How We Think

Synergy was engaged by the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet (PMC) to deliver a National Civil Preparedness Risk Profile and Prioritisation Assessment Methodology Model to inform a risk-based approach to National Resilience decision making and reporting.
Our team developed a National Civil Preparedness Risk Profile which extensively explored research on 20 primary risks to the civil sector from a major or concurrent national crises and related disruptions.
Fuel security was a key risk identified, and research efforts were focused on highlighting vulnerabilities, in governance, policies, infrastructure and supply chains including contingency plans for emergency fuel distribution. Existing controls to manage fuel risks were derived from open-source research that included government policies and the role of the private sector to inform recommendations for further controls where gaps were identified (e.g. stockpiling and reserves, diversification of supply sources, rationing, and the coordination with states and territories. These controls were prioritization by the data model.

Synergy was engaged by Defence’s Vice Chief of the Defence Force Group to provide expert, independent advice for the development of the Defence Strategic Mobilisation Plan (DSMP). To support this, Synergy developed and delivered an ‘Analysis of the Mobilisation Environment’. This body of research sought to collate quantitative and qualitative evidence to explore the capability and capacity of key national Industries ( private and public), Infrastructure, Critical Material, Workforce, Industry, Science and Technology, Legal Frameworks, and Defence assets to the continuity of the Australian economy during times of strategic regional competition or crisis. These findings from the analysis and research into the broad scope of factors informed the development of the Defence strategic mobilisation plan. The plan was able to address identified vulnerabilities and gaps in national regulatory frameworks, public policies, governance arrangements, investments proirities and broad approaches to national resilience.

When then-Prime Minister John Curtin declared “total mobilisation” in 1942, he was starting from a position of relative strength. Rapid industrialisation at the beginning on the 20th century had enabled Australia to mobilise its national support base previously during the First World War. It also had the questionable advantage of being at war since 1939, with enemy troops literally at the front door. In 2023 the question of mobilisation is a fundamentally different equation. The Government can’t count on the same social, political, and economic levers that it once did: the tap marked ‘national support base’ won’t work if it doesn’t own the tap anymore, nor control what comes out.

Concern around Australia’s import-heavy trade relationships is hardly new. And infiltration of our supply chain need not be widespread to cause exponentially disruptive effects. Yet our current options are limited: even the least-worst option is prohibitively expensive and is unlikely to be implementable in the time we need

Data breaches – in this day and age, who hasn’t been on the wrong side of one? Their sheer frequency, from large-scale attacks like Optus and Medibank, to the now-regular drip of phone notifications for compromised passwords, has created a sense of grim normality. Arguably, data breaches are ‘the norm’ – if you consider that 9.7 million people (more than one in three Australians) had their personal data exposed in the Medibank breach. But those facts should not breed complacency, especially for organisations that handle personal information as part of their day-to-day operations. It is crucial for these organisations to understand and actively implement all ‘reasonable steps,’ including cybersecurity measures, to protect Australians’ personal data.

For those of us with an interest in spy and thriller movies where they track down people in near real time using facial recognition technology (FRT), Australia’s Privacy Commissioner brought that issue ‘home’ in a landmark determination against much-loved Aussie home and hardware store, Bunnings Group. According to the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner (OAIC), Bunnings had not received meaningful consent to use FRT so as to compare hundreds of thousands of customers’ images of individuals who’d been observed stealing or had been violent or threatening towards staff.