Proof Committee Hansard
2lzgylL
2lzgylL
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA<br />
<strong>Proof</strong> <strong>Committee</strong> <strong>Hansard</strong><br />
PARLIAMENTARY STANDING COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC WORKS<br />
Fit-out and relocation of the Australian Cyber Security Centre, Canberra<br />
(Public)<br />
FRIDAY, 10 FEBRUARY 2017<br />
CANBERRA<br />
CONDITIONS OF DISTRIBUTION<br />
This is an uncorrected proof of evidence taken before the committee.<br />
It is made available under the condition that it is recognised as such.<br />
BY AUTHORITY OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES<br />
[PROOF COPY]
INTERNET<br />
<strong>Hansard</strong> transcripts of public hearings are made available on the<br />
internet when authorised by the committee.<br />
To search the parliamentary database, go to:<br />
http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au
PARLIAMENTARY STANDING COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC WORKS<br />
Friday, 10 February 2017<br />
Members in attendance: Senators Gallacher, Smith and Mr Coleman.<br />
Terms of Reference for the Inquiry:<br />
To inquire into and report on:<br />
Fit-out and relocation of the Australian Cyber Security Centre, Canberra
WITNESSES<br />
BEUTEL, Brigadier Noel, Director-General, Capital Facilities and Infrastructure,<br />
Department of Defence ........................................................................................................................................ 1<br />
COLLINS, Mr Chris, General Manager, RPS Project Management ................................................................. 1<br />
MAPLETOFT, Mr Jim, Director, Facilities and Data Centre Services, Department of Defence .................... 1<br />
REES, Mr Alun, Project Director, Australian Cyber Security Centre 2.0, Department of Defence ................ 1<br />
SCOTTON, Mr Michael, Assistant Secretary, Cyber Security, Department of Defence .................................. 1
Friday, 10 February 2017 JOINT Page 1<br />
BEUTEL, Brigadier Noel, Director-General, Capital Facilities and Infrastructure, Department of Defence<br />
COLLINS, Mr Chris, General Manager, RPS Project Management<br />
MAPLETOFT, Mr Jim, Director, Facilities and Data Centre Services, Department of Defence<br />
REES, Mr Alun, Project Director, Australian Cyber Security Centre 2.0, Department of Defence<br />
SCOTTON, Mr Michael, Assistant Secretary, Cyber Security, Department of Defence<br />
<strong>Committee</strong> met at 13:32<br />
ACTING CHAIR (Senator Smith): I declare open this public hearing of the Parliamentary Standing<br />
<strong>Committee</strong> on Public Works into the proposed relocation and fitout of the Australian Cyber Security Centre. I<br />
welcome representatives of the Department of Defence. Although the committee does not require you to give<br />
evidence under oath, I should advise you that these hearings are formal proceedings of the parliament.<br />
Consequently, they warrant the same respect as proceedings of the parliament itself. Giving false or misleading<br />
evidence is a serious matter and may be regarded as contempt of parliament. Do you have any comments to make<br />
on the capacity in which you appear?<br />
Brig. Beutel: I am the Defence lead witness for today's hearings.<br />
ACTING CHAIR: Brigadier, would you care to make some brief introductory remarks before we proceed to<br />
questions?<br />
Brig. Beutel: Yes. This proposal seeks parliamentary approval for the fitout and relocation of the Australian<br />
Cyber Security Centre to commercially leased facilities at Brindabella Park, Canberra, following the relocation of<br />
the centre from its current location in the Department-of-Finance-managed Ben Chifley Building.<br />
The Australian Cyber Security Centre is an important Australian government initiative to ensure that<br />
Australian networks are amongst the hardest in the world to compromise. The centre brings together the elements<br />
of a number of existing cybersecurity capabilities from Defence, the Australian Security Intelligence<br />
Organisation, the Australian Federal Police, the Computer Emergency Response Team and the Australian<br />
Criminal Intelligence Commission. These organisations are being brought together in order to enable a morecomplete<br />
understanding of sophisticated cyberthreats, as have been described in the Australian Cyber Security<br />
Centre 2016 threat report, to facilitate faster and more-effective responses to significant cyberincidents and to<br />
foster better interaction. The centre is also a hub for greater collaboration and information sharing with the private<br />
