Protective Security Policy Framework

Protective Security Policy Framework

3 Security planning and risk management

Table of Contents
3 Security planning and risk management ................................................................................................................1
A. Purpose ..........................................................................................................................................................1
B. Requirements .................................................................................................................................................2
B.1 Core requirement ...................................................................................................................................2
B.2 Supporting requirements .......................................................................................................................2
C. Guidance ........................................................................................................................................................2
C.1 Security planning approach....................................................................................................................2
C.2 Security plan ...........................................................................................................................................3
C.3 Security threat levels ..............................................................................................................................9
C.4 Risk-based approach to the PSPF ........................................................................................................ 11
D. Find out more.............................................................................................................................................. 11
D.1 Change log ........................................................................................................................................... 12
Annex A. Security risk management process ....................................................................................................1
Communicate and consult .................................................................................................................................1
Establish the context .........................................................................................................................................1
Security risk assessment ........................................................................................................................................2
Identify security risks .........................................................................................................................................3
Analyse security risks .........................................................................................................................................4
Evaluate security risks .......................................................................................................................................5
Treat security risks .............................................................................................................................................5
Implementation .................................................................................................................................................6
Monitoring and review performance ................................................................................................................7

A. Purpose
1. This policy describes how entities establish effective security planning and can embed security into risk
management practices. Security planning can be used to identify and manage risks and assist decision-
making by:
a. applying appropriate controls effectively and consistently (as part of the entity’s existing risk
management arrangements)
b. adapting to change while safeguarding the delivery of business and services
c. improving resilience to threats, vulnerabilities and challenges
d. driving protective security performance improvements.

v2018.4 Error! Unknown switch argument. 1

Protective Security Policy Framework

B. Requirements
B.1 Core requirement
Each entity must have in place a security plan approved by the accountable authority to manage the
entity’s security risks. The security plan must detail the:
a. security goals and strategic objectives of the entity, including how security risk
management intersects with and supports broader business objectives and
priorities
b. threats, risks and vulnerabilities that impact the protection of an entity’s people,
information and assets
c. entity’s tolerance to security risks
d. maturity of the entity’s capability to manage security risks
e. entity’s strategies to implement security risk management, maintain a positive
risk culture and deliver against the PSPF, and
f. entity’s arrangements for implementing any direction issued by the Secretary of
the Department of Home Affairs under the PSPF.

2. Where a single security plan is not practicable due to an entity’s size or complexity of business, the
accountable authority may approve a strategic-level overarching security plan that addresses the core
requirements.

B.2 Supporting requirements

Supporting requirements for security planning and risk management
# Supporting requirements
Requirement 1. The security plan (and supporting security plans) must be reviewed at least every two years. The
Security plan review process must include how the entity will:
review a. determine the adequacy of existing measures and mitigation controls,
b. respond to and manage significant shifts in the entity’s risk, threat and operating
environment.
Requirement 2. Entities must identify people, information and assets that are critical to the ongoing operation of the
Critical assets entity and the national interest and apply appropriate protections to these resources to support
their core business.
Requirement 3. Entities must identify a risk steward (or manager) who is responsible for each security risk or
Risk steward category of security risk, including for shared risks.
Requirement 4. When conducting a security risk assessment, entities must communicate to the affected
Impact of risks Commonwealth entity any identified risks that could potentially impact on the business of another
entity.
Requirement 5. The security plan (and supporting security plans) must include scalable measures to meet variations
Threat levels in threat levels and accommodate changes in the National Terrorism Threat Level.
Requirement 6. Where the CSO (or security advisor on behalf of the CSO) implements an alternative mitigation
Alternative measure or control to a PSPF requirement, they must document the decision and adjust the
mitigations maturity level for the related PSPF requirement.

C. Guidance
C.1 Security planning approach
3. Successfully managing entity security risks and protecting people, information and assets requires an
understanding of what needs protecting, what the threat is and how assets will be protected. Security
planning is designing, implementing, monitoring, reviewing and continually improving practices for security
risk management.
a. A security plan (see section C.2) specifies the approach, responsibilities and resources applied to
managing protective security risks. The security plan allows entities to review the degree of security risk
that exists in different areas of operations and take action to mitigate identified risks.

v2018.4 Error! Unknown switch argument. 2

Protective Security Policy Framework

b. A security risk management process (see Annex A) manages risks across all areas of security
(governance, information, personnel and physical) to determine sources of threat and risk (and
potential events) that could affect government or entity business. Security risk management includes:
i. security risk assessments, which are structured and comprehensive processes to identify,
analyse and evaluate security risks and determine practical steps to minimise the risks
ii. security risk treatments, which are the considered, coordinated and efficient actions and
resources required to mitigate or lessen the likelihood or negative consequences of risks.
4. Regardless of an entity's functions or security concerns, the central messages for managing security risks
are:
a. security is everyone’s responsibility and risk management is the business of all personnel (including
contractors) in the entity, supported by security awareness training
b. security is a business enabler that informs decision-making, is part of day-to-day business and is
embedded into an entity’s business processes
c. security management is logical, systematic and transparent and is part of the enterprise risk
management process
d. security processes identify changes in the threat environment and allow for adjustments to maintain
acceptable levels of risk, balancing operational and security needs.
5. For information on how a risk-based approaches work with the PSPF core requirements, refer to
section C.4.

