{ "entity_id": "S-SA-001", "folder": "Attorney-General-s-Department", "name": "Attorney-General's Department", "type": "State Department", "jurisdiction": "SA", "portfolio": "Attorney-General", "website": "https://www.agd.sa.gov.au/", "data_status": "inherited", "completeness": { "has_strategy_brief": true, "has_strategy_structured": true, "has_vision": true, "has_kpi_targets": true, "has_kpi_results": true, "has_strategy_overview": true, "has_legislation_text": true, "has_legislation_structured": false, "has_global_initiatives_text": true, "has_ideas": true, "has_artifacts": true, "n_ideas": 12, "n_legislation": 0, "n_artifacts": 11, "n_kpi_targets": 8, "n_kpi_results": 8, "n_outcomes": 1, "verified_own_data": false, "vision_shared_with_n_others": 16 }, "strategy_profile": { "status": "needs_review", "confidence": "low", "summary": "Achieve a just and secure society through the maintenance and improvement of Australia’s law, justice, security and integrity frameworks. [CP p.8]", "official_site_url": "https://www.agd.sa.gov.au/", "source_documents": [ { "type": "annual_report", "title": "annual-reports/2020-21.pdf", "url": null, "period": null, "confidence": "high" }, { "type": "annual_report", "title": "annual-reports/2021-22.pdf", "url": null, "period": null, "confidence": "high" }, { "type": "annual_report", "title": "annual-reports/2022-23.pdf", "url": null, "period": null, "confidence": "high" }, { "type": "annual_report", "title": "annual-reports/2023-24.pdf", "url": null, "period": null, "confidence": "high" }, { "type": "annual_report", "title": "annual-reports/2024-25.pdf", "url": null, "period": null, "confidence": "high" } ], "purpose": { "text": "Achieve a just and secure society through the maintenance and improvement of Australia’s law, justice, security and integrity frameworks. [CP p.8]", "source_url": "", "source_page": 8, "source_deep_url": "" }, "vision": { "text": "null", "source_url": "", "source_page": null, "source_deep_url": "" }, "strategic_priorities": [ { "title": "Supporting the transition to a new Attorney-General", "description": "Supporting the transition to a new Attorney-General", "source_url": "", "source_page": 2, "source_deep_url": "" }, { "title": "Implementing Machinery of Government changes", "description": "Implementing Machinery of Government changes", "source_url": "", "source_page": 2, "source_deep_url": "" }, { "title": "Our commitment to Reconciliation and improving First Nations representation", "description": "Our commitment to Reconciliation and improving First Nations representation", "source_url": "", "source_page": 3, "source_deep_url": "" }, { "title": "Investing in the responsible use of Artificial Intelligence (AI)", "description": "Investing in the responsible use of Artificial Intelligence (AI)", "source_url": "", "source_page": 3, "source_deep_url": "" }, { "title": "Improving Australia’s law justice, security and integrity frameworks", "description": "Improving Australia’s law justice, security and integrity frameworks", "source_url": "", "source_page": 4, "source_deep_url": "" } ], "values": [ { "name": "integrity", "description": "", "source_url": "", "source_page": null }, { "name": "accountability", "description": "", "source_url": "", "source_page": null }, { "name": "respect", "description": "", "source_url": "", "source_page": null }, { "name": "collaboration", "description": "", "source_url": "", "source_page": null }, { "name": "innovation", "description": "", "source_url": "", "source_page": null } ], "outcomes": [ { "name": "Outcome 1: A just and secure society", "description": "Through the maintenance and improvement of Australia’s law, justice, security and integrity frameworks.", "activities": [ "Provide legal services and policy advice and oversee legal services across government", "Manage casework", "Administer and advise on legal and policy frameworks", "Administer and implement programs and services" ], "source_url": "", "source_page": 8, "source_deep_url": "" } ], "performance_measures": [ { "code": "CCE01", "measure": "Overall client satisfaction", "target": "80%", "latest_result": "80%", "status": "Achieved", "target_source_url": "", "target_source_page": 28, "result_source_url": null, "result_source_page": 28 }, { "code": "CCE02", "measure": "Average performance rating from stakeholders", "target": "78 index points", "latest_result": "79 index points", "status": "Partly achieved", "target_source_url": "", "target_source_page": 27, "result_source_url": null, "result_source_page": 27 }, { "code": "CCE03", "measure": "AGS Net Production", "target": "103%", "latest_result": "104%", "status": "Achieved", "target_source_url": "", "target_source_page": 28, "result_source_url": null, "result_source_page": 28 }, { "code": "CCE04", "measure": "Average performance rating from stakeholders", "target": "78 index points", "latest_result": "76 index points", "status": "Not achieved", "target_source_url": "", "target_source_page": 29, "result_source_url": null, "result_source_page": 29 }, { "code": "CCE05", "measure": "Minimum of casework matters finalised", "target": "1,745", "latest_result": "2,310", "status": "Achieved", "target_source_url": "", "target_source_page": 29, "result_source_url": null, "result_source_page": 29 }, { "code": "CCE06", "measure": "Percentage of extradition legal proceedings heard and determined", "target": "80%", "latest_result": "87.5%", "status": "Achieved", "target_source_url": "", "target_source_page": 29, "result_source_url": null, "result_source_page": 29 }, { "code": "CCE07", "measure": "Average performance rating from stakeholders", "target": "78 index points", "latest_result": "78 index points", "status": "Partly achieved", "target_source_url": "", "target_source_page": 31, "result_source_url": null, "result_source_page": 31 }, { "code": "CCE08", "measure": "Percentage of assessed policy advice to the Minister rated as effective", "target": "100%", "latest_result": "100%", "status": "Achieved", "target_source_url": "", "target_source_page": 31, "result_source_url": null, "result_source_page": 31 } ], "document_alignment_terms": { "must_support": [ "Achieve a just and secure society through the maintenance and improvement of Australia’s law, justice, security and integrity frameworks. [CP p.8]", "null", "Supporting the transition to a new Attorney-General", "Implementing Machinery of Government changes", "Our commitment to Reconciliation and improving First Nations representation", "Investing in the responsible use of Artificial Intelligence (AI)", "Improving Australia’s law justice, security and integrity frameworks" ], "watch_terms": [ "Overall client satisfaction", "Average performance rating from stakeholders", "AGS Net Production", "Average performance rating from stakeholders", "Minimum of casework matters finalised", "Percentage of extradition legal proceedings heard and determined", "Average performance rating from stakeholders", "Percentage of assessed policy advice to the Minister rated as effective" ], "avoid_claiming_without_evidence": [] }, "review_note": "This entity appears to share a parent or related entity's strategy text; verify its own strategy before publishing." }, "strategy_brief_md": "# Attorney-General's Department — Strategy Brief\n\n**Reporting period**: 2024-25\n**Corporate plan in force**: 2025-26\n\n## Vision\n\n> null\n\n## Our purpose / purposes\n\n> Achieve a just and secure society through the maintenance and improvement of Australia’s law, justice, security and integrity frameworks. [CP p.8] [CP p.8]\n\n## How we deliver\n\n> We deliver high-quality legal services, provide high-quality policy advice and oversee the efficient and effective provision of legal services to the Australian Government and its entities. [AR p.12] [CP p.12]\n\n## Government priorities for this department\n\n- Supporting the transition to a new Attorney-General [CP p.2]\n- Implementing Machinery of Government changes [CP p.2]\n- Our commitment to Reconciliation and improving First Nations representation [CP p.3]\n- Investing in the responsible use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) [CP p.3]\n- Improving Australia’s law justice, security and integrity frameworks [CP p.4]\n\n## Outcomes\n\n### Outcome 1: A just and secure society\nThrough the maintenance and improvement of Australia’s law, justice, security and integrity frameworks. [CP p.8]\n\n**Key activities:**\n- Provide legal services and policy advice and oversee legal services across government\n- Manage casework\n- Administer and advise on legal and policy frameworks\n- Administer and implement programs and services\n\n## Values and principles\n\n_null_\n\n- integrity\n- accountability\n- respect\n- collaboration\n- innovation\n\n## What they will measure themselves on this year (targets from 2025-26 corporate plan)\n\n| Code | Measure | Target | Source |\n|---|---|---|---|\n| CCE01 | Overall client satisfaction | 80% | CP p.28 |\n| CCE02 | Average performance rating from stakeholders | 78 index points | CP p.27 |\n| CCE03 | AGS Net Production | 103% | CP p.28 |\n| CCE04 | Average performance rating from stakeholders | 78 index points | CP p.29 |\n| CCE05 | Minimum of casework matters finalised | 1,745 | CP p.29 |\n| CCE06 | Percentage of extradition legal proceedings heard and determined | 80% | CP p.29 |\n| CCE07 | Average performance rating from stakeholders | 78 index