate inquiry into the much-criticised sale that Mr Turnbull had requested advice on whether the Foreign Acquisition and Takeovers Act needed to be changed.

The port of Darwin. Photo: Fairfax Media

The takeovers law deems that the sale of a state or territory-owned piece of infrastructure does not have to be approved by the Foreign Investment Review Board – something Mr Richardson described as "an apparent systemic issue" with the act.

Advertisement

Due to the exemption, the Commonwealth would have been powerless to intervene to stop the sale even if federal security agencies had raised objections.

Both Defence and ASIO gave their blessing for the sale to proceed.

Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull. Photo: Alex Ellinghausen

But the signing of the 99-year lease over the port to Landbridge Group angered Australia's key military ally the United States and led to a direct rebuke by President Barack Obama when he met Mr Turnbull in Manila recently.

The secretary of Landbridge, He Zhaoqing, is a former military officer and Landbridge runs what it calls "a people's armed militia".

Mr Richardson, a former Australian ambassador to Washington, conceded it was an "oversight" that the US was not briefed that Landbridge had won the 99-year lease but also argued it was the US embassy's job to monitor a process that had not been kept a secret.

Department of Defence secretary Dennis Richardson. Photo: Alex Ellinghausen

"It was an oversight ... Any criticism we should have advised the US in advance is fair and I take accountability," he said.

He said Defence, which had been monitoring the port sale since early 2014, had cleared the deal as if a FIRB process was going to go ahead because Treasury had only alerted officials of the exemption on September 15, a month before Landbridge was named as the winning bid.

"We did our due diligence very carefully. Nothing that has been said since the announcement has given us pause for thought," he said.

Of the October 6 discussion by the national security committee, Mr Richardson said: "Specific attention was drawn to the fact that, even if departments and agencies had have objected, there was nothing the Commonwealth would have been able to do about it because of the 1976 Foreign Acquisitions and Takeovers Act," he said

"As a result of that the Prime Minister asked the Treasurer [Scott Morrison] and the Attorney-General [George Brandis] to review that aspect of the legislation to see whether it should be changed."

Earlier, Peter Jennings, executive director of the Australian Strategic Policy Institute, said there were real security and intelligence concerns around the sale.

He said the Chinese would have a "deep driving interest" in watching the operations of "competent Western military organisations" and the Port of Darwin hosts about 100 naval vessels a year. Northern Australia is also to host up to 2500 US marines in coming years.

"I would see that as 100 intelligence-gathering opportunities in terms of the interest China would have to find out big things and little things about how naval forces operate," he said.

He said the 99-year horizon is the same period into the future as the Gallipoli landings are in the past and there is no way to know what the defence relationships will be like between the US and China and their relationships with Australia, Mr Jennings said.

"It's impossible to know how the broader strategic world is going to look over the broader term of the lease."

Mr Jennings warned that the sale had the ability to affect the US alliance and the US Navy would "deep concerns" about tying up and unloading in a Chinese-run port.

Mr Jennings pointed out that the US had knocked back Dubai Ports from buying into American ports.

Later, Mr Richardson, who was Washington ambassador at the time, said the Dubai deal was cleared by authorities but was overturned after it was announced.

"It ended up being a political decision," he said.

Michael Hughes, director of Landbridge Australia told the inquiry that company approached FIRB on June 19. He said there were "no issues raised through the entire process" by FIRB or Defence.

Northern Territory Chief Minister Adam Giles has labelled the backlash to the port sale as "xenophobic".

Follow us on Twitter
Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/malcolm-turnbull-aghast-at-darwin-port-sale-a-week-before-it-was-announced-20151215-glntby.html#ixzz3uXQbH07H
Follow us: @smh on Twitter | sydneymorningherald on Facebook

PM Malcolm Turnbull gets it wrong on whether Darwin port is used by military

By political reporter Anna Henderson

Updated 21 Nov 2015, 1:02am

PHOTO: Some of Malcolm Turnbull's claims about military use of the Darwin port have been questioned. (AAP: Neda Vanovac)

RELATED STORY: Labor astonished NT Minister failed to read report on Port of Darwin sale

RELATED STORY: Turnbull dismisses suggestions Port ofDarwin sale kept secret

MAP: Australia

Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull has made a significant error in trying to justify the decision to lease Australia's crucial northern port to Chinese interests, by claiming it is not used by the military.

