Rethinking Pre-Employment Screening: Building Proportionate, Risk-Led Workforce Assurance
In Australia’s National Interest - Security of Critical InfrastructureShow Notes
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.
More from In Australia’s National Interest - Security of Critical Infrastructure
This video explores the Albanese Labor Government's agenda, from 2023 to 2026, to change the discussion about superannuation funds holdings from compulsory investments that must deliver maximum financial benefit to the fund holders to be used as a source of capital to use, in the 'national interest', to fund the Labor Government's policies and ideological programs. This is tantamount to nationalising those superannuation funds.
What does “suitable” really mean for a critical worker under section 9A of the Enhanced CIRMP Rules 2026? In this episode, Marina Shteinberg and Tim Slattery explore who makes the suitability decision, who owns the risk, and how ongoing assurance should work in practice. We examine the three pathways to critical component access — AusCheck plus the responsible entity’s suitability assessment, a relevant NV1+ security clearance, and the CIRMP risk-managed pathway — and explain what each pathway establishes, who makes the key decisions, and what responsibility remains with the organisation. We also look at ongoing suitability, the relationship with insider threat capability, and practical implementation outcomes for organisations preparing for the enhanced personnel security requirements under section 9A.
Oztopia: Academia explores the behaviour of some Australian academics and higher learning institutions who choose to collaborate with academia hostile states including China, Russia and Iran.
In this episode, Tim Slattery and Marina Shteinberg, Co-Founders and Directors of Pentagram Advisory, unpack the personnel security implications of section 9A of the Enhanced CIRMP Rules 2026 and what responsible entities should prioritise ahead of the 10 June 2027 and 10 June 2028 implementation milestones. They explore how section 9A strengthens expectations around access management, critical worker identification and suitability, ongoing personnel assurance and workforce lifecycle security. The discussion also looks at why implementation should begin with risk, how to think about the two layers of access — to the critical infrastructure asset and to critical components — and why organisations need to connect people, roles, access, suitability and assurance within a coherent enterprise personnel security architecture. The episode concludes with a broader question of trust: how organisations can build appropriate assurance around the trust they grant to employees, contractors and third parties with access to their most critical assets, systems and information — their organisational “crown jewels”.
How much of what we judge to be a material security risk is driven by evidence — and how much by what we can most easily remember? In this episode, Tim Slattery and Marina Shteinberg of Pentagram Advisory explore the availability heuristic and what behavioural science can teach us about security risk management and decision making under uncertainty. In an era of heightened uncertainty, Boards, executives and security leaders are required to make consequential decisions with information that may be incomplete, uneven or constantly changing. Recent incidents, personal experience and highly visible threats can quickly dominate attention — while less familiar but potentially material risks remain outside the spotlight. Tim and Marina examine how availability bias can influence security risk assessment, risk prioritisation and investment decisions, and why a formal risk management framework does not remove human judgement — it structures where that judgement is exercised. They also consider practical ways to strengthen decision-making through broader evidence, structured challenge and greater transparency around the reasoning behind risk ratings. Because what is memorable is not necessarily what is material. And unfamiliarity is not evidence of safety.