points | CP p.31 |\n| CCE08 | Percentage of assessed policy advice to the Minister rated as effective | 100% | CP p.31 |\n\n## How they performed last year (results from 2024-25 annual report)\n\n| Code | Measure | Result | Status | Source |\n|---|---|---|---|---|\n| CCE01 | Overall client satisfaction | 80% | Achieved | AR p.28 |\n| CCE02 | Average performance rating from stakeholders | 79 index points | Partly achieved | AR p.27 |\n| CCE03 | AGS Net Production | 104% | Achieved | AR p.28 |\n| CCE04 | Average performance rating from stakeholders | 76 index points | Not achieved | AR p.29 |\n| CCE05 | Minimum of casework matters finalised | 2,310 | Achieved | AR p.29 |\n| CCE06 | Percentage of extradition legal proceedings heard and determined | 87.5% | Achieved | AR p.29 |\n| CCE07 | Average performance rating from stakeholders | 78 index points | Partly achieved | AR p.31 |\n| CCE08 | Percentage of assessed policy advice to the Minister rated as effective | 100% | Achieved | AR p.31 |", "strategy_overview_evidence_md": null, "internal_strategy_evidence_md": "# Attorney-General's Department - Strategy, Performance, and Operating Profile\n\n**Generated at**: 2026-05-09T22:57:03.131186+00:00\n**Entity ID**: S-SA-001\n**Entity type**: State Department\n**Jurisdiction**: SA\n**Portfolio**: Attorney-General\n**Website**: https://www.agd.sa.gov.au/\n\n> Draft generated from scraped source material. Treat this as an evidence pack for editorial review, not a final judgement.\n\n## Source Coverage\n\n| Source type | Count |\n|---|---:|\n| annual-reports | 5 |\n| global-intelligence | 3 |\n| other-pdfs | 5 |\n| reviews | 1 |\n\n## Executive Readout\n\n### Purpose\n\n- Performance targets Result\n4.4.1 Satisfaction greater than 90% with the provision of client-focused service in the delivery ACHIEVED\nof OFSC functions\n4.4.2 Agreement greater than 80% that guidance, educational and promotional material is ACHIEVED\nclear, easy to understand and fit-for-purpose\n4.4.3 More than 75% accredited companies agree that OFSC accreditation has improved their ACHIEVED\nworkplace safety performance\n4.4.4 100% of accreditation applications are assessed and applicants contacted within ACHIEVED\n10 working days\n4.4.5 Continued implementation of the risk-based onsite audit program to ensure compliance ACHIEVED\nthrough at least 450 onsite audits conducted\nSource\nPortfolio Budget Statements 2020–21, Outcome 2, Program 2.2, page 43\nCorporate Plan 2020–24, page 38\n4.4.1, 4.4.2 and 4.4.3 The OFSC conducts an annual census to gauge its effectiveness and efficiency in\n Source: `annual-reports/2020-21.pdf`\n- Performance targets Result 2021–22 2020–21\nresult result\n4.4.1 Greater than 80% of accredited companies agree that: Achieved\n(i) guidance, educational and promotional material is clear, easy to 91% 88%\nunderstand and fit-for-purpose\n(ii) OFSC accreditation has improved their workplace safety\n95% 93%\nperformance\n4.4.2 The Work Health and Safety Accreditation Scheme is effectively Not Achieved 463 489\nimplemented through the completion of at least 500 onsite safety\naudits each financial year\n4.4.3 Companies accredited under the Work Health and Safety Achieved 6.88 7.24\nAccreditation Scheme collectively report a lower Total Injury\nFrequency Rate (TRIFR) than the previous calendar year\nSource:\nPortfolio Budget Statements 2021–22, Outcome 2, Program 2.2, page 38\nCorporate Plan 2021–25, page 37\n4.4.1 We conduct an anonymous and optional census each calendar year of accredited companies\n Source: `annual-reports/2021-22.pdf`\n- Performance targets Result 2024–25 2023–24\nresult result\n4.4.1 The Foreign Influence Transparency Scheme Public Register is up to Achieved 100% 99%\ndate, indicated by greater than 85% of registrations and updates\nbeing published within 4 weeks\n4.4.2 The Australian Government Register of Lobbyists is up to date, Achieved\nindicated by greater than 85% of registrations and updates being\n100% 100%\npublished within 5 working days\n4.4.3 The Modern Slavery Statements Register is up to date, indicated by Achieved 99% 99%\ngreater than 80% of publishable submissions being published\nwithin 60 working days\nAuthority:\n- Portfolio Budget Statements 2024–25, Outcome 1, Program 1.2, page 27\n- Corporate Plan 2024–57, pages 36–37\n4.4.1 The Foreign Influence Transparency Scheme Act 2018 (FITS Act) establishes registration obligations\n Source: `annual-reports/2024-25.pdf`\n- [Page 17]\nAnnual Report 2022–23 12BPart 2: Annual performance statements\nPerformance summary\nOur performance measures include a mix of effectiveness, output and efficiency targets, and assess how\nour key activities support the achievement of our purpose and outcome.\n Source: `annual-reports/2022-23.pdf`\n\n### Role and Functions\n\n- Performance targets Result\n4.4.1 Satisfaction greater than 90% with the provision of client-focused service in the delivery ACHIEVED\nof OFSC functions\n4.4.2 Agreement greater than 80% that guidance, educational and promotional material is ACHIEVED\nclear, easy to understand and fit-for-purpose\n4.4.3 More than 75% accredited companies agree that OFSC accreditation has improved their ACHIEVED\nworkplace safety performance\n4.4.4 100% of accreditation applications are assessed and applicants contacted within ACHIEVED\n10 working days\n4.4.5 Continued implementation of the risk-based onsite audit program to ensure compliance ACHIEVED\nthrough at least 450 onsite audits conducted\nSource\nPortfolio Budget Statements 2020–21, Outcome 2, Program 2.2, page 43\nCorporate Plan 2020–24, page 38\n4.4.1, 4.4.2 and 4.4.3 The OFSC conducts an annual census to gauge its effectiveness and efficiency in\n Source: `annual-reports/2020-21.pdf`\n- Performance targets Result 2021–22 2020–21\nresult result\n4.2.1 95% of claim payments are correct\nAchieved 99.5% 98.1%\n4.2.2 Average processing time for all claims is 14 weeks Achieved 9.3 13.4\n4.2.3 Amounts recovered by the FEG Recovery Program achieve the Partly Achieved 86% 53%\nestimated recoveries forecast to the Department of Finance\nSource:\nPortfolio Budget Statements 2021–22, Outcome 2, Program 2.1, page 37 and Program 2.2, page 38\nCorporate Plan 2021–25, page 35\n4.2.1 This target is a proxy for measuring our effectiveness in administering the FEG program, which\nprovides a safety net for unpaid employment entitlements for employees affected by the liquidation or\nbankruptcy of their employer.\n Source: `annual-reports/2021-22.pdf`\n- Performance targets Result 2021–22 2020–21\nresult result\n4.3.1 100% of payments are made in accordance with milestones in Achieved 100% 100%\nfunding agreements (subject to appropriate availability)\nSource:\nPortfolio Budget Statements 2021–22, Outcome 2, Program 1.5, page 33\nCorporate Plan 2021–25, page 36\n4.3.1 This target is a proxy measure of our efficiency in administering Family Relationship Services\nProgramme funding.\n Source: `annual-reports/2021-22.pdf`\n- Performance targets Result 2021–22 2020–21\nresult result\n4.4.1 Greater than 80% of accredited companies agree that: Achieved\n(i) guidance, educational and promotional material is clear, easy to 91% 88%\nunderstand and fit-for-purpose\n(ii) OFSC accreditation has improved their workplace safety\n95% 93%\nperformance\n4.4.2 The Work Health and Safety Accreditation Scheme is effectively Not Achieved 463 489\nimplemented through the completion of at least 500 onsite safety\naudits each financial year\n4.4.3 Companies accredited under the Work Health and Safety Achieved 6.88 7.24\nAccreditation Scheme collectively report a lower Total Injury\nFrequency Rate (TRIFR) than the previous calendar year\nSource:\nPortfolio Budget Statements 2021–22, Outcome 2, Program 2.2, page 38\nCorporate Plan 2021–25, page 37\n4.4.1 We conduct an anonymous and optional census each calendar year of accredited companies\n Source: `annual-reports/2021-22.pdf`\n- [Page 75]\nAnnual Report 2021–22 Part 4: Financial statements\nAttorney-General’s Department\nBudget variance commentary – Administered\nfor the year ended 30 June 2022\nBudget variance commentary\nThe below table provides commentary for major differences between the actual and the original budgeted amounts that\nwere first presented to Parliament in respect of the reporting period from the department’s 2021–22 Portfolio Budget\nStatements (PBS).\n Source: `annual-reports/2021-22.pdf`\n- Portfolio Budget Corporate Plan Annual Report\nStatements 2022–26 2022–23\nOutcomes Purposes Performance\nmeasures and targets\nPrograms: Key activities:\nPrograms Key activities:\n1.1 Operating Expenses 1 Provide legal services :\n1, 2, 3, 4, 5\n– Legal Services and and policy advice and\n1.1\nFamilies oversee legal services 1, 2, 3, 4\n1.2 Operating Expenses across government 1.2\n1\n– National Security 2 Manage casework 1.3\nand International 3 Administer and advise 4\n1.3 Australian on legal and policy 1.4 4\nGovernment frameworks 1.5\n4\nSolicitor 4 Administer and\n1.6\n1.4 Justice Services implement programs 5\n1.5 Family Relationships and services 1.7\n1.6 Criminal Justice 5 Establish and support\n1.7 Royal Commissions royal commissions and\nother bodies\nAchieve a just and secure society through the maintenance and improvement of\nAustralia’s law, justice and integrity frameworks\n Source: `annual-reports/2022-23.pdf`\n\n### Strategic Priorities\n\n- [Page 17]\nAnnual Report 2020–21 Part 2: Annual performance statements\nOur performance framework\nIn 2020, we made significant changes to our performance framework to better reflect the work of the\ndepartment, improve the clarity and reliability of our performance information and facilitate a clearer\nread across our portfolio budget statements, corporate plan and annual report and across reporting\ncycles.1\nAs outlined in the Corporate Plan 2020–24, we achieve our purposes through 5 key activities.