sector, state and territory governments, academia and international partners to combat the full range of<br />
cyberthreats. Critically, the centre plays a vital role in the operationalisation of Australia's cybersecurity strategy,<br />
and is one of 13 priority actions identified in the strategy. The office of the Prime Minister has endorsed the<br />
relocation of the centre from its current location at the Ben Chifley Building to fit-for-purpose facilities that better<br />
address the key functional requirements for expansion, flexibility and collaboration.<br />
As such, the objectives of this proposal are to provide office accommodation facilities to accommodate up to<br />
700 personnel; to provide appropriate security zoning to accommodate staff at various security clearances; and to<br />
provide an environment to support partnerships with industry, academia and other innovation initiatives.<br />
The total government-approved budget for this proposal is $38.8 million, which includes both development and<br />
estimated delivery costs. Subject to parliamentary approval, works are planned to commence in late March 2017<br />
to achieve an initial operating capability at Brindabella Park by June 2017, with the completion of all works and<br />
the achievement of a final operating capability at Brindabella Park no later than December 2017. That concludes<br />
Defence's opening statement. The Defence witnesses stand ready for any questions.<br />
Senator GALLACHER: Given that you have only been in your current facilities for two years, and there was<br />
obviously public expense to move into those facilities, can you put onto the public record the need to move and<br />
whether there is any loss to the Commonwealth from vacating your current premises?<br />
Brig. Beutel: I will provide some high-level comments and then maybe Mr Scotton can provide some further<br />
detail. When the decision was taken to establish the Australian Cyber Security Centre and to locate it in the then<br />
newly completed Ben Chifley Building, the Cyber Security Centre at that stage was based on approximately 300<br />
people, and the space made available for the Cyber Security Centre in the Ben Chifley Building at that time was<br />
based on 300 people. Since that time, with the release of the Cyber Security Strategy and also other growth<br />
initiatives within the Defence White Paper 2016, the Australian Cyber Security Centre will grow to approximately<br />
700 personnel over the next few years. That growth requirement is the key driver for why a larger premises is<br />
required.<br />
PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE
Page 2 House of Representatives Friday, 10 February 2017<br />
In addition to the growth, there is also the issue that the Ben Chifley Building is at the higher security<br />
classifications. That makes it extremely difficult, if not impossible, for people without those higher security<br />
classifications, to get into the Ben Chifley Building. That actually provides limitations to the Cyber Security<br />
Centre in relation to their potential interactions with other agencies that make up the Cyber Security Centre and,<br />
more importantly, people from industry and academia who may not hold those high-level security classifications.<br />
Senator GALLACHER: And the space you leave behind?<br />
Brig. Beutel: I am advised that there is also growth in ASIO, so the space left by the 300 people from the<br />
Cyber Security Centre will be filled by the Australian Security and intelligence Organisation. So there is no<br />
waste. Those facilities will not be left vacant. They will be used. The cost that we put into the fit-out of the Ben<br />
Chifley Building to support the Cyber Security Centre two years ago are sunk costs, but they are not wasted costs,<br />
because those facilities will be reused. Do you have anything to add, Mr Scotton?<br />
Mr Scotton: I think Noel has covered it very well. The only other thing I would mention that is the nature of<br />
the work done at the centre does not always require that top-secret level of classification. By comparison, for<br />
instance, our partners in the UK have recently established a National Cyber Security Centre in London which<br />
operates primarily at the unclassified level. What we are doing is very much in keeping with that.<br />
Senator GALLACHER: The obvious question is, couldn't you have foreseen this two years ago?<br />
Mr Scotton: I do not think we could have foreseen the government's decision to invest so much in<br />
cybersecurity and provide the level of growth that they have done over the next four years.<br />
Senator GALLACHER: Fair enough. Going out to Brindabella, are there any incentives on offer there for<br />
value for money for the taxpayer?<br />
