Date of Award
2024
Document Type
Thesis
Publisher
Edith Cowan University
Degree Name
Doctor of Philosophy
School
School of Science
First Supervisor
Michael Coole
Second Supervisor
David Brooks
Third Supervisor
Julie Ann Pooley
Fourth Supervisor
Jeff Corkill
Abstract
The disclosure or leaking of classified information by a trusted insider is an ongoing challenge for the national security apparatus in Australia and globally (Auditor General, 2018; Scott, 2020). In an effort to ensure that those with access to sensitive information will not disclose it, the Australian Government has a security vetting process. The Australian security vetting process measures a person's integrity by conducting a 'whole of person' assessment against several suitability indicators. In 2015, the Australian Government added resilience as a suitability indicator to its prescribed guidance on personnel security vetting, the Personnel Security Eligibility and Suitability of Personnel Policy 12 (PERSEC-12) (Department of the Attorney General, 2018). The inclusion of resilience in PERSEC-12 as a suitability indicator highlights the value the Government is now placing on this to assess the integrity of persons seeking a security clearance.
Therefore, the contemporary security vetting process has a need to develop an understanding and articulation of what resilience is, and how it impacts the security vetting process within Australia. Consequently, the security vetting body of literature revealed several gaps relating to the measurement, and subsequent assessment of resilience within this population and contextual setting.
This study was the first application of the Psycho-Social Resources for Resilience Scale - Vetting (PRRS-V) (Brooks et al., 2010; Corkill et al., 2012), a 12-item scale used to measure resilience. Though the PRRS-V, is but one tool to measure resilience, the study found the Australian security vetting process has no standardised and consistent method to measure resilience for use by Vetting Officers during their assessment of resilience as a suitability indicator.
The study was conducted in three stages. Stage One involved the administration of the PRRS-V to university students (n=112), resulting in a number of resilience measures and a population to sample from for Stage Two. In Stage Two, participants (n=5) underwent a security vetting interview conducted by a qualified Vetting Officer as prescribed by PERSEC-12. The study demonstrated that a security vetting interview results in a judgement-based assessment of resilience that is considered across the full suite of suitability indicators, without the use of a standardised and consistent resilience measurement tool, resulting in an assessment of resilience being formulated without an appropriate and informative measure being used. Stage Three involved the administration of a questionnaire to the Vetting Officer to ascertain the decision-making process during the security vetting interview and an assessment of each participant's resilience, finding that the PRRS-V elements and security vetting interview elements displayed a degree of alignment and supports the study’s assertions that the PRRS-V would enhance the security vetting process. In addition, the study demonstrated the PRRS-V resilience measures did not align with the resilience assessment provided by the Vetting Officer in four out of five instances, demonstrating further the risk associated with assessing resilience without the use of a tool such as the PRRS-V and the resilience measure it provides.
Consequently, the study's findings demonstrated a tool such as the PRRS-V will provide an objective, reliable and valid measure of resilience during the security vetting process. The study found the PRRS-V provided a valuable enhancement of the security vetting process as an additional information collection tool for Vetting Officers. However, it must be considered with its limitations in mind. Consequently, the study has also brought an examination of the Australian security vetting process into the public domain by highlighting a significant gap in the way in which resilience is assessed without an exploitable resilience measurement tool such as the PRRS-V and the risks to the overall assurance demanded of the security vetting process by government.
DOI
10.25958/0wkm-9z12
Recommended Citation
Davies, A. J. (2024). Enhancing resilience in the Australian security vetting process: Application of the Psycho-Social Resources for Resilience Scale – Vetting (PRRS-V). Edith Cowan University. https://doi.org/10.25958/0wkm-9z12