\n Source: `annual-reports/2020-21.pdf`\n- Across our 5 key activities, we have demonstrated our effectiveness and efficiency in achieving our\npurposes through 63 targets under 22 performance measures.2 Overall, we achieved or partly achieved all\nof our performance measures, with 82% achieved or exceeded (18) and 18% partly achieved (4).\n Source: `annual-reports/2020-21.pdf`\n- Performance targets Result\n3.6.1 Funding to grant recipients under the Native Title Anthropologists Grant Program is ACHIEVED\nprovided in line with agreed timeframes and subject to grant recipients meeting\ndeliverables set out in funding agreements\n3.6.2 Qualitative analysis shows the effectiveness of administration of the native title system, ACHIEVED\nincluding managing the Commonwealth’s participation in native title claims\n3.6.3 Qualitative analysis shows the effectiveness of administration of the personal ACHIEVED\ninsolvency regime\n3.6.4 Simplification of the Personal Property Securities Act 2009 leads to increased usability of PARTLY\nthe Personal Property Securities Register, as indicated by the fact that draft legislation ACHIEVED\nis prepared for consideration by the Attorney-General\nSource\nPortfolio Budget Statements 2020–21, Outcome 1, Program 1.1, page 30 and Program 1.\n Source: `annual-reports/2020-21.pdf`\n- Portfolio Budget Corporate Plan Annual Report\nStatements 2022–26 2022–23\nOutcomes Purposes Performance\nmeasures and targets\nPrograms: Key activities:\nPrograms Key activities:\n1.1 Operating Expenses 1 Provide legal services :\n1, 2, 3, 4, 5\n– Legal Services and and policy advice and\n1.1\nFamilies oversee legal services 1, 2, 3, 4\n1.2 Operating Expenses across government 1.2\n1\n– National Security 2 Manage casework 1.3\nand International 3 Administer and advise 4\n1.3 Australian on legal and policy 1.4 4\nGovernment frameworks 1.5\n4\nSolicitor 4 Administer and\n1.6\n1.4 Justice Services implement programs 5\n1.5 Family Relationships and services 1.7\n1.6 Criminal Justice 5 Establish and support\n1.7 Royal Commissions royal commissions and\nother bodies\nAchieve a just and secure society through the maintenance and improvement of\nAustralia’s law, justice and integrity frameworks\n Source: `annual-reports/2022-23.pdf`\n- Achievement is determined\nas follows:\n• Achieved where, 75% or greater met\n• Partly Achieved, where 26%–74% met\n• Not Achieved, where 25% or less met\nAs outlined in the Corporate Plan 2023–27, we achieve our purpose through 5 key activities that describe\nthe department’s critical functions and activities.\n Source: `annual-reports/2023-24.pdf`\n- Intelligence Services Act\n33.12 The IS Act confers a broad function on ASIS, ASD and AGO to communicate\nforeign intelligence in accordance with the Government’s requirements.14 The\nIS Act also allows for the communication of ‘incidentally obtained intelligence’15 to\ndomestic and foreign government authorities where the intelligence relates to the\ninvolvement, or likely involvement, by a person in activities that present a\nsignificant risk to a person’s safety, are a threat to security, are undertaken for, or\non behalf of, a foreign power, are related to the proliferation of weapons of mass\ndestruction or the movement of goods, or involve the commission of a serious\ncrime.16\n33.13 The IS Act further enables communications of information by ASIS, ASD, AGO\nand DIO to other persons within their agency, or to the head of the agency, in the\n Source: `other-pdfs/volume-3-information-technology-powers-and-oversight.pdf`\n- [Page 127]\nVolume 4 Chapter 46 Implementation\nChapter 46 Implementation\n46.1 This chapter has been redacted in full as it provided advice to Government on\nimplementation of the Review’s 203 recommendations, including those we\nconsider to be immediate reforms to be progressed as a matter of priority, as\ndiscussed in Chapter 32.\n Source: `other-pdfs/volume-4-accountability-and-transparency-annexes.pdf`\n- [Page 17]\nAnnual Report 2022–23 12BPart 2: Annual performance statements\nPerformance summary\nOur performance measures include a mix of effectiveness, output and efficiency targets, and assess how\nour key activities support the achievement of our purpose and outcome.\n Source: `annual-reports/2022-23.pdf`\n- [pages 62,63,64]\no support 2-way communication\nbetween the senior executive and staff and meets weekly to discuss significant issues and priorities.\n Source: `annual-reports/2020-21.pdf`\n- [Page 128]\nAnnual Report 2021–22 Appendix 2 Methodologies\nMeasuring success over time\nConsistent with the structure of the survey in 2021, the survey questionnaire contained groups of\nquestions addressing stakeholder perceptions of the department’s performance in key activities specified\nin the Corporate Plan 2021–25.\n Source: `annual-reports/2021-22.pdf`\n\n## KPIs, Targets, and Where They Are At\n\n- TABLE 3: SUMMARY OF KEY ACTIVITY RESULTS\nKey activity Performance measure results\n1: Provide legal services and policy advice and 1.1 - Achieved\noversee legal services across government 1.2 - Achieved\n1.3 - Achieved\n1.4 - Achieved\n1.5 - Achieved\n2: Manage casework 2.1 - Achieved\n3: Administer and advise on legal and policy 3.1 - Partly achieved (1 target achieved, 1 partly achieved)\nframeworks 3.2 - Achieved\n3.3 - Achieved\n3.4 - Achieved\n3.5 - Achieved\n3.6 - Achieved\n4: Administer and implement programs and 4.1 - Partly achieved (1 target achieved, 2 partly achieved)\nservices 4.2 - Achieved\n4.3 - Partly achieved (1 target partly achieved)\n4.4 - Achieved\n4.5 - Achieved\n4.6 - Achieved\n4.7 - Achieved\n5: Establish and support royal commissions and 5.1 - Achieved\nother bodies 5.2 - Partly achieved (1 target achieved, 1 partly achieved)\n5.3 - Achieved\n14\n Source: `annual-reports/2020-21.pdf`\n- Performance targets Result 2021–22 2020–21\nresult result\n4.3.1 100% of payments are made in accordance with milestones in Achieved 100% 100%\nfunding agreements (subject to appropriate availability)\nSource:\nPortfolio Budget Statements 2021–22, Outcome 2, Program 1.5, page 33\nCorporate Plan 2021–25, page 36\n4.3.1 This target is a proxy measure of our efficiency in administering Family Relationship Services\nProgramme funding.\n Source: `annual-reports/2021-22.pdf`\n- [Page 132]\nAnnual Report 2021–22 Appendix 2 Methodologies\nTABLE 16: PERFORMANCE MEASURES AND SURVEY RESULTS FOR EFFECTIVENESS AND EFFICIENCY\nKey activity Performance measure 2022 2022 2022 Number of Response\ntarget effectiveness efficiency responses rate\nresult result\n1: Provide legal services and Performance measure 1.2: International law and policy >75ip 84ip 78ip 46 29%\npolicy advice and oversee legal advice\nservices across government\nPerformance measure 1.3: Constitutional policy and related >75ip 85ip 86ip 12 39%\npublic law advice\nPerformance measure 1.5: Manage significant legal issues >75ip 74ip N/A 82 27%\nand arrangements for Australian Government Legal Services 1\n2: Manage casework Performance measure 2.1: International crime cooperation, >75ip 83ip 76ip 71 33%\nfederal offender, international family law and private\ninternational law casework\n Source: `annual-reports/2021-22.pdf`\n- Performance target Result 2022–23 2021–22\nresult result\n1.4.1 AGS Net Production (including lawyer utilisation) meets or exceeds Achieved 110% 109%\nthe annual budget target\nAuthority:\n- Portfolio Budget Statements 2022–23, Outcome 1, Program 1.3, page 28\n- Corporate Plan 2022–26, page 20\n1.4.1 Net Production is a way to measure how much of a practice's production volume is collectable\n(billable).\n Source: `annual-reports/2022-23.pdf`\n- Performance target Result 2022–23 2021–22\nresult result\n4.2.1 100% of Family Law Service grant recipients provide services in line Partly 97.5% NA\nwith their approved grant activities achieved\nAuthority:\n- Portfolio Budget Statements 2022–23, Outcome 1, Program 1.5, page 29\n- Corporate Plan 2022–26, page 27\n4.2.1 This target is a measure of our effectiveness in administering Family Relationship Services\nProgramme funding.\n Source: `annual-reports/2022-23.pdf`\n- TABLE 3: COMPARISON OF KEY ACTIVITY RESULTS OVER REPORTING PERIODS\nKey activity Performance target Previous years’ result\nresults\n1: Provide legal services and policy advice and oversee 1.1.1 Achieved 1.1.1 Achieved\nlegal services across government\n1.2.1 Partly achieved 1.2.1 Achieved\n1.3.1 Not achieved 1.3.1 Partly achieved\n1.4.1 Achieved 1.4.1 Achieved\n1.5.1 Not achieved 1.5.1 Not achieved\n1.5.2 Not achieved 1.5.2 Not achieved\n2: Manage casework 2.1.1 Not achieved 2.1.1 Not achieved\n2.1.2 Achieved 2.1.2 Achieved\n2.1.3 Achieved 2.1.3 Achieved\n3: Administer and advise on legal and policy frameworks 3.1.1 Partly achieved 3.1.1 Not achieved\n3.1.2 Achieved 3.1.2 Achieved\n4: Administer and implement programs and services 4.1.1 Not achieved 4.1.1 Not achieved\n4.1.2 Achieved 4.1.2 Partly achieved\n4.2.1 Achieved 4.2.1 Partly achieved\n4.3.1 Achieved 4.3.1 Achieved\n4.4.1 Achieved 4.4.1 Achieved\n Source: `annual-reports/2023-24.pdf`\n- Performance target Result 2023–24 2022–23\nresult result\n4.2.1 100% of Family Law Service grant recipients provide services in line Achieved 100% 97.5%\nwith their approved grant activities\nAuthority:\n- Portfolio Budget Statements 2023–24, Outcome 1, Program 1.5, page 29\n- Corporate Plan 2023–27, page 29\n4.2.1 This target is a measure of our effectiveness in administering Family Relationship Services Program\nfunding.