Brig. Beutel: For this particular centre, in relation to the proposed fit-out that is under consideration by the<br />
committee, there are no incentives as part of this deal in relation to the fit-out costs. Within the Department of<br />
Defence, as you are aware, there are a number of other leased facilities for other Defence agencies and there are<br />
certain incentives within Defence for other leased facilities at Brindabella Park. However, no incentives are being<br />
used as part of this cost.<br />
Senator GALLACHER: A part of the whole-of-government approach to be Brindabella Park is that some<br />
areas are getting incentives, but this particular project is not?<br />
Brig. Beutel: Correct.<br />
Senator GALLACHER: It is at the high end of our expectations in terms of the fit-out, if we have parameters<br />
of $1,200 to $1,800 per square metre Can you walk us through the reasons for that or place them on the public<br />
record?<br />
Brig. Beutel: I can, but I would ask, in relation to commercial-in-confidence, noting that we have not at the<br />
moment—<br />
Senator GALLACHER: You can put the need on the public record. You do not have to put the value on<br />
record.<br />
Brig. Beutel: I am more than happy to provide committee with those details in the in camera hearing.<br />
Mr Collins: Not talking about square metre rates, more about the requirements?<br />
Senator GALLACHER: The build-up—the need for extra security that contributes to the higher costs. Not<br />
the costs.<br />
Mr Collins: In terms of the contribution to the higher costs, it is considerably between two major areas, which<br />
are security works and communication works. The security works are primarily due to the additional physical<br />
security, typically for zones 3, 4 and 5, against the PSPF.<br />
Brig. Beutel: Could you explain zones 3, 4 and 5 and PSPF for the committee?<br />
Mr Collins: Zones 3, 4 and 5 are to do with the Protective Security Policy Framework. Zone 3 typically aligns<br />
with protected, zone 4 with secret and zone 5 with top secret. One of our buildings is going to be accredited for<br />
zone 5 capability. It will be on the higher end of costs and it will contribute to a significant amount to our cost<br />
estimates. In terms of the communications services, the communications cabling, predominantly the passive<br />
cabling—given the amount of networks and the number of agencies in here which operate different networks and<br />
potentially different types of networks, a combination of different cabling will have to be installed at each<br />
workstation to allow flexibility for the ACSC to move its staff around to allow for that collaboration between all<br />
the different agencies and the different zones and classifications.<br />
PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE
Friday, 10 February 2017 JOINT Page 3<br />
Senator GALLACHER: Have you had a security assessment that this is a good place to be for a<br />
cybersecurity centre, and we cannot all get shut down from banking or mobile phones taking you out overnight?<br />
You are moving out of the ASIO building—presumably that is secure?<br />
Brig. Beutel: I am advised that a security risk assessment has been undertaken. Mr Rees may be able to<br />
provide some further detail on that. I would also note, though, that we are talking about security and mitigation<br />
measures. As a former senior ADF officer for Brindabella Park, I would note that there are standard security<br />
management plans in place that are practised quite regularly. That ties in with the overall Canberra Airport group<br />
emergency management plan. Mr Rees may be able to provide some more detail about the security assessments<br />
that were undertaken.<br />
Mr Rees: The security assessments have identified that there is no identified risk to the cyber centre. As such,<br />
it is compared to a standard Defence commercial facility, which the precinct currently is. The requirements for<br />
Defence facilities are that once we identify that there is a current threat within the area, to the facility and also the<br />
surrounding facilities, various security measures will then be enacted. However, they are kept as reserve, in case<br />
those kinds of issues arise. However, at this point there is no identified security threat to the Australian Cyber<br />
Security Centre going to the Brindabella Park precinct.<br />
Brig. Beutel: There will be layered levels of security in Defence with the buildings as part of that. I do not<br />
want the committee to get the impression that with the high level of security in the Ben Chifley Building we do<br />
not have the appropriate security measures in place for our equivalent top-secret spaces. Again, it is a layered<br />
