Just name the alleged traitor politician

That is already happening following ASIO director-general Mike Burgess's assertion a "foreign intelligence unit", the so-called "A-team", had recruited a former politician who "sold out their country, party and former colleagues to advance the interests of a foreign regime".

Peter Dutton, who is treating this as manna from heaven with the Dunkley byelection just days away, kicked off the latest game of "who can it be now?" in fine style on Thursday. "I would put my money on it being an ex-Labor politician from NSW who had dealings with China," he said.

While Mr Burgess stopped short of naming China as the most likely instigator of the espionage operation Mr Dutton had no doubts on that score.

While, on the face of it, Mr Dutton would seem to be sailing close to the wind, his description is broad enough to cover a large number of former NSW state and federal parliamentarians.

That is why, as former Treasurer and ambassador to the US Joe Hockey has said, Mr Burgess should publicly identify who he is talking about and provide more details on what happened and when. This would at least in part head off what is sure to be an unedifying mud-slinging campaign which may influence the outcome of a crucial byelection.

While it is highly improbable Mr Burgess would ever intentionally interfere in the democratic process he may, on this occasion, have - inadvertently - come close to doing so.

It is not good enough to say the problem had been "neutralised", the individual would not be "stupid enough" to repeat their treachery, that if they did the stronger foreign interference legislation could be invoked against them, and that the spy ring had been told its cover had been blown.

That, with the greatest respect, narrows down the possible time frame. It focuses possibly misplaced attention on MPs who may have left the parliament around that time.

If, as has been suggested, Mr Burgess intended his statement to be a stern warning to Australian politicians to be on the look-out for possible approaches from foreign intelligence agencies then he has chosen a particularly heavy-handed way to deliver it.

Also, as appears to be the case, if the events he described are at least six or seven years in the past then people are entitled to know what consequences, if any, the individual identified by ASIO faced.

Has there been a secret prosecution? Did the individual cooperate with security services to make a case against their handlers? How much money changed hands? What does "neutralised" mean? And is the traitor receiving a parliamentary pension at public expense?

While the ASIO director-general would invoke operational security if he was ever pressed to answer these questions in Senate Estimates or by the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security he is the one who deliberately chose to publicly open this particular can of worms.

Who does Mr Burgess's reticence protect? It's certainly not the government which is already being smeared by the Coalition.

And it's certainly not the public, most of whom would expect treachery to have demonstrable consequences that go far beyond what Mr Hockey called a "slap on the wrist" from ASIO.

This matter will not simply slip away quietly until it is resolved.

Canberra is already abuzz with speculation that unfairly tarnishes the reputation of good people.