\n Source: `annual-reports/2023-24.pdf`\n- [Page 150]\n146 Annual\nReport\n2023–24\nAppendix\n2:\nMethodologies\nTABLE 16: PERFORMANCE MEASURES AND SURVEY RESULTS FOR EFFECTIVENESS AND EFFICIENCY\nKey activity Performance measure 2024 Effectiveness Efficiency Number Response\ntarget result result of rate 1\nresponses\n1: Provide legal services and Performance measure 1.2: International law and policy advice 77ip 82ip 76ip 118 22%\npolicy advice and oversee legal\nservices across government\nPerformance measure 1.3: Constitutional policy and related 77ip 68ip 64ip 58 26%\npublic law advice\nPerformance measure 1.5: Manage significant legal issues and 77ip 73ip N/A 63 23%\narrangements for Australian Government Legal Services 2\n2: Manage casework Performance measure 2.1: International crime cooperation, 77ip 76ip 69ip 225 25%\nfederal offender, international family law and private\ninternational law casework\n Source: `annual-reports/2023-24.pdf`\n- Performance target Result 2024–25 2023–24\nresult result\n4.2.1 100% of Family Law Service grant recipients provide services in line Achieved 100% 100%\nwith their approved grant activities\nAuthority:\n- Portfolio Budget Statements 2024–25, Outcome 1, Program 1.5, page 30\n- Corporate Plan 2024–25, page 35\n4.2.1 this target is a measure of our effectiveness in administrating the Family Relationships Services\nProgram funding.\n Source: `annual-reports/2024-25.pdf`\n- [pages 18,19,20]\nmance measure results\n1: Provide legal services and policy advice and 1.1 - Achieved\noversee legal services across government 1.2 - Achieved\n1.3 - Achieved\n1.4 - Achieved\n1.5 - Achieved\n2: Manage casework 2.1 - Achieved\n3: Administer and advise on legal and policy 3.1 - Partly achieved (1 target achieved, 1 partly achieved)\nframeworks 3.2 - Achieved\n3.3 - Achieved\n3.4 - Achieved\n3.5 - Achieved\n3.6 - Achieved\n4: Administer and implement programs and 4.1 - Partly achieved (1 target achieved, 2 partly achieved)\nservices 4.2 - Achieved\n4.3 - Partly achieved (1 target partly achieved)\n4.4 - Achieved\n4.5 - Achieved\n4.6 - Achieved\n4.7 - Achieved\n5: Establish and support royal commissions and 5.1 - Achieved\nother bodies 5.2 - Partly achieved (1 target achieved, 1 partly achieved)\n5.3 - Achieved\n14\n Source: `annual-reports/2020-21.pdf`\n- Performance targets Result\n1.2.1 Stakeholder and client satisfaction greater than 80% in relation to: ACHIEVED\n• effectiveness (expertise and quality of relationship)\n• efficiency (timeliness and responsiveness)\n1.2.2 Qualitative analysis shows the effectiveness of legal and policy advice for strengthening ACHIEVED\npolicy outcomes and managing international legal risk\nSource\nPortfolio Budget Statements 2020–21, Outcome 1, Program 1.1, page 30\nCorporate Plan 2020–24, pages 22–23\n1.2.1 In response to questions related to this target in the department’s stakeholder survey, 98% of\nrespondents rated our effectiveness positively and 90% rated our efficiency positively.\n Source: `annual-reports/2020-21.pdf`\n- Performance targets Result\n1.3.1 Stakeholder and client satisfaction greater than 80% in relation to: ACHIEVED\n• effectiveness (expertise and quality of relationship)\n• efficiency (timeliness and responsiveness)\n1.3.2 Qualitative analysis shows the effectiveness of policy advice in strengthening policy ACHIEVED\ndecisions and managing constitutional or related legal risk\n1.3.3 Qualitative analysis shows that the Office of Constitutional Law is effective in managing ACHIEVED\nlitigation to protect the Commonwealth’s constitutional policy interests\nSource\nPortfolio Budget Statements 2020–21, Outcome 1, Program 1.1, page 30\nCorporate Plan 2020–24, page 23\n1.3.1 In response to questions related to this target in the department’s stakeholder survey, 100% of\nrespondents rated our effectiveness and efficiency positively.\n Source: `annual-reports/2020-21.pdf`\n- Performance targets Result\n1.4.1 AGS’s Net Production (including lawyer utilisation) meets the annual budget target ACHIEVED\n1.4.2 The total cost per full-time equivalent (FTE) is maintained within CPI and pay rise ACHIEVED\npercentage of the prior year\nSource\nPortfolio Budget Statements 2020–21, Outcome 1, Program 1.3, page 34\nCorporate Plan 2020–24, page 24\n1.4.1 The Net Production result is the sum of all individual fee earners’ net production results for the year.\n Source: `annual-reports/2020-21.pdf`\n- Performance targets Result\n3.1.1 Stakeholder and client satisfaction greater than 80% in relation to: PARTLY\n• effectiveness (expertise and quality of relationship) ACHIEVED\n• efficiency (timeliness and responsiveness)\n3.1.2 Qualitative analysis shows that policy advice is effective in improving the operation and ACHIEVED\naccessibility of the federal justice system\nSource\nPortfolio Budget Statements 2020–21, Outcome 1, Program 1.1, page 30\nCorporate Plan 2020–24, page 28\n3.1.1 In response to questions related to this target in the department’s stakeholder survey, 82% of\nrespondents rated our effectiveness positively and 72% rated our efficiency positively, below the target of\n80%.\n Source: `annual-reports/2020-21.pdf`\n\n## Key Metrics\n\n- 2.1: Appropriations\n2.1A: Annual appropriations ('recoverable GST exclusive')\n2022 Appropriations\nAppropriation\nAdjustments to appropriation\nAct\nAnnual PGPA Act PGPA Act Total Appropriation applied in 2022\nAppropriation 1 Section 74 Section 75 appropriation (current and prior years) Variance 2\n$'000 $'000 $'000 $'000 $'000 $'000\nDEPARTMENTAL\nOrdinary annual services 250,098 201,193 − 451,290 424,456 26,835\nCapital budget 3 19,672 − − 19,672 14,320 5,352\nOther services\nEquity injections 4,184 − − 4,184 1,127 3,057\nTotal departmental 273,954 201,193 − 475,146 439,903 35,244\nADMINISTERED\nOrdinary annual services\nAdministered items - Outcome 1 480,441 1,239 − 481,680 424,221 57,459\nAdministered items – Outcome 2 42,751 1,463 − 44,214 34,644 9,570\nPayments to corporate Commonwealth entities 27,492 − − 27,492 27,492 −\nOther services\n Source: `annual-reports/2021-22.pdf`\n- [Page 87]\nAnnual Report 2021–22 Part 4: Financial statements\n2021 Appropriations\nAppropriation Act Adjustments to appropriation\nAppropriation applied in\nAnnual PGPA Act PGPA Act 2021 (current and prior\nAppropriation 1 Section 74 Section 75 Total appropriation years) Variance 2\n$'000 $'000 $'000 $'000 $'000 $'000\nDEPARTMENTAL\nOrdinary annual services 236,672 196,573 − 433,245 392,413 40,832\nCapital budget 3 14,819 − − 14,819 15,573 (754)\nOther services\nEquity injections 2,851 − − 2,851 1,563 1,288\nTotal departmental 254,342 196,573 − 450,915 409,549 41,366\nADMINISTERED\nOrdinary annual services\nAdministered items - Outcome 1 408,207 39 − 408,246 350,108 58,138\nAdministered items – Outcome 2 40,201 672 − 40,873 31,707 9,166\nPayments to corporate Commonwealth entities 22,385 − − 22,385 22,385 −\nOther services\nAdministered assets and liabilities 3 1,300 − − 1,300 453 847\n Source: `annual-reports/2021-22.pdf`\n- 2021–22\n$'000 $'000 $'000\n(a) (b) (a) minus (b)\nProgram 1.1: Attorney-General’s Department Operating Expenses – Legal Services and Families\nDepartmental expenses\nDepartmental appropriation 82,835 83,006 (171)\ns74 external revenue 1 7,655 5,737 1,918\nExpenses not requiring appropriation in the Budget year 2 12,030 9,951 2,079\nTotal expenses for Program 1.1 3 102,520 98,694 3,826\nProgram 1.2: Attorney-General’s Department Operating Expenses – National Security, Integrity and\nInternational\nDepartmental expenses\nDepartmental appropriation 72,006 67,317 4,689\ns74 external revenue 1 6,297 6,008 289\nExpenses not requiring appropriation in the Budget year 2 5,011 3,427 1,584\nTotal expenses for Program 1.2 3 83,314 76,752 6,562\nProgram 1.3: Australian Government Solicitor\nDepartmental expenses\ns74 external revenue 144,439 132,606 11,833\nTotal expenses for Program 1.3 144,439 132,606 11,833\n Source: `annual-reports/2021-22.pdf`\n- 1 and 3) 460,271 434,142 26,129\nSpecial appropriations 664 259 405\nSpecial accounts 1,039 779 260\nPayments to corporate entities 37,696 37,696 -\nExpenses not requiring appropriation in the Budget year 2 9,762 2,530 7,232\nAdministered total 509,432 475,406 34,026\nDepartmental expenses\nDepartmental appropriation 154,841 150,323 4,518\ns74 external revenue 1 158,391 144,351 14,040\nExpenses not requiring appropriation in the Budget year 2 17,041 13,378 3,663\nDepartmental total 330,273 308,052 22,221\nTotal expenses for Outcome 1 839,705 783,458 56,247\n* Full year budget, including any subsequent adjustments made to the 2021–22 Budget at Additional Estimates and 2022–23 March\nBudget.