In Australia’s National Interest - Security of Critical Infrastructure

Under-Resourced and Over-Exposed: Why Boards Must Rethink Security Governance under the Security of Critical Infrastructure Act 2018

In Australia’s National Interest - Security of Critical Infrastructure

Show Notes

Across Australia’s critical infrastructure sectors, many organisations are working hard to comply with the Security of Critical Infrastructure Act 2018 (SOCI Act). Cyber security has matured. CIRMP frameworks are in place. Annual attestations are part of governance cycles. But is security risk truly being governed and resourced proportionately to exposure? In this episode, Pentagram Advisory explores a recurring structural imbalance in how security risk is integrated into enterprise governance. We examine why compliance alone is not enough, why security risk management must be aligned to risk appetite, and why Boards must treat protective security as a capital allocation discipline — not a technical sub-function. We discuss: The difference between compliance and risk stewardship

Why threat assessment and security risk assessment must be current

Governance gaps and fragmented ownership under SOCI

The risks of under-resourcing outside cyber

How Boards can ask the right questions before signing their CIRMP attestation

This conversation is designed for Board directors, senior executives, risk professionals, and those responsible for implementing SOCI obligations. Because protecting critical infrastructure is not just a compliance requirement — it is a matter of national resilience.

More from In Australia’s National Interest - Security of Critical Infrastructure

Oct 20, 2026

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.

Oct 19, 2026

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.

Oct 2, 2026

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.

Sep 28, 2026

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”.

Sep 14, 2026

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.

See all episodes →