Delivering ASIO's annual threat assessment on Monday, he indicated the agency is treating neo-nazis and right wing fanatics as a much more serious threat than under his predecessor, Duncan Lewis.

Mr Lewis was grilled in Senate estimates last April following the Christchurch attack by an Australian gunman that claimed 49 lives.

"The events of Christchurch ... don't really change the calculus here. There's no early evidence to me that there will be some dramatic reset around this," the then director-general said.

He said Islamic terrorism, not the home-grown, white-supremacist, neo-nazi variety, was the main factor in seven terrorist attacks and 15 thwarted attacks in the previous five years: "Of those 22 incidents, one was allegedly perpetrated by a right-wing extremist, and that case is still before the courts".

While unable to explain how the Christchurch shooter had evaded detection despite a relatively high social media profile, he told the hearings ASIO and its partner agencies had been "very interested in right-wing extremism" for many years.

That interest now appears to have reached a whole new level with the language changing dramatically by last October and following Mr Burgess's appointment.

By the time of the annual report right wing extremists were "an enduring threat". "Extreme right wing groups in Australia are more cohesive and organised than they have been in previous years".

"Any future extreme right wing-inspired attack in Australia would most likely be low capability and conducted by a lone actor (as was the case in Christchurch) or small group, although sophisticated weapons attack is possible".

Mr Burgess reaffirmed that assessment on Monday, saying "small cells" of right wing extremists were regularly gathering to salute Nazi flags, inspect weapons and spread their loathsome beliefs.

He also warned Australia was experiencing an almost unprecedented level of foreign espionage activity and that "sleeper agents" were trying to infiltrate key organisations and institutions including universities.

"Espionage and foreign interference are affecting parts of the community they did not touch during the Cold War," he said.

Given many of these issues were also canvassed in last October's annual report, their rather strident repetition at a time when the agency is pushing for more funds and additional powers means many people will be taking the latest warnings with a grain of salt however.

Governments and their security agencies have long known the best way to grow their reach is to ramp up public perceptions of imminent internal and external threats.

Recent instances of the alleged misuse of security legislation against journalists and whistleblowers, a level of secrecy in government rarely seen in a democratic society in peacetime, trials behind closed doors and the like have all contributed to an understandably palpable degree of public cynicism in recent years.

It would be foolhardy, in light of this, for the public to accept the need for yet more security legislation that will almost certainly remain in place long after any immediate threat has dissipated.

Every time we extend security agency powers we chip another edge off our democratic freedoms. We need to strike the right balance between security and liberty.