\n Source: `annual-reports/2021-22.pdf`\n- 2022–23\n$'000 $'000 $'000\n(a) (b) (a) minus (b)\nProgram 1.1: Attorney-General’s Department Operating Expenses – Legal Services and Families\nDepartmental expenses\nDepartmental appropriation 100,845 122,418 (21,573)\ns74 external revenue 1 6,113 973 5,140\nExpenses not requiring appropriation in the Budget year 2 9,570 10,560 (990)\nTotal expenses for Program 1.1 3 116,528 133,951 (17,423)\nProgram 1.2: Attorney-General’s Department Operating Expenses – National Security, Integrity and\nInternational\nDepartmental expenses\nDepartmental appropriation 153,869 110,739 43,130\ns74 external revenue 1 8,016 2,267 5,749\nExpenses not requiring appropriation in the Budget year 2 7,829 15,771 (7,942)\nTotal expenses for Program 1.2 3 169,714 128,777 40,937\nProgram 1.3: Australian Government Solicitor\nDepartmental expenses\ns74 external revenue 148,686 155,601 (6,915)\nTotal expenses for Program 1.\n Source: `annual-reports/2022-23.pdf`\n- 1 and 3)\nPayments to corporate entities 26,549 26,549 -\nSpecial appropriations 897 863 34\nSpecial accounts 35,274 27,569 7,705\nExpenses not requiring appropriation in the Budget year 2 10,457 9,104 1,353\nAdministered total 672,331 617,816 54,515\nDepartmental expenses\nDepartmental appropriation 254,714 233,157 21,557\ns74 external revenue 1 162,815 158,841 3,974\nExpenses not requiring appropriation in the Budget year 2 17,399 26,331 (8,932)\nDepartmental total 434,928 418,329 16,599\nTotal expenses for Outcome 1 1,107,259 1,036,145 71,114\nAverage staffing level (number) 1,736 1,956 (220)\n* Full year budget, including any subsequent adjustments made to the 2022–23 Budget at Additional Estimates.\n Source: `annual-reports/2022-23.pdf`\n- 2023–24\n$’000 $’000 $’000\n(a) (b) (a) minus (b)\nProgram 1.1: Attorney-General’s Department Operating Expenses – Legal Services and Families\nDepartmental expenses\nDepartmental appropriation 133,570 138,436 (4,866)\ns74 external revenue 1 7,171 6,479 692\nExpenses not requiring appropriation in the Budget year 2 12,406 12,641 (235)\nTotal expenses for Program 1.1 3 153,147 157,556 (4,409)\nProgram 1.2: Attorney-General’s Department Operating Expenses – National Security, Integrity and\nInternational\nDepartmental expenses\nDepartmental appropriation 170,968 137,227 33,741\ns74 external revenue 1 30,300 16,013 14,287\nExpenses not requiring appropriation in the Budget year 2 16,172 20,197 (4,025)\nTotal expenses for Program 1.2 3 217,440 173,437 44,003\nProgram 1.3: Australian Government Solicitor\nDepartmental expenses\ns74 external revenue 152,968 166,878 (13,910)\nTotal expenses for Program 1.\n Source: `annual-reports/2023-24.pdf`\n- 1.1A Departmental budgetary reports\nATTORNEY-GENERAL'S DEPARTMENT\nSTATEMENT OF COMPREHENSIVE INCOME\nfor the period ended 30 June 2021\nOriginal 1\nBudget Actual Variance\n2021 2021 2021\n$'000 $'000 $'000\nNET COST OF SERVICES\nEXPENSES\nEmployee benefits 226,481 245,019 18,538\nSuppliers 98,324 71,556 (26,768)\nGrants − 610 610\nFinance costs 4,904 5,096 192\nWrite-down and impairment of assets and other expenses 5,124 5,091 (33)\nDepreciation and amortisation 21,134 20,227 (907)\nDepreciation on right-of-use assets 31,030 28,548 (2,482)\nTotal expenses 386,997 376,147 (10,850)\nOWN SOURCE INCOME\nOwn-source revenue\nRevenue from contracts with customers 139,741 154,925 15,184\nOther revenue − 495 495\nTotal own-source revenue 139,741 155,420 15,679\nGains\nOther gains 495 554 59\nTotal gains 495 554 59\nTotal own-source income 140,236 155,974 15,738\nNet cost of services 246,761 220,173 (26,588)\n Source: `annual-reports/2020-21.pdf`\n- [Page 111]\nAnnual Report 2020–21 Part 4: Financial statements\n1.1B: Administered budgetary reports\nATTORNEY-GENERAL'S DEPARTMENT\nADMINISTERED SCHEDULE OF COMPREHENSIVE INCOME\nfor the period ended 30 June 2021\nOriginal 1\nBudget Actual Variance\n2021 2021 2021\n$'000 $'000 $'000\nNET COST OF SERVICES\nEXPENSES\nEmployee benefits 18,407 21,687 3,280\nSuppliers 209,668 120,457 (89,211)\nSubsidies 159,297 143,107 (16,190)\nPersonal benefits 474,072 106,388 (367,684)\nGrants 290,554 289,294 (1,260)\nFinance costs 191 198 7\nWrite-down and impairment of assets and other expenses 107 6 (101)\nPayments to corporate Commonwealth entities 22,385 22,385 −\nDepreciation and amortisation 5,416 6,135 719\nDepreciation on right-of-use assets 3,413 3,833 420\nTotal expenses 1,183,510 713,490 (470,020)\nINCOME\nRevenue\nTaxation revenue\nLevies 155,800 139,610 (16,190)\nTotal taxation revenue 155,800 139,610 (16,190)\n Source: `annual-reports/2020-21.pdf`\n- 3.1: Appropriations\n3.1A: Annual appropriations ('recoverable GST exclusive')\n2021 Appropriations\nAppropriation Adjustments to appropriation\nAct\nAnnual PGPA Act PGPA Act Total Appropriation applied in 2021\nAppropriation 1 Section 74 Section 75 appropriation (current and prior years) Variance 2\n$'000 $'000 $'000 $'000 $'000 $'000\nDEPARTMENTAL\nOrdinary annual services 236,672 196,573 − 433,245 392,413 40,832\nCapital budget 3 14,819 − − 14,819 15,573 (754)\nOther services\nEquity 2,851 − − 2,851 1,563 1,288\nTotal departmental 254,342 196,573 − 450,915 409,549 41,366\nADMINISTERED\nOrdinary annual services\nAdministered items - Outcome 1 408,207 39 − 408,246 350,108 58,138\nAdministered items – Outcome 2 40,201 672 − 40,873 31,707 9,166\nPayments to corporate Commonwealth entities 22,385 − − 22,385 22,385 −\nOther services\nAdministered assets and liabilities 3 1,300 − − 1,300 453 847\n Source: `annual-reports/2020-21.pdf`\n\n## Key Achievements\n\n- Performance targets Result\n3.2.1 Qualitative analysis shows that policy is developed and government initiatives are ACHIEVED\nimplemented to improve the operation of the family law system, including to enhance\nthe safety of people using the system\n3.2.2 Progress of department-led initiatives outlined in the Implementation Plan supporting ACHIEVED\nthe National Plan to Respond to the Abuse of Older Australians\n3.2.3 100% of payments to Family Law Service providers under the Family Relationships ACHIEVED\nServices Program are made in accordance with milestones in funding agreements\n(subject to appropriate availability)\n3.2.4 Stakeholder and client satisfaction greater than 80% in relation to: ACHIEVED\n• effectiveness (expertise and quality of relationship)\n• efficiency (timeliness and responsiveness)\nSource\nPortfolio Budget Statements 2020–21, Outcome 1, Program 1.1, page 30 and Program 1.\n Source: `annual-reports/2020-21.pdf`\n- Performance targets Result\n1.5.1 Qualitative analysis shows that visibility of, and the Attorney-General’s ability to ACHIEVED\ninfluence, significant legal matters across the Commonwealth is maintained\n1.5.2 The work of the Significant Legal Issues Committee is supported by the coordination of ACHIEVED\n4 meetings each year\n1.5.3 Commonwealth agencies are supported in their compliance with their obligations under ACHIEVED\nthe Legal Services Directions 2017\n1.5.4 New arrangements to support government lawyers through the Australian Government ACHIEVED\nLegal Service (AGLS) are implemented\n1.5.5 Satisfaction of government lawyers with initiatives provided by the AGLS greater than NOT\n80% ACHIEVED\nSource\nPortfolio Budget Statements 2020–21, Outcome 1, Program 1.1, page 30\nCorporate Plan 2020–24, page 25\n1.5.\n Source: `annual-reports/2020-21.pdf`\n- Performance targets Result\n2.1.1 At least 900 extradition, mutual assistance, international transfer of prisoners, ACHIEVED\nfederal offender and international family law casework matters finalised\n2.1.2 At least 80% of extradition legal proceedings heard and determined are resolved in ACHIEVED\nfavour of the Commonwealth\n2.1.3 Stakeholder satisfaction greater than 80% in relation to: ACHIEVED\n• effectiveness (expertise and quality of relationship)\n• efficiency (timeliness and responsiveness)\n2.1.4 Qualitative analysis shows that advice to decision-makers on extradition, PARTLY\nmutual assistance, international transfer of prisoners, federal offender and ACHIEVED\ninternational family law casework is timely and legally robust\n2.1.5 80% of submissions to United Nations human rights committees with respect to ACHIEVED\n Source: `annual-reports/2020-21.pdf`\n- [pages 28,29]\n.3 Stakeholder satisfaction greater than 80% in relation to: ACHIEVED\n• effectiveness (expertise and quality of relationship)\n• efficiency (timeliness and responsiveness)\n2.1.4 Qualitative analysis shows that advice to decision-makers on extradition, PARTLY\nmutual assistance, international transfer of prisoners, federal offender and ACHIEVED\ninternational family law casework is timely and legally robust\n2.1.5 80% of submissions to United Nations human rights committees with respect to ACHIEVED\nindividual complaints completed within the timeframes set by the relevant committees\n2.1.6 At least 125 private international law casework matters finalised ACHIEVED\nSource\nPortfolio Budget Statements 2020–21, Outcome 1, Program 1.1, page 30 and Program 1.2, page 33\nCorporate Plan 2020–24, page 27\n24\n Source: `annual-reports/2020-21.pdf`\n- Performance targets Result\n4.1.1 Provision of funding to states and territories, legal assistance providers and individuals PARTLY\nin line with agreed timeframes and subject to third parties meeting relevant obligations ACHIEVED\nand requirements\n4.1.2 Facilitation of information sharing, national collaborative service planning and ACHIEVED\nprovision of guidance under the National Legal Assistance Partnership\n4.1.3 