C.2 Security plan

6. Entities develop a security plan to articulate how their security risks will be managed and how security
aligns with their priorities and objectives. Where a single security plan is not practicable due to the entity’s
size or complexity of business, the Department of Home Affairs recommends developing an overarching
security plan supported by more detailed plans (referred to as supporting security plans).
7. Each entity’s security plan will be different. The security plan reflects an entity’s protective security
requirements and mitigation strategies appropriate to the levels of threat, risks to its assets and risk
tolerances. Entities are encouraged to use approaches that manage risks for the Australian Government
and best meet their operational environment.
8. Requirement 1 mandates security plans (and supporting security plans) are reviewed at least every two
years. A security plan is a ‘living’ document and requires review and adjustment to ensure the goals and
management of security risks keeps pace with changes in the entity and with emerging threats. This could
include, for example, a change in the National Terrorism Threat Level or an emerging threat that alters the
entity’s business impact level (see Table 4). It is recommended the security plan also be reviewed when
there are significant shifts in the entity’s risk or operating environment.
9. Entities determine how the review of the security plan (and supporting security plans) is conducted.
Security plans may be reviewed by the CSO or appointed security advisor, an external security consultant or
through a security governance oversight committee for larger or more complex business operations.
10. Security plans are best developed by a person who also understands the entity’s strategic goals and
objectives and the appropriate level of security risk management knowledge and expertise.
11. Entities are encouraged to make the security plan (and supporting security plans) available across the
entity, particularly for those with obligations or responsibilities identified in the plan, helps to build a
positive security culture based on a common understanding of security.
Table 1 Security plan overview
Sections of Suggested content coverage
the plan
Goals and The accountable authority’s commitment to effective security risk management, expectations for a
objectives positive security culture, outlining the entity’s security priorities, goals and objectives (see sub-section
C.2.2).

v2018.4 Error! Unknown switch argument. 3

Protective Security Policy Framework

Sections of Suggested content coverage

the plan
Security risk The environment in which the entity operates; the threats, risks and vulnerabilities effecting the
environment entity’s protection (see section C.2.3), including:
a. what the entity needs to protect (via a risk assessment) being the people, information and
assets assessed as critical to its ongoing operation and to the national interest (mandated in
Requirement 2)
b. what it needs to protect against (via threat assessment)
c. how the risk will be managed within the entity.

See Annex A for the security risk management process.

Risk tolerance The entity’s level of risk tolerance. Each entity’s level of tolerance for risk will vary depending on the
level of potential damage to the Australian Government or to the entity (see sub-section C.2.4).
Security The maturity of the entity’s capability to manage security risks (see sub-section C.2.5).
capability
Security risk Strategies to manage security, maintain a positive risk culture and deliver the PSPF requirements (see
management sub-section C.2.6).
strategies
The entity’s approach to managing security risks, including identifying how it will apply proportional
and sufficient controls to deter, detect, delay and respond to threats (internal or external) that affect
the security of its people, information or assets. This includes:
a. establishing risk stewards and managers (mandated in Requirement 3)
b. instigating steps that minimise risks (according to risk environment and tolerances)
c. managing residual risks to ensure the protection of people, information and assets.
Directions Strategies to implement any directions issued by the Secretary of the Department of Home Affairs
under the PSPF (see section C.2.7).

The entity’s approach to implementing the requirements specified in any directions, including to
ensure any timeframes or additional reporting obligations specified in the direction are met.

If the direction allows, entity’s arrangements to implement alternative mitigations.

Supporting Entities are encouraged to consider what, if any, evidentiary documents support the security plan (and
and supporting security plans).
evidentiary Examples
documents security risk assessment report security alert levels
threat assessment site security plan
vulnerability assessment entity-specific security procedure
security risk register entity-specific PSPF security maturity monitoring
critical asset register security incident register/response procedure
privacy impact assessment ICT system security plans (see ISM)
information asset register other entity operational or compliance plans

12. The Department of Home Affairs recommends security plans be comprehensive and span all areas of
protective security. This includes governance arrangements and information, ICT, personnel and physical
security as outlined in Table 2.
Table 2 Suggested coverage for security plan
Information (including ICT)
Governance arrangements Personnel security Physical security
security
Suggested coverage for Suggested coverage for Suggested coverage for Suggested coverage for
governance arrangements: information security: personnel security: physical security:
a. roles and a. classification and a. personnel security a. access control systems
responsibilities management provisions during b. security monitoring
b. risk tolerances arrangements for recruitment in and alarm systems
c. security risk information holdings conjunction with human c. measures to increase
management (including b. access to information resource management security if the National
threat, vulnerability and including sharing b. security clearance Terrorism Alert Level
criticality assessments) information maintenance plans that or entity-specific
d. security incidents c. ICT access and system address risks identified by threats increase.
e. security culture security security vetting agencies

v2018.4 Error! Unknown switch argument. 4

Protective Security Policy Framework

Information (including ICT)

Governance arrangements Personnel security Physical security
security
f. security awareness d. cyber security to c. security assessment
training mitigate targeted position list
g. security monitoring intrusions d. contact reporting
h. reporting security e. information handling e. security clearance
maturity within the entity as well aftercare
i. contracted service as when in transit or out f. ongoing security
providers. of the office. awareness training
g. managing the separation
of personnel.