Key points:

• Malcolm Turnbull's statements on Darwin port questioned
• PM previously claimed port was not used by military, but facility is advertised as catering to "frequent naval visits"
• NT Government has leased port to Chinese-owned company

The Northern Territory Government sparked international controversy last month when it decided to lease the Port of Darwin facilities to a Chinese-owned company.

Some defence analysts have warned the company, Landbridge, has strong links to the Chinese Communist Party. They have also warned China will use the lease strategically to secure a presence in the north of Australia.

The ABC has also been told US president Barack Obama raised the sale directly with Mr Turnbull in a face-to-face meeting this week.

On Friday Mr Turnbull was questioned by Darwin radio station MIX 104.9 about the sale of the port.

"The port that is being leased is not being used by the military, it is a commercial port," he said.

But according to an announcement by the Darwin Port Corporation on November 16, the lease includes East Arm Wharf commercial port outside Darwin and the Fort Hill Wharf close to the city's CBD.

Fort Hill Wharf is advertised as a "cruise ship and Defence vessel facility".

The Darwin Port Corporation website promotes the wharf as catering to "frequent naval ship visits" for visiting international and domestic naval ships.

A spokesman for the Prime Minister has since issued a media statement, which said Mr Turnbull was making the point that the Darwin facility "is a commercial port not a military port".

The Prime Minister has repeatedly defended the lease arrangements.

"Naturally Defence has access to the port if required," the statement said.

"Regardless, Defence has made it very clear it has no security concerns about the lease."

The Prime Minister also stressed Defence could step in and take over management of the port for national security reasons.

But Luke Gosling, the Labor candidate for the federal seat of Solomon in Darwin, said the Prime Minister had misunderstood the port lease deal.

"According to the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory's release, the facilities that are included in the lease of the port for 99 years — almost a century — includes facilities like Fort Hill Wharf that are used not only by the Australian Navy but also the militaries of other countries as well, so it would be good if the Prime Minister, when coming to the north, knew what he was talking about," Mr Gosling said.

INFOGRAPHIC: A map of areas included in Port of Darwin lease

Topics: government-and-politics, federal-parliament, defence-and-national-security, australia

Duncan Lewis provides evidence that he has in fact been compromised:ASIO trying to influence how politicians speak about Islam.

by Ganesh Sahathevan

Readers are referred to the this earlier post:

Was Duncan Lewis compromised when in Jakarta ?Are we seeing another Harvey Barnett?

Given that context, it is hard now to see that he has not been compromised,and that Lewis must be sacked:

ASIO chief Duncan Lewis ‘is playing politics’ on Islam

• THE AUSTRALIAN
• DECEMBER 17, 2015 12:00AM
• SAVE
• PRINT

• Greg Sheridan

  

  Foreign Editor

  Melbourne

  https://plus.google.com/101372426793016687263

ASIO director-general Duncan Lewis is said to have told MPs that their more robust comments risked becoming a danger to national security. Picture: Kym Smith

ASIO director-general Duncan Lewis has phoned Coalition poli­ticians to urge them to use the soothing language favoured by Malcolm Turnbull in their public discussion of Islam.

In what is thought to be an unprecedented intervention in politics by a head of the spy agency, Mr Lewis is said to have told the MPs that their more robust comments risked becoming a danger to national security. It is believed the Office of the Prime Minister has been involved in arranging for these phone calls to take place.

A number of Liberals are angry at what they see as an improper ­intervention by the ASIO head into legitimate political issues.

The Australian submitted a ­series of questions to Mr Lewis through the ASIO media office, ­including whether he had made the phone calls to the politicians. The ASIO spokesman declined to answer questions regarding the phattone calls.

These phone calls are part of a broadbased effort by ASIO to ­influence how politicians speak about Islam.