Stakeholder and client satisfaction greater than 80% in relation to: PARTLY\n• effectiveness (expertise and quality of relationship) ACHIEVED\n• efficiency (timeliness and responsiveness)\nSource\nPortfolio Budget Statements 2020–21, Outcome 1, Program 1.1, page 30 and Program 1.6, page 37\nCorporate Plan 2020–24, page 33\n4.1.1 The department provides funding and assessments of grant applications and progress reports for\n Source: `annual-reports/2020-21.pdf`\n- Performance targets Result 2021–22 2020–21\nresult result\n4.4.1 Greater than 80% of accredited companies agree that: Achieved\n(i) guidance, educational and promotional material is clear, easy to 91% 88%\nunderstand and fit-for-purpose\n(ii) OFSC accreditation has improved their workplace safety\n95% 93%\nperformance\n4.4.2 The Work Health and Safety Accreditation Scheme is effectively Not Achieved 463 489\nimplemented through the completion of at least 500 onsite safety\naudits each financial year\n4.4.3 Companies accredited under the Work Health and Safety Achieved 6.88 7.24\nAccreditation Scheme collectively report a lower Total Injury\nFrequency Rate (TRIFR) than the previous calendar year\nSource:\nPortfolio Budget Statements 2021–22, Outcome 2, Program 2.2, page 38\nCorporate Plan 2021–25, page 37\n4.4.1 We conduct an anonymous and optional census each calendar year of accredited companies\n Source: `annual-reports/2021-22.pdf`\n- Achievement is determined\nas follows:\n• Achieved where, 75% or greater met\n• Partly Achieved, where 26%–74% met\n• Not Achieved, where 25% or less met\nAs outlined in the Corporate Plan 2023–27, we achieve our purpose through 5 key activities that describe\nthe department’s critical functions and activities.\n Source: `annual-reports/2023-24.pdf`\n- [Page 22]\nChapter 43 Open government and transparency Volume 4\nand in contrast to the adherence to a more closed system of government in the UK…The\nlegislative reforms that eventually followed became known as the ‘new administrative law’, the\npurpose of which was to facilitate effective public administration while at the same time\nsafeguarding the civic rights of the individual citizen.14\n43.16 The ‘new administrative law’ was implemented initially through:\n the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth) (AAT Act)\n the Ombudsman Act 1976 (Cth), and\n the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (Cth) (ADJR Act).\n Source: `other-pdfs/volume-4-accountability-and-transparency-annexes.pdf`\n- [Page 36]\nAnnual Report 2020–21 Part 2: Annual performance statements\nPerformance measure 3.3: Administration of the industrial\nrelations system\nThe industrial relations system is well maintained and improvements are considered and implemented\nbased on high-quality legal and policy advice and effective engagement with key stakeholders\nThis performance measure was achieved.\n Source: `annual-reports/2020-21.pdf`\n- [Page 17]\nAnnual Report 2022–23 12BPart 2: Annual performance statements\nPerformance summary\nOur performance measures include a mix of effectiveness, output and efficiency targets, and assess how\nour key activities support the achievement of our purpose and outcome.\n Source: `annual-reports/2022-23.pdf`\n- All three reviews arrived at different conclusions on the question of who\nshould authorise agencies’ intrusive activities.\n The Intelligence and Security Committee recommended that the most\nintrusive activities must always be authorised by a Secretary of State.90\n In contrast, Lord Anderson recommended that a scheme of judicial\nauthorisation be implemented, with the Secretary of State also certifying\nwarrants concerned with the defence and/or foreign policy of the UK.91\n The Royal United Services Institute recommended a composite approach,\nwith judicial authorisation for warrants sought for a purpose relating to the\ndetection or prevention of serious and organised crime, and ministerial\n88 The Intelligence and Security Committee (ISC) is a statutory committee of Parliament which oversees the\n Source: `other-pdfs/volume-2-authorisations-immunities-and-electronic-surveillance.pdf`\n- 1.3.2 To assess achievement of the effectiveness of policy advice in strengthening policy decisions and\nmanaging risk, a panel evaluated 6 work samples against 4 quality standards, namely whether the\ndocument:\n• explained why the decision-maker was getting the document and the broader context of the issues\nraised and its purpose\n• was clear, logical and based on evidence\n• was informative and included the full details\n• identified next steps.\n Source: `annual-reports/2020-21.pdf`\n\n## Key Issues, Risks, and Recommendations\n\n- Performance targets Result\n4.4.1 Satisfaction greater than 90% with the provision of client-focused service in the delivery ACHIEVED\nof OFSC functions\n4.4.2 Agreement greater than 80% that guidance, educational and promotional material is ACHIEVED\nclear, easy to understand and fit-for-purpose\n4.4.3 More than 75% accredited companies agree that OFSC accreditation has improved their ACHIEVED\nworkplace safety performance\n4.4.4 100% of accreditation applications are assessed and applicants contacted within ACHIEVED\n10 working days\n4.4.5 Continued implementation of the risk-based onsite audit program to ensure compliance ACHIEVED\nthrough at least 450 onsite audits conducted\nSource\nPortfolio Budget Statements 2020–21, Outcome 2, Program 2.2, page 43\nCorporate Plan 2020–24, page 38\n4.4.1, 4.4.2 and 4.4.3 The OFSC conducts an annual census to gauge its effectiveness and efficiency in\n Source: `annual-reports/2020-21.pdf`\n- The Attorney-General could issue a warrant authorising\nASIO to intercept a telephone service if it was being or likely to be, either:\n used by a person engaged in, or reasonably suspected by the\nDirector-General of Security of being engaged in, or of being likely to engage\nin, activities prejudicial to the security of the Commonwealth, or\n used for purposes prejudicial to the security of the Commonwealth.14\n18.9 Each request for a warrant had to be documented in full and include reasons why\nthe subject was a security risk.15\n18.10 In 1960 the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) was amended to introduce new offences of\nespionage, subversion and sabotage.\n Source: `other-pdfs/volume-2-authorisations-immunities-and-electronic-surveillance.pdf`\n- In Dietrich, Justice\nGaudron stated that the fundamental requirement that a trial be fair is entrenched\nin the Constitution by Chapter III’s implicit requirement that judicial power be\nexercised in accordance with the judicial process.229 Every judge in every criminal\ntrial has all powers necessary or expedient to prevent unfairness in a trial.230\n45.10 The function of determining guilt and punishment for a criminal offence has been\nregarded as a core aspect of judicial power which can be ‘conclusively determined\nonly by a Chapter III court acting as such, that is to say, acting judicially’.231\nCommonwealth legislation that requires or authorises a court to entertain\nproceedings that would otherwise involve an abuse of process and/or\nfundamentally compromise a defendant’s right to receive a fair trial (for example,\n Source: `other-pdfs/volume-4-accountability-and-transparency-annexes.pdf`\n- During 2020–21, the Audit and Risk Management Committee comprised of 5 members (3 external and 2\ninternal).\n Source: `annual-reports/2020-21.pdf`\n- [Page 30]\nRecommendation 97: A new electronic surveillance Act should accommodate the issuing of warrants\nto law enforcement agencies in emergencies as follows.\n An issuing authority must issue law enforcement warrants in writing wherever possible.\n An issuing authority may orally authorise a warrant, on application from an agency, if he or\nshe believes on reasonable grounds that the delay in making a written application would\nlikely defeat the purpose of obtaining the warrant.\n Source: `reviews/Government-response-to-the-Comprehensive-Review-of-the-Legal-Framework-of-the-Na.pdf`\n- 1.3.2 To assess achievement of the effectiveness of policy advice in strengthening policy decisions and\nmanaging risk, a panel evaluated 6 work samples against 4 quality standards, namely whether the\ndocument:\n• explained why the decision-maker was getting the document and the broader context of the issues\nraised and its purpose\n• was clear, logical and based on evidence\n• was informative and included the full details\n• identified next steps.\n Source: `annual-reports/2020-21.pdf`\n- The department’s independent Audit and Risk Management Committee oversaw the\ndepartment’s implementation of the ANAO recommendations and agreed in August 2021 that the\nrecommendations had been addressed and completed.\n Source: `annual-reports/2021-22.pdf`\n- [Page 23]\nAnnual Report 2022–23 12BPart 2: Annual performance statements\nPerformance measure 1.5:\nManage significant legal issues and arrangements for Australian\nGovernment legal services\nOversight, coordination and assistance to Australian Government entities supports the effective\nmanagement of legal risks and the delivery of high-quality, consistent and efficient legal services across\ngovernment.\n Source: `annual-reports/2022-23.pdf`\n- [Page 45]\nAAnnnnuuaall RReeppoorrtt 22002244––2255 PPaarrtt 33:: MMaannaaggeemmeenntt aanndd aaccccoouunnttaabbiilliittyy\nInformation on the ARC’s charter is available on the department’s website (www.ag.gov.au/about-\nus/committees-and-councils/audit-and-risk-management-committee).