13. When developing or reviewing the security plan (and supporting security plans), entities are encouraged to
seek advice and technical assistance from specialist entities such as:
a. Australian Security Intelligence Organisation for threat assessments
b. ASIO-T4 Protective Security for physical security advice or technical assistance
c. local police for state and territory criminal threat information
d. Australian Government Security Vetting Agency for security vetting procedural advice
e. Australian Signals Directorate for ICT, cyber security and certified cloud services advice
f. subject-matter experts.

C.2.1 Security planning for projects

14. The Department of Home Affairs recommends that security is considered during all stages of project
management and planning. This is particularly important for projects that involve:
a. major acquisitions
b. establishment of infrastructure or major modifications to existing infrastructure
c. information that is:
i. sensitive in nature or security classified
ii. proprietary in nature or
iii. meets the financial and economic impact threshold with a business impact of low to medium
(level two) or higher.

C.2.2 Security plan – goals and objectives

15. Security is everyone’s responsibility, however, overall accountability for security planning and risk
management rests with the entity’s accountable authority, supported by the CSO.
16. Security arrangements support an entity’s business objectives by identifying and managing risks that could
adversely affect achieving those objectives. The accountable authority and CSO determine the security
arrangements required for:
a. vigilance, resilience and adaptability of personnel to security risks
b. capacity to function, including during security incidents, disruptions or emergencies
c. safety of personnel (including contractors) and those who have dealings with government (including
visitors)
d. protection of resources, information and assets held in the entity.
17. Clear protective security goals and objectives allow effective implementation of security risk management
that is consistent with the entity’s operating objectives. This includes how security underpins business
priorities and functions as reflected in the entity’s corporate plan.

v2018.4 Error! Unknown switch argument. 5

Protective Security Policy Framework

18. When setting goals, entities are encouraged to consider historical security experience and knowledge,
results from previous performance indicators and past compliance with the PSPF.
19. The Department of Home Affairs recommends that entities assess their existing protective security
arrangements and procedures to identify areas for improvement. This could be areas of exposure,
vulnerability or ‘target attractiveness’. Target attractiveness is the value of an entity or its components to
an adversary when viewed as a target. Reviewing protective security arrangements also considers the
entity’s maturity in implementing PSPF requirements.

C.2.3 Security plan – threats, risks and vulnerabilities

20. When implementing the core requirement to detail threats, risks and vulnerabilities that affect the
protection of people, information and assets, entities:
a. identify the people, information (including ICT) and assets to be safeguarded (Requirement 2)
b. determine specific risks (including shared risks) to its people, information and assets in Australia and
abroad (risk identification)
c. identify and assess criticality of people, information and assets (criticality assessment)
d. identify the threats to people, information and assets (threat assessment)
e. assess the degree of susceptibility and resilience to hazards (vulnerability assessment)
f. assess the likelihood and consequence of each risk occurring (risk analysis)
g. determine adequacy of existing safeguards and whether current risks (or residual vulnerabilities) are
acceptable or not (evaluate risks)
h. implement protective security measures to mitigate or reduce identified risks to an acceptable level
(risk treatments)
i. manage residual risks (treatable and untreatable) and vulnerabilities
j. identify and accept responsibility for risks (Requirement 3).
21. Requirement 2 mandates that entities must identify the people, information and assets that are critical to
the ongoing operation of the entity and to the national interest.
a. Assets are items that have a value to the entity, including resources and property that are relied on to
sustain operations and capabilities. These are in addition to people and information (including ICT)
identified as critical to ongoing operations.
b. Critical assets (and components of an asset) are essential to the ongoing operation of the entity.
c. Asset attractiveness is how a threat source may view the asset in relation to the activity it seeks to
undertake.
d. Asset attributes are the qualities that determine the nature and extent of impact on the entity
operations following an event or incident.
22. Annex A provides details on the security risk management process. The Department of Home Affairs
recommends entities ensure methodologies are appropriate, compatible with security and align with their
risk management standards when developing their security risk management approach. Entities may
consider:
a. Department of Finance Commonwealth Risk Management Policy
b. Australian Standards AS/NZS ISO 31000 Risk Management – Guidelines and HB 167 – Security Risk
Management.
23. These standards are a non-prescriptive method of managing risk. They are applicable for all types of
organisations, including government.

v2018.4 Error! Unknown switch argument. 6

Protective Security Policy Framework

24. Where risks are identified that could potentially affect the operations of another government entity,
Requirement 4 mandates that entities communicate these risks to the affected entity. 1
25. Where a risk with national security implications is identified, the Department of Home Affairs recommends
the entity inform ASIO of these risks. 2

C.2.3.1 What is a security risk?

26. A security risk is something that could result in the compromise, loss, unavailability or damage to
information or assets, or cause harm to people. Security risk is the effect of uncertainty on objectives and is
often measured in terms of its likelihood and consequences. The causes are generally people, systems,
processes, procedures, crime, attacks or natural events. An:
a. effect is a deviation from the expected and may be positive or negative
b. objective has different aspects such as financial, health and safety and environmental goals, and can
apply at multiple levels such as strategic, organisation-wide, project, product and process levels.
27. Entities are encouraged to consider where security risks intersect with other risks including fraud, privacy
and business continuity. Entities are encouraged to treat risk holistically across its operations. For example,
there may be opportunities to treat multiple risks with one mitigation control.