approach because of the different security areas that are required to get that better collaboration, particularly with<br />
industry and academia.<br />
Senator GALLACHER: So you are saying that the security assessment is based on the fact that there is no<br />
threat to the organisation. Is the geography around there safe and dependable?<br />
Mr Rees: The threat assessment assesses the site, the precinct and any identified threats that have come<br />
through either as a result of security assessments or by identifying them within the public arena. There has been<br />
nothing identified.<br />
Brig. Beutel: I can confirm that as well, having only just recently handed over the responsibilities for the<br />
senior Australian Defence Force officer. Again, our security plans are not based on any recognised threat. That<br />
said, we do have procedures in place where if a threat is identified or a threat risk is escalated then, as Alun was<br />
saying, we have mechanisms to raise our security awareness. But at the moment there are thousands of Defence<br />
Force personnel, including me, who still work out there and go about our daily business out there in uniform<br />
without any other precautions in place. That is based on the current risk assessment.<br />
Senator GALLACHER: If you are in a very secure, top-secret facility and you move over there I would not<br />
want to see the ability to be shut down easily by someone making a threat or you going out there and all of a<br />
sudden the cybersecurity division does not operate. You have accounted for all of that, anyway; is that what you<br />
are saying?<br />
Mr Rees: It is in the threat assessment, yes.<br />
Brig. Beutel: The threat assessment is not a once-off. It is an ongoing activity. Daily security risks and threats<br />
are advised through various means within Defence. If actions are required to be taken then they are taken.<br />
Mr COLEMAN: Obviously this is driven by the need to house a lot more staff because you are going from<br />
260 to 650. It is a very, very large increase. Can you talk us through why that increase is required and, broadly,<br />
what those people are going to be doing.<br />
Brig. Beutel: I can give you a quick breakdown of the numbers that make up the 700, and then I think Mr<br />
Scotton would be far better placed to describe their actual activities.<br />
ACTING CHAIR: To add to that, Brigadier, where does the seven per cent growth figure that is identified in<br />
the submission come from?<br />
Brig. Beutel: The actual approved establishment for the Australian Cyber Security Centre is 300 personnel. At<br />
the moment, Michael has only 260 personnel working for him. But that covers the 300 that we have at the<br />
moment. There is also at the moment approximately 100 personnel located in other facilities. So there are people<br />
coming in from other agencies. The anticipated growth based on the cyber security and defence white paper,<br />
which is where the figure comes from, is 200 personnel. We have rounded these figures up. Industry academia<br />
internships or graduate programs account for 100. So the 300 existing personnel, the 100 who are already existing<br />
but located elsewhere plus the 200 for the anticipated growth plus the 100 for industry academia gives us a total<br />
of 700 personnel.<br />
PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE
Page 4 House of Representatives Friday, 10 February 2017<br />
Mr COLEMAN: How long will that whole process take? I guess when you move in you will have the space<br />
for the 700, but presumably you will not have the 700 people straightaway.<br />
Brig. Beutel: That is correct. My understanding is that there is a two-year—<br />
Mr Scotton: It is a four-year time frame.<br />
Mr COLEMAN: So when you move in at the start of next year it will be more like 300 or 400?<br />
Mr Scotton: Not completely. At the moment, because we operate in this high-security environment, a number<br />
of organisations, such as the Computer Emergency Response Team, the Australian Federal Police and the<br />
Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission, do not have a lot of cleared staff at that high level of classification.<br />
So they will be able to relocate staff who work elsewhere into the new facility at that lower level.<br />
Mr COLEMAN: What happens with those 100 people you have elsewhere? Does that achieve any savings<br />
for those facilities in terms of leases or anything like that? Or will they still lease the same amount of space for<br />
fewer people?<br />
Mr Scotton: I could not speak on behalf of any other agencies involved. Each of those agencies I just<br />