\n Source: `annual-reports/2024-25.pdf`\n- [Page 111]\nVolume 4 Chapter 45 Protection of national security information\n45.71 There is also a risk this proposal would raise similar issues to those raised in\nHogan v Hinch.\n Source: `other-pdfs/volume-4-accountability-and-transparency-annexes.pdf`\n- Ratings received included:\n• an average overall performance rating of 4 out of 5 or higher, supported by average ratings (4 out\nof 5 or higher) on desired attributes of usability of advice, strategy and responsiveness\n• an average overall rating of 9 out of 10 for helping to achieve client outcomes, supported by\naverage ratings of 8 out of 10 or higher on desired attributes of accuracy of estimates, timely\ncommunication, senior lawyer involvement and managing risk.\n Source: `annual-reports/2020-21.pdf`\n- [pages 20,21,22]\nd:\n• an average overall performance rating of 4 out of 5 or higher, supported by average ratings (4 out\nof 5 or higher) on desired attributes of usability of advice, strategy and responsiveness\n• an average overall rating of 9 out of 10 for helping to achieve client outcomes, supported by\naverage ratings of 8 out of 10 or higher on desired attributes of accuracy of estimates, timely\ncommunication, senior lawyer involvement and managing risk.\n Source: `annual-reports/2020-21.pdf`\n- Performance targets Result\n1.2.1 Stakeholder and client satisfaction greater than 80% in relation to: ACHIEVED\n• effectiveness (expertise and quality of relationship)\n• efficiency (timeliness and responsiveness)\n1.2.2 Qualitative analysis shows the effectiveness of legal and policy advice for strengthening ACHIEVED\npolicy outcomes and managing international legal risk\nSource\nPortfolio Budget Statements 2020–21, Outcome 1, Program 1.1, page 30\nCorporate Plan 2020–24, pages 22–23\n1.2.1 In response to questions related to this target in the department’s stakeholder survey, 98% of\nrespondents rated our effectiveness positively and 90% rated our efficiency positively.\n Source: `annual-reports/2020-21.pdf`\n- Performance targets Result\n1.3.1 Stakeholder and client satisfaction greater than 80% in relation to: ACHIEVED\n• effectiveness (expertise and quality of relationship)\n• efficiency (timeliness and responsiveness)\n1.3.2 Qualitative analysis shows the effectiveness of policy advice in strengthening policy ACHIEVED\ndecisions and managing constitutional or related legal risk\n1.3.3 Qualitative analysis shows that the Office of Constitutional Law is effective in managing ACHIEVED\nlitigation to protect the Commonwealth’s constitutional policy interests\nSource\nPortfolio Budget Statements 2020–21, Outcome 1, Program 1.1, page 30\nCorporate Plan 2020–24, page 23\n1.3.1 In response to questions related to this target in the department’s stakeholder survey, 100% of\nrespondents rated our effectiveness and efficiency positively.\n Source: `annual-reports/2020-21.pdf`\n\n## Corporate Values and Operating Culture\n\n- 43.2 Open government is defined by the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and\nDevelopment (OECD) as ‘a culture of governance that promotes the principles of\ntransparency, integrity, accountability and stakeholder participation in support of\ndemocracy and inclusive growth’.1 In Australia, the Second Open Government\nNational Action Plan 2018-2020 states that at its heart, the concept of open\ngovernment ‘respects the right of citizens to engage directly and scrutinise the\nbehaviour of government and the institutions of state.’2\n43.3 When making the Australian Government’s declaration of open government in\n2010, the then Minister for Finance and Deregulation, the Hon Lindsay Tanner\nMP, noted the following three key principles:\n informing: strengthening citizens’ rights of access to information, establishing\na pro-disclosure culture across Australian Government agencies including\n Source: `other-pdfs/volume-4-accountability-and-transparency-annexes.pdf`\n- [Page 20]\nAcronyms and abbreviations Volume 1\nTerm Meaning\nLEIC Act Law Enforcement Integrity Commissioner Act 2006 (Cth)\nMigration Act Migration Act 1958 (Cth)\nMOU Memorandum of Understanding\nMTA Minor and technical amendments\nMutual Assistance Act Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Act 1987 (Cth)\nNAA National Archives of Australia\nNBN National Broadband Network\nNCA National Crime Authority\nNGO Non-government organisation\nNIC National Intelligence Community\nNPI National policing information\nNSA National Security Agency (US)\nNSC National Security Committee of Cabinet\nNSG National Security Group (NZ)\nNSI National security information\nNSI Act National Security Information (Criminal and Civil Proceedings) Act 2004 (Cth)\nNSIRA National Security and Intelligence Review Agency (Canada)\nNSS National Security Secretariat (UK)\nNSW New South Wales\nNZ New Zealand\n Source: `other-pdfs/volume-1-recommendations-and-executive-summary-foundations-and-principles-contro.pdf`\n- [Page 33]\nVolume 2 Acronyms and abbreviations\nTerm Meaning\nLEIC Act Law Enforcement Integrity Commissioner Act 2006 (Cth)\nMigration Act Migration Act 1958 (Cth)\nMOU Memorandum of Understanding\nMTA Minor and technical amendments\nMutual Assistance Act Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Act 1987 (Cth)\nNAA National Archives of Australia\nNBN National Broadband Network\nNCA National Crime Authority\nNGO Non-government organisation\nNIC National Intelligence Community\nNPI National policing information\nNSA National Security Agency (US)\nNSC National Security Committee of Cabinet\nNSG National Security Group (NZ)\nNSI National security information\nNSI Act National Security Information (Criminal and Civil Proceedings) Act 2004 (Cth)\nNSIRA National Security and Intelligence Review Agency (Canada)\nNSS National Security Secretariat (UK)\nNSW New South Wales\nNZ New Zealand\n Source: `other-pdfs/volume-2-authorisations-immunities-and-electronic-surveillance.pdf`\n- This stemmed from amendments made to the\nIntelligence and Security Committee Act 1996 in 2013, requiring that a review be\nundertaken every five to seven years of the agencies, the legislation governing the\nagencies and their oversight legislation.112\n18.79 Their report—Intelligence and Security in a Free Society—recommended greater\nconsistency in the authorising framework across NZSIS and GCSB to provide a\ngreater level of accountability, improve agency cooperation and provide clarity to\nboth agencies and the public on the scope of agencies’ powers.113 In respect of the\nauthorisation process, Sir Cullen and Dame Reddy considered there was a\nbalance to be struck between placing sufficient safeguards on the agencies’\nintrusive activities, while providing the agencies with enough flexibility to perform\ntheir functions.114 They considered this balance best struck by requiring judicial\n Source: `other-pdfs/volume-2-authorisations-immunities-and-electronic-surveillance.pdf`\n- [Page 20]\nAcronyms and abbreviations Volume 3\nTerm Meaning\nLEIC Act Law Enforcement Integrity Commissioner Act 2006 (Cth)\nMigration Act Migration Act 1958 (Cth)\nMOU Memorandum of Understanding\nMTA Minor and technical amendments\nMutual Assistance Act Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Act 1987 (Cth)\nNAA National Archives of Australia\nNBN National Broadband Network\nNCA National Crime Authority\nNGO Non-government organisation\nNIC National Intelligence Community\nNPI National policing information\nNSA National Security Agency (US)\nNSC National Security Committee of Cabinet\nNSG National Security Group (NZ)\nNSI National security information\nNSI Act National Security Information (Criminal and Civil Proceedings) Act 2004 (Cth)\nNSIRA National Security and Intelligence Review Agency (Canada)\nNSS National Security Secretariat (UK)\nNSW New South Wales\nNZ New Zealand\n Source: `other-pdfs/volume-3-information-technology-powers-and-oversight.pdf`\n- [Page 16]\nAcronyms and abbreviations Volume 4\nTerm Meaning\nLEIC Act Law Enforcement Integrity Commissioner Act 2006 (Cth)\nMigration Act Migration Act 1958 (Cth)\nMOU Memorandum of Understanding\nMTA Minor and technical amendments\nMutual Assistance Act Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Act 1987 (Cth)\nNAA National Archives of Australia\nNBN National Broadband Network\nNCA National Crime Authority\nNGO Non-government organisation\nNIC National Intelligence Community\nNPI National policing information\nNSA National Security Agency (US)\nNSC National Security Committee of Cabinet\nNSG National Security Group (NZ)\nNSI National security information\nNSI Act National Security Information (Criminal and Civil Proceedings) Act 2004 (Cth)\nNSIRA National Security and Intelligence Review Agency (Canada)\nNSS National Security Secretariat (UK)\nNSW New South Wales\nNZ New Zealand\n Source: `other-pdfs/volume-4-accountability-and-transparency-annexes.pdf`\n- To align with the determinations made under section 72 of the Public Service Act 1999 to move staff between\nagencies, and under section 75 of the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act 2013 to transfer\nappropriation funding between agencies, the transfer of associated departmental or administered assets and\nliabilities will occur in the 2025–26 financial year.