C.2.3.2 Shared security risks

28. Shared security risks are those that extend across entities, premises, the community, industry, international
partners and other jurisdictions. They require high levels of cooperation between stakeholders to
effectively understand and manage those risks.
29. Where entities share accommodation or facilities, the Department of Home Affairs recommends entities
conduct a risk assessment to evaluate the security risks for the co-tenancy and apply protective security
measures to address the combined risks.
30. Where an entity considers a risk is shared due to its location (eg physical boundaries, crowded public space,
government precinct) and there is no identifiable other party to share the assessment and management of
the risk, the entity is expected to mitigate the risk to the extent it is able to within its operations.
31. In situations where risks are shared between parties with differing risk tolerances, it is recommended that
the parties identify the areas of difference and whether concerns might be alleviated by applying additional
controls.
32. Where shared risks are identified, it is important to develop clear roles and responsibilities, including those
mandated in Requirement 3.
33. For information on managing shared risks, see the Commonwealth Risk Management Policy Understanding
and managing shared risks information sheet.

C.2.4 Security plan – tolerance to security risks

34. The PSPF policy: Role of accountable authority mandates that the accountable authority determine their
entity’s tolerance for security risks, supported by a transparent and justifiable process. When setting risk
tolerance levels, some entities may decide to differentiate between ICT risks and other security risks.
35. Risk tolerance is an informed decision to accept a risk. It is the level of acceptable risk after risk treatment
to achieve an objective or manage a category of risk. Determining whether a risk is acceptable involves
judgment. It is highly dependent on the entity context and the accountable authority’s approach.
36. Risk tolerance is based on the principle of managing risk to a level that is as low as reasonably practicable,
allowing for flexible and innovative business practices. It is a practical application of risk appetite, which is
the amount of risk an entity is willing to accept or retain within its tolerance levels and the limits of PSPF
requirements. Risk tolerance includes:
a. expectations for mitigating, accepting and pursuing specific types of risk

1
Refer to the Australian Government Directory for contacts.
R
Report to the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation or call the National Security Hotline on 1800 123 400.

v2018.4 Error! Unknown switch argument. 7

Protective Security Policy Framework

b. boundaries and thresholds of acceptable risk taking

c. actions to be taken or consequences for acting beyond approved tolerances.
37. An entity’s risk tolerance can be affected by changes in evaluation criteria and the accountable authority’s
appetite for risk. It can vary depending on:
a. prevailing political and community sensitivities and expectations
b. the nature of a security incident (eg terrorist act, hacking)
c. existing or emerging security incidents (trusted insider, cyber-attacks)
d. strategic or business priorities
e. vigilance, resilience and adaptability of personnel and how effective they are at applying security
awareness principles
f. resource availability for treatment
g. the ability of the government, entity or individual to absorb losses.
38. Manipulating risk assessment inputs (consequence or likelihood of a risk) to achieve a lower result is not an
appropriate method of risk management and bypasses the intent of risk tolerance. Entities are encouraged
to develop appropriate rating scales for likelihood and consequence in accordance with their risk
tolerances.
39. In most cases, determining risk tolerance and levels of risk appetite can be understood as a gradient scale,
where the appetite for the risk becomes progressively less tolerable as the risk level increases (see Figure
1).
Figure 1 Risk tolerance regions (example only)

40. For information, refer to the Commonwealth Risk Management Policy Defining risk appetite and tolerance
information sheet.

C.2.5 Security plan – capability to manage security risks

41. The PSPF governance outcome is that ‘each entity manages security risks and supports a positive security
culture in an appropriately mature manner.’ The PSPF policy: Reporting on security outlines that maturity
is a meaningful scale to measure an entity’s overall security position within its risk environment and risk
tolerances. Maturity acknowledges the progression in achieving a security culture and highlights areas for
improvement. Security capability maturity is how an entity:

v2018.4 Error! Unknown switch argument. 8

Protective Security Policy Framework

a. implements and meets the PSPF core and supporting requirements

b. minimises harm to people and resources
c. fosters a positive security culture
d. responds to and learns from security incidents
e. understands and manages security risks
f. achieves security outcomes while delivering business objectives.

C.2.6 Security plan - strategies to implement security risk management, maintain a positive
risk culture and deliver against the PSPF
42. The success of security risk management depends on the effectiveness of security planning and how well
arrangements are supported by the entity’s senior leadership and integrated into business processes. This
includes meeting core and supporting requirements of the PSPF or adopting mitigations that are equivalent
to or exceed those requirements.
43. It is important that entities foster a culture where risk management is an important and valued aspect of
decision-making, where risk management processes are understood and applied appropriately; and where
personnel can be confident in managing and taking risks, within defined parameters, in order to achieve
objectives.
44. Effective security risk management supports better decision-making and builds positive risk culture by:
a. identifying possible risks and opportunities in advance, lessening the potential of adverse outcomes
and increasing the likelihood of desirable outcomes
b. having processes in place to monitor risks and provide access to reliable, up-to-date information about
risks
c. providing guidance around appropriate limits through well understood risk appetite and risk tolerance
statements
d. providing transparency over the decision-making process and the achievement of entity objectives.
45. When security risk management is done well, it underpins organisational resilience and a positive risk
culture because entities know their security risks, make coordinated and informed decisions in managing
those risks, identify opportunities and learns from mistakes. This is reinforced with meaningful training and
support across all levels of management.
46. Refer to the Department of Finance:
a. Developing a positive risk culture information sheet
b. Commonwealth Risk Management Policy Element Eight – Maintaining risk management capability
c. Commonwealth Risk Management Policy Element Four – Embedding systematic risk management into
business processes.