mentioned has also identified staff growth under the Cyber Security Strategy so they will be recruiting additional<br />
people as well.<br />
Mr COLEMAN: Just to be clear: there are 260 people now who are in the city and there are 100 people who<br />
are elsewhere who are part of the centre. Are they part of the centre now or not?<br />
Mr Scotton: They perform work on behalf of the centre; they just are not physically located there.<br />
Mr COLEMAN: Okay. So they are all going to go to the new facility when it opens—<br />
Mr Scotton: Yes.<br />
Mr COLEMAN: and therefore come out of wherever it is they are now, and you are not sure whether or not<br />
there are any savings for government in them—<br />
Mr Scotton: They are spread across four different organisations.<br />
Mr COLEMAN: Yes, but you do not know.<br />
Mr Scotton: I can't.<br />
Mr Rees: Mr Coleman, in my discussions with the agencies in looking at how we are going to stage them<br />
moving from those sites, they have identified already where those people are coming from. They want them out as<br />
soon as possible so that they can reallocate that to staff that are already there, or in areas that they want to recruit<br />
and expand into. So it is not just cyber that the expansion is happening; it is happening in other areas within the<br />
various agencies. They need that space to then re-use for that purpose.<br />
Mr COLEMAN: Because it would be fair to say that agencies in this space, broadly, are probably growing<br />
faster than the public sector as a whole.<br />
Brig. Beutel: Perhaps, there is just one point that I would make—and Mr Rees may be able to confirm: when<br />
we are talking of 100 personnel across these other agencies, which are other large agencies, I cannot give you an<br />
exact percentage but I would assume that it is a very low percentage of the total numbers across all those—<br />
Mr COLEMAN: Sure. If it is 100 people, you need to redevelop for the 100 people. One of the benefits,<br />
obviously, as I understand it, is its capacity. The fact that it is not top secret and, therefore, there is the—<br />
Brig. Beutel: There are levels that will be at the highest level.<br />
Mr COLEMAN: Sorry—the entire building is not and, therefore, there is—<br />
Brig. Beutel: No.<br />
Mr COLEMAN: For me as a layperson, it almost sounds a bit counterintuitive in the sense that you want this<br />
to be. So can you just elaborate on that a bit more? I think what you are saying is that, whilst there is a nucleus of<br />
this which is very much top secret, it is also important to be able to interact with other groups. Is that right?<br />
Mr Scotton: If we are talking about the cyber security and the role, in particular, that ASD plays, we are<br />
concerned with the security of Australian government networks, most of which are connected to the internet.<br />
Most of the threats to those networks come via the internet. A lot of the work we do in that space does not require<br />
that—we are not working at a highest level of classification. We are working with internet connected systems; the<br />
data they contain are not necessarily top secret. We also perform a range of other services, like the development<br />
of policy, the certification of cloud services, evaluating security products. Most of those activities do not require<br />
that level of classification. To some extent, the reason that has happened to date is because as a part of ASD we<br />
PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE
Friday, 10 February 2017 JOINT Page 5<br />
have always lived in a top-secret organisation. But the cyber security mission, as it has evolved over the last<br />
decade, increasingly large proportions of that work do not require that level of protection.<br />
Mr COLEMAN: And you are talking about things like visiting academics and businesses and various entities<br />
that might come to the centre and collaborate on individual projects. Is that how it works?<br />
Mr Scotton: Indeed. At the moment, there are many industries that provide very similar types of services as<br />
what ASD provides. Increasingly, we are finding ourselves having to work with industry around those services.<br />
So whether ASD undertakes a certain activity or whether it is done by a commercial provider under our guidance,<br />
that is one way that we are managing to leverage industry to meet the demand for cyber security services.<br />
Mr COLEMAN: And just in terms of any community feedback that you have had or any comments from the<br />
public about this proposal—<br />
Brig. Beutel: We undertook—in accordance with most of our Defence procedures—community consultation,<br />
and the outcomes of that have been advised formally to the committee. So written correspondence, providing<br />
