In Australia’s National Interest - Security of Critical Infrastructure

The Bondi Beach massacre in December 2025 is the most deadly and consequential terrorist attack on Australian soil. That it happened is a national tragedy. That it happened is not a surprise.
Pentagram's podcast explores the possible consequences for Australia's society, for people - be they Muslim, Jew or gentile - and how this might affect people in the workplace, with particular focus on Australia's critical infrastructure workplaces.
The article calls for private sector leadership, in the absence of government leadership, and provides approaches that workplace leaders might take to support people in the workplace. The article also talks about actions to manage people who may present aberrant workplace behaviours stemming from the Bondi Beach massacre.

Pre-employment screening in critical infrastructure is often treated as a compliance step — a set of standard checks applied to every role, regardless of the risk it carries. But this approach rarely delivers real security assurance.
In this episode, we explain how organisations can move beyond generic, outsourced background checks and build proportionate, risk-led pre-employment screening in-house, using many of the processes they already have in place. Most organisations are already doing a lot — identity checks, right-to-work verification, referee checks, licence validation, probity declarations. The challenge is not starting from scratch, but organising these activities into a structured, defensible workforce assurance capability.
We unpack the key principles of effective pre-employment screening, including proportionality, relevance, fairness, transparency, and privacy, and show how screening should be driven by role risk and consequence, not by habit or convenience. We also explain why government and outsourced checks, while useful, cannot substitute for an organisation’s own responsibility to understand its specific security risks.
This episode provides practical guidance on how to design tiered, role-based screening models, distinguish between eligibility and suitability, and use risk factors ethically — without stigmatising people or creating unnecessary barriers to employment.
If your organisation is looking to strengthen its approach to workforce assurance under AS 4811:2022, the PSPF, and the SOCI framework, this episode offers clear, implementable ideas you can apply internally — without creating more burden, cost, or complexity.

In this episode, we explore why many critical infrastructure organisations continue to rely on the AusCheck background check as their primary assurance measure — and why that reliance creates a dangerous illusion of safety.
AusCheck provides coordinated, point-in-time background checking that is primarily focused on identifying terrorism-related and criminal risks. It does not provide an understanding of the broader personal security risks that may need to be monitored and managed across the employment lifecycle.
We unpack:
• what AusCheck actually does — and doesn’t do
• why legislative rigidity makes reform slow and complex
• how insider threat now develops over time, not at hiring
• why outsourcing background checks can remove visibility rather than improve it
• why proportionate, risk-led workforce assurance is essential for critical infrastructure
This episode sets the foundation for a three-part series. Next, we will look at practical, proportionate pre-employment screening. Then, we will explore ongoing suitability and managing personnel risk over time.
Boards, executives and risk leaders will find this particularly useful — especially if your organisation still equates “passing a check” with low risk.

Beyond Compliance with the SOCI Act: Why Effective Security Risk Management Matters More Than a ‘Compliant’ CIRMP
A Pentagram Advisory perspective
As organisations across Australia’s critical infrastructure sectors continue to mature under the Security of Critical Infrastructure Act 2018, many Boards and executives are asking a familiar question: Are we compliant?
In this episode, Pentagram Advisory reflects on why compliance alone is not enough — and why a Critical Infrastructure Risk Management Program (CIRMP) that satisfies regulatory requirements may still fail to protect critical assets in practice.
Drawing on Pentagram’s advisory work with SOCI-regulated entities across multiple sectors, the discussion explores the critical distinction between compliance and effectiveness, and why the SOCI Act should be understood as a national security framework, not an administrative checklist.
The episode examines the role of risk appetite and risk tolerance in shaping security risk decisions, the danger of false assurance created by procedural audits and box-ticking, and why genuine confidence comes from understanding how security controls perform under real-world conditions.
It also highlights why SOCI should not be viewed as foreign to good business practice. Many protective security measures already exist within organisations — the challenge is connecting them, governing them effectively, and ensuring they deliver the intended security outcomes.
This conversation is intended for Board members, CEOs, executives, and senior risk and security leaders seeking to move beyond compliance and build genuine confidence in their organisation’s security risk management under the SOCI Act.

In October and November 2025, the heads of Australia’s two most significant strategic intelligence assessment agencies made public their views on the geostrategic threats confronting Australia today.  In those remarks, both leaders set out some of the threats and explored some of the consequences that could be inflicted upon Australia, including Australia’s critical infrastructure assets, if action is not taken now to detect, deter, and defend against these threats to Australia’s national security.
Australia has been warned for years by its intelligence agencies, and by its allies, of the threats to our critical infrastructure by threat actors including hostile nation states, organised crime, and issue-motivated groups and individuals. Have Australian governments, private sector entities, or citizens  responded in any meaningful way to these warnings, or have we been party to a slow-motion car crash, which we belatedly realise we are in the drivers’ seat for?