C.2.7 Security Plan – Directions

47. The PSPF policy 1: Role of accountable authority mandates that the accountable authority must adhere to
direction any issued by the Secretary of the Department of Home Affairs under the PSPF. In accordance
with the core requirement of this policy, entities must document in the security plan how they have
adhered to any directions issued, including applying additional mitigations or controls mandated in any
direction.
48. For further information on the purpose of directions, see PSPF policy 1: Role of accountable authority.

C.3 Security threat levels

49. Requirement 5 mandates the security plan (and supporting security plans) include scalable control
measures to meet increases or decreases in risk as a consequence of a change in threat to the entity. These
must be able to accommodate changes in the National Terrorism Threat Level. Refer to Table 3 for the
business impact levels for consequences of threat levels.

v2018.4 Error! Unknown switch argument. 9

Protective Security Policy Framework

50. Measures could include:

a. determining who needs to know about changes in the security threat level
b. outlining specific roles or responsibilities including who is responsible for determining the security alert
level
c. ensuring personnel are aware of the measures employed by the entity to adapt to and mitigate
emergencies and heightened threat levels
d. detailing arrangements to monitor the threat level and review the security alert level when the entity
undertakes significant new projects, the risk environment changes, or after a significant incident
impacting the entity’s ability to operate.
Table 3 Business impact levels for consequences of threat
Business 1 Low impact 2 Low to medium 3 High impact 4 Extreme impact 5 Catastrophic
impact level impact impact
Consequence Insignificant Limited damage to Damage to the Serious damage to Exceptionally
of threat damage to the the national national interest, the national grave damage to
national interest, interest, organisations or interest, the national
organisations or organisations or individuals. organisations or interest,
individuals. individuals. individuals. organisations or
individuals.
51. Developing entity security alert levels is one way an entity can ensure personnel are aware of the measures
employed by the entity to adapt to and mitigate emergencies and heightened threat levels. Alert levels also
allow entities to scale the controls used to mitigate risks as the risks increase or decrease.
52. The number of alert levels required for the entity will depend on its operational requirements and expected
changes in risk sources. See Table 4 for examples of security alert levels.
53. The source of security risks can be categorised into three areas:
a. Event – an event is an important happening or incident impacting on the entity’s ability to function
such as a natural event (eg storm) or an emergency event (eg fire).
b. Threat – a threat is a declared intent to inflict harm on entity personnel or property.
c. Activity – an activity is an action by one or more people likely to have a negative impact on physical
security (eg protest activity, filming in the vicinity of premises).
54. When determining the security alert level, entities are encouraged to monitor:
a. National Terrorism Threat Level Advisory System advice
b. protective security risk reviews
c. police advice
d. emergency management advice
e. Bureau of Meteorology advice
f. entity security incident reports
g. media reports.
Table 4 Examples of security alert levels
Security alert Low Medium High Extreme Catastrophic
levels
Likelihood of Applies when only Applies when an Applies when an Applies when an Applies when a
threat general concerns event, physical event, physical event, physical severe event,
exist of an event, activity or threat is activity or threat is activity or threat is physical activity
physical activity or assessed as likely to occur. imminent or has or threat is
general threat. feasible. occurred. imminent or has
occurred.

v2018.4 Error! Unknown switch argument. 10

Protective Security Policy Framework

Security alert Low Medium High Extreme Catastrophic

levels
Security Existing security Security measures Security measures Security measures Advice required
measures measures are are maintainable are sustainable for will not be from the
required sufficient. indefinitely, with lengthy periods sustainable over National Security
minimal impact to without causing the long term Hotline on
the entity’s undue hardship to without creating additional
operations. personnel, hardship and security
affecting affecting the measures.
operational entity’s activities
capability or and personnel.
aggravating
relationships with
the local
community.

C.4 Risk-based approach to the PSPF

55. Applying a risk-based approach to the PSPF is about making informed decisions on how to implement the
core and supporting requirements to achieve a baseline security maturity level of ‘managing’. 3 Under the
CSO’s direction, the entity implements PSPF requirements giving consideration to the entity’s size,
operations and risk environment. For example, the level of risk tolerance accepted by a national security
entity may be very different to that of an administrative entity.
56. Outcomes from the entity’s security planning and risk assessments inform these decisions, including
whether additional protective security controls are required.
57. In the event that an entity is unable to implement a requirement, a risk-based approach allows an
alternative mitigation to be implemented where it achieves a level of protection that is the same as or
exceeds that afforded by the PSPF requirement. Requirement 6 mandates that where the CSO (or security
advisor) implements an alternative mitigation measure or control, they must document the decision and
adjust the maturity level for the related PSPF requirement accordingly. Requirement 1a also applies to any
alternative mitigation measures implemented by the entity.
58. Accepted variances may apply where the entity has temporarily varied the application of a PSPF
requirement in response to an exceptional circumstance. These circumstances are outlined in the
exceptional circumstances provision in the PSPF policy: Role of accountable authority. Variances are for a
limited time and take into consideration the entity’s risk tolerances. When applied appropriately, the entity
may maintain a ‘managing’ maturity level rating during the circumstance.

D. Find out more

59. Other policies and information sources:
a. Commonwealth Risk Management Policy
b. Australian Standards:
i. AS/NZS ISO 31000 – Risk Management – Guidelines
ii. ISO Guide 73 – Risk management – Vocabulary
iii. HB 167 – Security Risk Management
iv. HB 436 – Risk management guidelines – Companion to AS/NZS ISO 31000
v. HB 327 – Communicating and consulting about risk
vi. HB 158 – Delivering assurance based on AS/NZS ISO 31000
c. National Terrorism Threat Level Advisory System
60. Links to PSPF policy and guidelines include:

3
For guidance on security maturity levels, see the PSPF policy: Reporting on security.

v2018.4 Error! Unknown switch argument. 11

Protective Security Policy Framework

a. Role of accountable authority – for accountable authority’s security risk management responsibilities
b. Sensitive and classified information – for advice on business impact levels when determining the
consequences of compromise, or loss of entity information or assets, or harm to its people
c. Reporting on security – for risk management reporting obligations
d. Security governance for contracted goods and service providers – for advice on security risks in
contracts
e. Physical security for entity resources – for advice on physical risks.

D.1 Change log

Table 5 Amendments in this policy
Version Date Section Amendment
v2018.1 Sep 2018 Throughout Not applicable. This is the first issue of this policy
v2018.2 Mar 2020 Throughout Updated links
v2018.3 Sep 2022 C.3 Updated links
V2018.4 Apr 2023 Core Directions issued by Secretary of the Department of Home Affairs
requirement, under the PSPF.
table 1 and
section C.2.7

v2018.4 Error! Unknown switch argument. 12

Protective Security Policy Framework

Annex A. Security risk management process

Annex A Figure 1 Security risk management process

1. Elements of this guidance are based on the recommended Australian Standards: Commonwealth Risk
Management Policy, AS/NZS ISO 31000 and HB 167 – Security Risk Management).
2. Risk is defined as the effect of uncertainty on objectives. An effect is a deviation from the expected—
positive or negative. 4

Communicate and consult

3. To ensure that risk management remains relevant and current, it is important to communicate and consult
with stakeholders, contracted service providers and decision-makers throughout all stages of the process.
This approach ensures stakeholders are properly represented, have their views considered in determining
risk criteria and confirms that all participants understand their roles and responsibilities.
4. It is recommended that the following is documented:
a. audience and stakeholders
b. communication objectives and activities (what are you trying to achieve, how it will be achieved,
delivery method, expectations)
c. monitoring and review processes (noting that communication and consultation occurs at all stages of
the security risk management process).
5. Refer to Commonwealth Risk Management Policy Element six – Communicating and consulting about risk.

Establish the context

6. The security risk management process addresses the strategic, operational and security risk management
contexts. Defining the frame of reference provides the scope for risk management activities. The security

4
As defined in ISO Guide 73 – Risk Management Vocabulary.

v2018.4 Error! Unknown switch argument. Annex A-1

Protective Security Policy Framework

risk management process is used to determine all applicable sources of risk and potential events that could
impact government or entity business.

Organisational context
7. Organisational context includes:
a. scope and parameters of activities where risk management is applied
b. resources (or limitations) available or required for risk treatments and activities
c. reputational expectations or objectives
d. logistical or locational challenges
e. outcomes of related internal or external audit reports
f. security risk management processes adopted
g. processes for documenting results of risk assessments and risk treatments.

External context
8. External context includes:
a. Regulatory environment, including legislative or policy obligations and responsibilities, foreign laws or
potential jurisdictional access to information
b. political or economic climate
c. community sensitivities or expectations.

Security context
9. Security context includes:
a. purpose and scope of security in supporting or achieving the entity’s business objectives
b. criteria for evaluating the significance of security risks
c. risk appetite and tolerance criteria and threshold levels for the entity (see section C.2.4 Error!
Reference source not found. for information on risk tolerances)
d. threat and risk environment (areas of concern, specific threats identified, known vulnerabilities)
e. decision-makers (when and by whom)
f. critical asset statement (what are you looking to protect)
g. interdependencies and links to other plans or security procedures
h. details of any shared risk
i. constraints and assumptions.