information on the brief and offering briefings were provided to the local ACT government. In this case, we also<br />
wrote to the senators within the ACT, because it being a smaller territory. We normally would not do that for our<br />
other projects. And I think we provided one briefing, just recently, for Senator Seselja. No issues were raised<br />
there.<br />
We also undertook a public information centre out at Brindabella Park in mid-December. We can get you the<br />
exact dates for that; it is in the letter provided. No-one showed up to that community information session. At the<br />
moment there have been no risks or issues identified in relation to this proposal.<br />
Mr COLEMAN: On Senator Gallacher's comments about the cost of metreage and the break-up between the<br />
contribution of high security versus regular office space, I think that is something we should explore. But, as I<br />
understand it, we are going to do that later. So we look forward to that.<br />
Brig. Beutel: We will be able to do that, Mr Coleman, in the in-camera hearing.<br />
Senator GALLACHER: Can I just ask one question on Mr Coleman's question? Is there expertise that you<br />
are missing out on which does not need a security clearance? Are there hackers out there you can study or use?<br />
Can you stress their stuff? Is it like a movie—are you going to bring in people to try to break a few systems for<br />
practice? Is that what you do?<br />
Mr Scotton: I would not put it like that; in fact, all the staff that ASD will recruit will still go through a<br />
security clearance process. At the moment, one of our big issues for recruitment is that to go through that process<br />
can be quite lengthy and the demand for specialists with those skills is so great. Many of them are not prepared to<br />
wait to get a security clearance. So having a space where they can perform work at a lower level of classification<br />
is going to help with our task of recruiting and meeting those growth targets.<br />
Brig. Beutel: I think it may be important to note here that we are proposing to phase the build-up of capability<br />
at Brindabella Park from an initial operating capability proposed, subject to parliamentary approval in March, by<br />
June 2017, and then a final operating capability in December 2017. We are looking at an IOC and a focus on just<br />
the unclassified areas—Mr Scotton can correct me if I am wrong—is because of a lack in the capability at the<br />
moment and what is not achievable at the moment because of the security aspects are in the Ben Chifley Building.<br />
So that drives why we have staged the development of the operational capability.<br />
CHAIR: Or, to put it another way, in order to increase the capability of the Australian Signals Directorate you<br />
need to have a mechanism so that you can recruit people and they can then participate in the ASD without the top<br />
secret classification whilst they go through the necessary processes to get that classification. That is currently<br />
absent at the moment because the Ben Chifley Building only allows top security access. Is that a correct<br />
summation?<br />
Mr Scotton: Yes.<br />
CHAIR: The government is committed to trying to consolidate its office space, not just around Canberra but<br />
in other capital cities. We previously heard that the old ASIO building in Russell had been examined as a possible<br />
site, but there were some significant costs involved in bringing that to a suitable level. Can you just speak briefly<br />
to that? What other sites around Canberra were explored in addition to the old ASIO building, if any?<br />
Mr Mapletoft: The old ASIO building is also known as R9 in Russell. We did explore that as an option.<br />
There was a length assessment done on the state of the building. It was not a tick-and-flick exercise; it was a<br />
complete building survey, and a comprehensive report was issued.<br />
CHAIR: Is that because that would have been your preferred option if it did come in at an equivalent or better<br />
cost scenario?<br />
PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE
Page 6 House of Representatives Friday, 10 February 2017<br />
Mr Mapletoft: It was possibly not a preferred option for this particular requirement, as it would still be<br />
located in Russell, which does not necessarily support close proximity to ICT industry and the airport.<br />
Brig. Beutel: I think it would have also been very difficult to try and compartmentalise R9 because, again, it<br />
was an ASIO building. To try to get separation such as we are proposing at Brindabella Park, where there are two<br />
separate buildings with that air gap, within that existing shell—to try to re-engineer that within the existing<br />