A newspaper interview with Mr Lewis that appeared in News Corp newspapers on Sunday was widely seen as a slap down of ­former prime minister Tony ­Abbott. The interview took place on Thursday last week, a day after an opinion piece by Mr Abbott ­appeared in The Daily Telegraph,in which he argued that Islam as a religion was in need of reform.

Mr Abbott, although warning against the demonisation of Islam, said: “We can’t remain in denial about the massive problem within Islam.”

He said Islam had never had its own Reformation or Enlightenment and had not as a consequence developed a natural acceptance of pluralism and the separation of church and state.

In The Sunday Telegraph interview, Mr Lewis said that Muslim-baiting rhetoric could fuel a dangerous backlash against Muslims that would make it harder for ASIO to do its work.

He did not say who was guilty of the rhetoric.

“I think it behoves Australians to recognise the backlash is something very, very dangerous … we need to be very temperate,” Mr Lewis said.

Mr Lewis also said: “I don’t buy the notion the issue of Islamic ­extremism is in some way fostered or sponsored or supported by the Muslim religion. I think it’s blasphemous to the extent I can comment on someone else’s religion.”

Mr Lewis is a distinguished ­former general who once headed the SAS. He served as Julia Gillard’s national security adviser and held senior national security positions under John Howard.

Mr Lewis’s phone calls to Liberal politicians, the background briefings by the security agencies discrediting the language Mr ­Abbott used and the interview withThe Sunday Telegraph have angered Coalition figures on the backbench and the frontbench.

They do not see the issue through any prism of leadership battles or affection for Mr Abbott, but as one of free speech and the need to deal openly and effectively with issues of extremism.

Some Liberals believe their comments have been falsely conflated with those of Mr Abbott, and that Mr Abbott’s comments have been falsely conflated with overseas politicians who are much more extreme, such as Donald Trump, but the overall result has been to dampen free speech.

Some Liberals were also ­annoyed by the opinion piece by Concetta Fierravanti-Wells that appeared in The Australian yesterday, in which she denounced “megaphone politics” and specific­ally rejected some of Mr Abbott’s language.

Dennis Jensen, the Liberal member for Tangney, in response to Mr Lewis’s newspaper interview, last night told The Australian: “I understand what he (Mr Lewis) is saying on it, but I fundamentally don’t agree. I understand the majority of tips ASIO gets come from the Muslim community.

“But to say something is off limits and should not be discussed is extremely anti-democratic. It’s really a slippery slope. Free speech was not won easily. People paid for it with blood. To meekly roll over and give it away is very mistaken.”

Andrew Nikolic, the member for the Tasmanian seat of Bass and former government whip, who served for 31 years in the Australian Army, does not ­believe Coalition politicians who spoke out about the need for an open debate deserved to be ­censured.

In response to Mr Lewis’s newspaper interview, Mr Nikolic told The Australian: “I can understand why he (Mr Lewis) and the security agencies want to make sure of their ability to do their job, but the comments of myself and others that I have seen have not criticised Islam but those who seek to hijack and misrepresent Islam.”

Several Liberals told The Australian they believed the Prime Minister’s Office was involved in the timing and content of Mr Lewis’s interview with The Sunday Telegraph. The Prime Minister’s office emphatically ­denied this to The Australian.

In recent days, The Australian has canvassed Mr Lewis’s comments with a wide range of former senior national security figures.

All regarded Mr Lewis’s comments as a mistake. Several said they risked injecting ASIO into partisan politics.

Beyond Mr Abbott, a wide range of Liberals made comments critical of the initial response of the Australian Grand Mufti, ­Ibrahim Abu Mohammed, to the Paris terror attacks or calling for an honest discussion of the issues.

These include Immigration Minister Peter Dutton, Treasurer Scott Morrison, Energy Minister Josh Frydenberg and backbenchers Andrew Hastie, Mr ­Nikolic, Luke Simkins, Eric Hutchinson, George Christensen and Angus Taylor. There is no suggestion all of these people are critical of Mr Lewis.