Security risk assessment

10. Security risk assessment is the process of risk identification, analysis and evaluation to understand the risks,
their causes, consequences and probabilities. The aim is to generate a comprehensive list of threats and
risks that effect the protection of the entity’s people, information and assets and identify the sources,
exposure and potential consequences of these threats and risks. Consideration is also given to the entity’s
prevailing and emerging risk environment.
11. Each risk is described as comprehensively as possible, so that decision-makers can fully understand the
position. This may be in the style of a formal assessment undertaken by competent personnel, or a
contracted service provider.

v2018.4 Error! Unknown switch argument. Annex A-2

Protective Security Policy Framework

Identify security risks

12. Identifying security risks generates a clear, comprehensive and concise list of potential sources of risk and
threats (referred to as a risk register, see example below) that could impact government, entity operations
or continuous delivery of services. This is achieved by mapping the sources of risk (threat assessment),
determining the importance of organisational assets (criticality of assets) and the manner in which these
elements may facilitate or inhibit this interaction (vulnerability).
13. In preparing a list of security risks, consider questions like:
a. What could happen? (potential event or incident and resulting outcomes or consequences)
b. What is the likely outcome and impact of the risk eventuating?
c. When could it happen? (how frequently)
d. Where could it happen? (physical location and assets affected)
e. How could it happen? (sources, potential threats, catalysts, triggers)
f. How reliable is the information that the risk assessment is based upon?
g. Why could it happen? (causes, underlying factors, vulnerabilities or inadequacies in protective security
controls or mitigations)
h. Who could be involved or effected? (individuals or groups, stakeholders or service providers)
i. Do entity mitigation measures or activities create risk to clients or the public?
Annex A Table 1 Risk register example
Item Description
Description describe the risk (consider the questions above)
Category people, information, property, reputation, financial, business operations
Event occurrence or change of a particular set of circumstances
Source threat or hazard that is the source of the risk
Cause why the threat or hazard is a risk
Consequences level of impact the risk will have on the entity
Risk criteria determined tolerability against consequence and likelihood tables
Priority comparing the level of risk (magnitude of risk = consequence + likelihood) with the risk criteria
Controls adequacy of existing controls in place, or the known controls for the risk
Current risk rating what is the current risk rating status
Risk decision does the risk need treatment
Treatments what action needs to be taken, by whom, with what resources and by when
Residual risk rating once treatments have been implemented, what will be the residual risk rating
Stakeholders who else is impacted by the risk (other entities, contractors, service providers etc)
Previous risk information on any previous risk, threat or vulnerability assessments
information

Criticality assessment
14. Criticality assessment identifies and assigns importance to all resources (something that has value to the
entity including personnel, information and physical assets or processes that support them) that are critical
to the ongoing operation of the entity or to the national interest. Asset identification and security risk
management documents can form part of the security plan or be standalone and inform the security plan.
15. The criticality assessment will be different depending on the entity’s purpose, business objectives and risk
environment. Criticality assessments include:
a. criticality ratings – the scale of the resources’ importance to the entity (eg a numerical scale 1-5 or
importance value scale such as catastrophic, significant, moderate, low, insignificant). Alternatively, a
business impact level can be applied by assessing the impact on the entity if the integrity or availability
of the resource was compromised (applying a business impact level to the confidentiality of an resource
means applying a security classification. See the PSPF policy: Sensitive and classified information)
b. consequence of loss, compromise or harm – a description of what the consequence is

v2018.4 Error! Unknown switch argument. Annex A-3

Protective Security Policy Framework

c. category – consequences can also be expressed across categories such as people, information,
property, reputation, financial, business operations or services.

Threat assessment
16. A threat assessment identifies the source of harm and is used to inform the entity’s risk assessment.
Threats are assessed by determining the intent to cause harm, damage or disruption and the capability (the
potential that exists to actually cause harm or carry out intentions) of the threat source.

Vulnerability assessment
17. Vulnerability assessment identifies the degree of susceptibility and resilience of an entity to hazards. To
understand the potential of risks, it is recommended that entities assess the possible vulnerabilities to each
risk to gauge the consequence and likelihood of these risks. This process of understanding possible
vulnerabilities helps entities to prioritise the risks and guides the allocation of resources in mitigating their
effects.

Analyse security risks

18. Risk analysis involves assessing the likelihood and potential consequence of each identified risk,
determining the level of risk rating and assessing whether additional controls are required.
19. Aims of risk analysis:
a. Determine control effectiveness – whether the existing control measures are adequate or effective in
managing identified risks.
b. Define the likelihood and consequence of the event. This is achieved by considering the:
i. likelihood – the chance or probability of the event occurring,4 probability or frequency of the
event (an occurrence or change in a particular set of circumstances, it can be one or more
occurrences and can have several causes) occurring
ii. consequence – the outcome affecting objectives if the event occurs4 (consequences can be
expressed qualitatively or quantitatively and can be certain or uncertain and have positive or
negative effects on objectives). There may be a number of possible outcomes associated with
an event.
c. Assign the level of risk rating based on the likelihood and consequence risk matrix. The overall risk
rating is determined by combining the likelihood and consequence estimations. Risk rating allows the
security risk to be prioritised in order of decreasing risk levels. This helps with deciding the tolerability
of risk in the evaluation step. The Department of Home Affairs recommends adopting a risk-rating-
matrix approach for determining the levels of risk.
d. Prioritise risks for subsequent evaluation of tolerance or the need for further treatment.
e. Provide an improved understanding of the vulnerability of critical assets to identified risks.

v2018.4 Error! Unknown switch argument. Annex A-4

Protective Security Policy Framework

Annex A Figure 2 Using threat, criticality and vulnerability to inform risk analysis

Evaluate security risks

20. Risk evaluation involves making decisions based on the outcomes of risk analysis about whether risks are:
a. acceptable (tolerable) with existing controls or further treatment (risks identified as acceptable or
tolerable with no further treatment still need to be documented, monitored and periodically reviewed
to ensure they remain acceptable)
b. unacceptable (intolerable) and need treatments (consideration is given to the criteria for determining
tolerability).
21. Refer to section C.2.4 for information on risk tolerances.