footprint and the structure of the building would have been extremely difficult, if not impossible.<br />
Mr Mapletoft: Also, part of the assessment was driven by broader Defence. Outside of this particular project<br />
it was being examined as a potential option for other areas within the Defence department. That exercise<br />
determined that the building would require approximately $60 million of rework to the base building.<br />
Brig. Beutel: So that is base building, before we even start to do the fit-out.<br />
CHAIR: So $60 million compared to this $34 million project?<br />
Mr Mapletoft: That is correct.<br />
Brig. Beutel: Again, we can provide some purview, but the $60 million was just the base building works.<br />
CHAIR: That is right; you said that.<br />
Mr Mapletoft: It was simply a value-for-money exercise. You could spend $60 million on the building and<br />
wind up with a building that is still approximately 40 years old and was designed for another purpose, so it would<br />
still require additional investment on a suitable fit-out. By the time you have done a value-for-money assessment<br />
it does not stack up as a viable option. On your second point, on possible buildings, we had some considerations<br />
such as proximity to the rest of the Australian Signals Directorate to facilitate communications and movement<br />
between locations, so we tried to stay roughly locally in the neighbourhood, which led us to examine options at<br />
Majura Park, Brindabella Park, Fairbairn and Russell. Russell, with the exception of R9, is full. We have<br />
discussed R9. Majura Park was briefly considered but currently Defence does not have a presence there, to my<br />
knowledge, so they would be going to another location. Fairbairn we looked at, but there was not a suitable<br />
building that was large enough. So Brindabella Park was the ultimate consideration.<br />
Senator GALLACHER: How old is Brindabella Park? How old is the building you are going into?<br />
Brig. Beutel: BP1416 was built in 2003.<br />
Senator GALLACHER: There is no issue with cables and all that sort of thing? It is fit for purpose?<br />
Mr Mapletoft: The building is fit for purpose. In relation to cables, that is part of the fit-out work we will be<br />
delivering under this project.<br />
Brig. Beutel: But there is no requirement for workplace health and safety upgrades in relation to this building.<br />
It is predominantly the fit-out for the office accommodation and the fit-out to support the operations of the centre,<br />
and also there are the security aspects of it and also the passive ICT.<br />
Senator GALLACHER: Who was in it before?<br />
Brig. Beutel: BP14 and 16?<br />
Mr Mapletoft: Employment and Workplace Relations, I believe.<br />
Brig. Beutel: It is currently vacant.<br />
Senator GALLACHER: So you do not have to sweep it and check it for bugs or anything?<br />
Mr Rees: As is par for the course on doing the security assessments on any building that is being repurposed,<br />
those will be done prior to the Commonwealth actively putting in ICT equipment and signing it off as fit for<br />
purpose.<br />
Senator GALLACHER: Is that part of the cost in this project?<br />
Brig. Beutel: Yes. For any of our high-security facilities, in addition to building certification we also do a<br />
security certification, a formal accreditation, of all those high-level facilities.<br />
ACTING CHAIR: Mr Scotton, you mentioned the United Kingdom experience. What other lessons are we<br />
taking from the United Kingdom cybersecurity centre to inform this project or other elements of the government's<br />
cybersecurity framework?<br />
Mr Scotton: We continue to agree closely with our UK partners. The centre itself was only stood up in<br />
October last year, so they are still very much in the early days. We stay in touch, but at the moment it is probably<br />
too early to draw any conclusions from that.<br />
Senator GALLACHER: Who did you say the previous tenants were?<br />
PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE
Friday, 10 February 2017 JOINT Page 7<br />
Mr Mapletoft: The Department of Employment and Workplace Relations.<br />
Mr Collins: They moved out about four years ago.<br />
Senator GALLACHER: So it has been vacant?<br />
Mr Collins: Yes. For a long time.<br />
Senator GALLACHER: And we did not get an incentive? Well, we did but it is not in this project.<br />
Mr Collins: Yes.<br />
ACTING CHAIR: Thank you very much. We will close the public hearing. Is there anything further you<br />
would like to add, Brigadier or other officials?<br />
Brig. Beutel: No. Thank you very much, senators.<br />
<strong>Committee</strong> adjourned at 14:03<br />
PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE