The head of one of Australia's secretive intelligence agencies has struck out at critics of Australia's freshly minted encryption laws, saying those claiming the new regime is dangerous are "hyperbolic, inaccurate and influenced by self-interest".

Key points: Australian Signals Directorate chief Mike Burgess enters public encryption debate

Australian Signals Directorate chief Mike Burgess enters public encryption debate A public statement addresses seven "myths" — criticisms and fears raised in the debate

A public statement addresses seven "myths" — criticisms and fears raised in the debate The controversial legislation passed the Parliament last week

In a rare, public statement, Mike Burgess has struck out at seven "myths", asserting it was important to correct the record and assure Australians on how the laws would work in practice.

Mr Burgess, the director-general of the Australian Signals Directorate, said the Telecommunications and Other Legislation Amendment (Assistance and Access) Act 2018, or TOLA Act, which Parliament approved last week, was "highly targeted" and directed at terrorists, paedophiles and criminals, not law-abiding Australians.

The TOLA Act gives security agencies new powers to compel telecommunication companies to allow access to encrypted data such as communication on messaging apps.

Answering "Myth #1", that information is no longer safe, Mr Burgess said: "Encryption is a good thing. It is an essential part of a safe, secure online experience."

He said the Government did not want to change that.

"But if two Australians are using a messaging app to plot a terrorist attack, it is clearly crucial for the relevant authorities to find out what they are saying," Mr Burgess said.

He said that agencies would not have unfettered power under the encryption laws, with "significant checks and balances" including the need for a warrant.

"Agencies can get a warrant to listen to the phone calls of criminals. Why shouldn't these same agencies be able to get assistance to read the encrypted messages of criminals when Australian lives and livelihoods are at stake?" he said.

Fears of 'backdoor access' to encrypted data dismissed

Mr Burgess dismissed suggestions the laws would "break the internet", in reference to critics who claim the laws allowed "backdoor" access to encrypted data.

"Agencies cannot use the legislation to ask or require companies to create systemic weaknesses which would jeopardise the communications of other users," he said.

"The director-general of security recently suggested an analogy where a terrorist is plotting an attack in a hotel room. The authority the police would get under the act is the equivalent of being able to ask the hotel for access to the room. The act does not give the police the power to demand a master key be made for all rooms."

He said ASD would not be able to use the laws to spy on Australians, emphasising that his was a foreign intelligence agency.

And he rejected claims that the laws would see the reputation of Australian tech companies suffer, referencing the banning of Chinese telco giant Huawei from Australia's 5G network, although he did not name the company.

"It's been repeatedly claimed that Australian tech companies will be regarded as no different to the high-risk foreign vendors that have been blocked from supplying equipment in Australian 5G networks," Mr Burgess said.

"The comparison is absurd. High-risk vendors have been banned from Australia's 5G network because of the threat they pose when they could be subject to unbounded extrajudicial directions from a foreign government.

"It is not in any way an equivalent comparison to the highly targeted assistance that the Australian Government will be seeking under the TOLA Act."