Treat security risks

22. Appropriate risk mitigation treatments and controls are selected to address identified risks in accordance
with the entity’s security plan objectives. Efforts to treat risks will not remove them completely but aim to
reduce them to a more tolerable level.
23. Risk treatments can be applied separately or in combination. When selecting treatment, the Department of
Home Affairs recommends that the entity balances the cost and effort of implementing the treatment with
the expected benefits and ensure the treatment is proportional to the determined risk rating level. It may
not be possible or cost-effective to implement all possible risk treatments. However, it is necessary to
choose, prioritise and implement the most appropriate treatment or combination of treatments.
24. Australian Standards HB 167: Security Risk Management Chapter 7 outlines strategies for risk treatment.
This includes a six-step process where entities:
a. prioritise intolerable risks
b. establish treatment options
c. identify and develop treatment options
d. evaluate treatment options
e. detail design and review of chosen options, including the management of residual risks

v2018.4 Error! Unknown switch argument. Annex A-5

Protective Security Policy Framework

f. communicate and implement.

25. Treatment plans:
a. prioritise the risks to be treated
b. assess current risk; the actual risk once all treatments have been implemented
c. identify gaps and residual risks that remain or require further treatment
d. capture decisions about treatments and actions to be taken to address or treat identified security risks
e. determine appropriate timeframes to implement treatment or when further consideration of
mitigations is required be considered
f. identify resources, budget allocations, timeframes (defined and measurable) and responsibilities to
achieve required treatment outcomes
g. establish monitoring and reviewing processes.
26. Risk treatment strategies (examples):
a. Accept the risk, where:
i. based on judgment or informed decision, the risk is considered to be tolerable (either before or
after treatment)
ii. the only option is to retain the risk and continue to monitor it until the circumstances change
and action can be taken
iii. taking on increased risk in order to pursue an opportunity where the benefit outweighs the risk
iv. the risk may be considered intolerable but due to capability, resources or exceptional
circumstances may be accepted.
b. Avoid the risk, 5 by:
i. deciding not to start an activity that gives rise to the risk
ii. removing or reducing the activities or personnel, including contractors, that create the
exposure.
c. Exploit the risk, by taking or increasing the risk in order to realise the benefit that an opportunity
affords by ensuring the event occurs.
d. Reduce the risk, by changing the likelihood or consequence (or both) by:
i. implementing new treatments or controls to reduce, deter, delay or detect the threat or event
ii. improving business processes, training or practices
iii. establishing or improving audit and compliance arrangements, contractual arrangements,
communication channels etc.
e. Share the risk, where:
i. the risk has no single owner but is shared with another party or parties (eg through shared
services, entities co-located in the same building, inter-entity taskforce, partnership or joint
venture)
ii. the risk may have no apparent owner.
27. Refer to section C.2.3.2 for information on shared security risks.

Implementation
28. Implementation involves deciding on the resources required and who is responsible for implementing the
risk treatments. In addition, implementation details the ongoing resources needed to maintain the required

5
Where entities have been directed to undertake the activity, they will not be able to avoid the risks. Risk treatment is
preferable to risk aversion or avoidance.

v2018.4 Error! Unknown switch argument. Annex A-6

Protective Security Policy Framework

level of protective security and identifies resources that may be needed to take additional precautions if
the threat level increases.
29. Refer to section C.3 for information on security alert levels.

Monitoring and review performance

30. Security risk management requires monitoring to ensure the entity is able to adapt or respond to incidents
and changes in their threat or risk environment, prevent further exposure to hazards, maintain a positive
risk culture and deliver against the PSPF.
31. Making decisions and implementing risk treatments is not the end of risk management. The security
planning cycle is continuous. Reviewing the external and internal environments and reconsidering the
context allows the entity to determine how effectively their protective security controls and measures are
performing and how they are achieving the objectives.
32. Australian Standards HB 167: 2006 Security Risk Management Chapter 8 outlines strategies for monitoring
and review, including the following model.
Annex A Figure 3 Monitoring and reviewing security performance

33. Key questions to ask when monitoring and reviewing risk may include:
a. Are the controls (and respective implementation strategies) effective in minimising the risks; how might
improvements be made?
b. Are the controls comparatively efficient and cost-effective?
c. Are the assumptions made about the context/environment still valid?
d. Do controls comply with policy requirements, legal obligations and entity procedures?
e. Is the entity’s security planning approach effective in managing security risks and achieving objectives?
34. Refer to:
a. Commonwealth Risk Management Policy Element Five – Developing a positive risk culture
b. Commonwealth Risk Management Policy Element Nine – Reviewing and continuously improving the
management of risk
c. PSPF policy: Security maturity monitoring.

v2018.4 Error! Unknown switch argument. Annex A-7