\n Source: `annual-reports/2024-25.pdf`\n- Grants 306 250 -\nFinance costs 1.3 4,732 5,116 2,235\nTo align with the determinations made under section 72 of the Public Service Act 1999 to move staff between\nImpairment loss on financial instruments 1,545 551 -\nagencies, and under section 75 of the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act 2013 to transfer\nappropriation funding between agencies, the transfer of associated departmental or administered assets and Write-down and impairment of other assets 4.1 8,823 7,287 -\nliabilities will occur in the 2025–26 financial year.\n Source: `annual-reports/2024-25.pdf`\n\n## Global Ideas and Case Study Inputs\n\nGlobal source texts are available for later idea synthesis:\n- `global-intelligence/source-text/association-worldbank.org-governance.txt`\n- `global-intelligence/source-text/consulting-deloitte.com-government-public.txt`\n- `global-intelligence/source-text/university-ash.harvard.edu-Harvard-Kennedy-School-Ash-Center.txt`\n\n## Source Artifacts Used\n\n- `annual-reports/2020-21.pdf` - annual-reports - local file\n- `annual-reports/2021-22.pdf` - annual-reports - local file\n- `annual-reports/2022-23.pdf` - annual-reports - local file\n- `annual-reports/2023-24.pdf` - annual-reports - local file\n- `annual-reports/2024-25.pdf` - annual-reports - local file\n- `reviews/Government-response-to-the-Comprehensive-Review-of-the-Legal-Framework-of-the-Na.pdf` - reviews - local file\n- `global-intelligence/source-text/association-worldbank.org-governance.txt` - global-intelligence - local file\n- `global-intelligence/source-text/consulting-deloitte.com-government-public.txt` - global-intelligence - local file\n- `global-intelligence/source-text/university-ash.harvard.edu-Harvard-Kennedy-School-Ash-Center.txt` - global-intelligence - local file\n- `other-pdfs/Multicultural-Access-and-Equity-Plan-2017-18.pdf` - other-pdfs - local file\n- `other-pdfs/volume-1-recommendations-and-executive-summary-foundations-and-principles-contro.pdf` - other-pdfs - local file\n- `other-pdfs/volume-2-authorisations-immunities-and-electronic-surveillance.pdf` - other-pdfs - local file\n- `other-pdfs/volume-3-information-technology-powers-and-oversight.pdf` - other-pdfs - local file\n- `other-pdfs/volume-4-accountability-and-transparency-annexes.pdf` - other-pdfs - local file\n\n## Gaps To Fix\n\n- No corporate plan text source found.", "legislation_md": "# Attorney-General's Department - Acts and Legislation Discovery\n\n**Generated at**: 2026-05-09T21:41:57.925552+00:00\n**Entity ID**: S-SA-001\n**Jurisdiction**: South Australia\n**Portfolio**: Attorney-General\n\n> This is an evidence-based discovery list from scraped department material. A mention does not always mean the department administers the legislation; high-confidence and official register links should be reviewed.\n\n## Summary\n\n- Source files scanned: 44\n- Unique legislation references found: 542\n\n| Type | Count |\n|---|---:|\n| Act | 520 |\n| Code | 1 |\n| Determination | 6 |\n| Instrument | 2 |\n| Order | 1 |\n| Regulation | 11 |\n| Rules | 1 |\n\n## Legislation References\n\n### Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act 2013\n\n**Type**: Act\n**Confidence**: high\n**Mentions**: 53\n**Register search**: https://www.legislation.sa.gov.au/search?query=Public+Governance%2C+Performance+and+Accountability+Act+2013\n\n**Sources**:\n- `annual-reports/2020-21.pages.jsonl`\n- `annual-reports/2021-22.pages.jsonl`\n- `annual-reports/2022-23.pages.jsonl`\n- `annual-reports/2023-24.pages.jsonl`\n- `annual-reports/2024-25.pages.jsonl`\n- `other-pdfs/volume-4-accountability-and-transparency-annexes.pages.jsonl`\n\n**Evidence contexts**:\n- 2600\nDear Attorney-General\nAttorney-General’s Department Annual Report 2020–21\nI am pleased to present the annual report of the Attorney-General's Department for the year ended\n30 June 2021.\nThis report has been prepared for the purposes of section 46 of the Public Governance, Performance and\nAccountability Act 2013 (PGPA Act), which requires that I prepare and provide an annual report to you for\npresentation to the Parliament.\nThe report includes the department's audited financial statements as required by sections 42, 43 and 46\nof the PGPA Act. It also includes the dep\n Source: `annual-reports/2020-21.pages.jsonl`\n- t 2: Annual performance statements\nStatement of preparation\nAs the accountable authority of the Attorney-General’s Department, I present the 2020–21\nannual performance statement of the Attorney-General’s Department, as required under paragraph\n39(1)(a) of the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act 2013 (PGPA Act). In my opinion,\nthis annual performance statement is based on properly maintained records, accurately reflects the\nperformance of the entity and complies with subsection 39(2) of the PGPA Act.\nKatherine Jones PSM\nSecretary\n12\n\n[page 17]\nAnnual Repo\n Source: `annual-reports/2020-21.pages.jsonl`\n- ive performance.\nThe Workforce Planning Committee also considers how best to meet the strategic workforce needs of the\ndepartment.\nAudit and Risk Management Committee\nThe Audit and Risk Management Committee was established in accordance with section 45 of the\nPublic Governance, Performance and Accountability Act 2013 (PGPA Act) and section 17 of the PGPA Rule.\nThe committee provides independent advice to the Secretary on the department's financial and\nperformance reporting responsibilities, risk oversight and management and systems of internal control. It\noversees the dep\n Source: `annual-reports/2020-21.pages.jsonl`\n- security and fraud\nrisks and to support the committee and inform its decision-making.\n60\n\n[page 65]\nAnnual Report 2020–21 Part 3: Management and accountability\nCorporate planning\nWe develop a corporate plan each year in accordance with section 35(1)(b) of the Public Governance\nPerformance and Accountability Act 2013. The plan details the priorities for the year ahead, how they will\nbe achieved and how success will be measured, as well as the factors that may affect us undertaking our\nactivities. It is an important part of the department’s performance framework and provid\n Source: `annual-reports/2020-21.pages.jsonl`\n- gaging consultants, the\ndepartment takes into account the skills and resources required for the task, the skills available internally\nand the cost effectiveness of engaging external expertise. The decision to engage a consultant is made in\naccordance with the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act 2013 and related regulations\nincluding the Commonwealth Procurement Rules and relevant internal policies.\nInformation on the value of reportable consultancy contracts is available on the AusTender website\n(www.tenders.gov.au). Details of the reportable new and ong\n Source: `annual-reports/2020-21.pages.jsonl`\n\n### Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act 1979\n\n**Type**: Act\n**Confidence**: high\n**Mentions**: 42\n**Register search**: https://www.legislation.sa.gov.au/search?query=Telecommunications+%28Interception+and+Access%29+Act+1979\n\n**Sources**:\n- `annual-reports/2022-23.pages.jsonl`\n- `other-pdfs/volume-1-recommendations-and-executive-summary-foundations-and-principles-contro.pages.jsonl`\n- `other-pdfs/volume-2-authorisations-immunities-and-electronic-surveillance.pages.jsonl`\n- `other-pdfs/volume-3-information-technology-powers-and-oversight.pages.jsonl`\n- `other-pdfs/volume-4-accountability-and-transparency-annexes.pages.jsonl`\n\n**Evidence contexts**:\n- Access) (Enforcement Agency—NSW Department of Communities and Justice) Declaration 2023. The\ndeclaration declared the NSW Department of Communities and Justice (that part known as Corrective\nServices NSW) as an enforcement agency under the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act\n1979 for the purposes of being able to access telecommunications data. The department is providing\nadvice to the Attorney-General.\nSenate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee\nOn 10 May 2023, the Senate referred the Crimes and Other Legislation Amendment (Omn\n Source: `annual-reports/2022-23.pages.jsonl`\n- tions Access Co-ordinator) Instrument\n2022 (No. 2). Both instruments specified certain positions in the Department of Home Affairs and the\nAttorney-General's Department as 'Communications Access Co-ordinators' under subsection 6R(2) of the\nTelecommunications (Interception and Access) Act 1979. The second instrument repealed the first one to\ntake into account a restructure of the Attorney-General's Department.\nThe committee sought the Attorney-General's advice as to whom the powers under particular sections of\nthe Act will be delegated and whether\n Source: `annual-reports/2022-23.pages.jsonl`\n- f United Kingdom Public Sector Fraud Authority 5\nRoyal Commissions 34, 138 United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with\nSustainability Network 56 Disabilities 49\nUnited Nations human rights committee\nT communications casework 21\nTelecommunications (Interception and Access) Act 1979\n41 V\nTelecommunications (Interception and Access) Vardanega, Louise (Chief Operating Officer, AGS) 83, 150\n(Communications Access Co-ordinator) Instrument Vietnamese Government’s counter-human trafficking\n2022 41 policy framework 31\nTelecommunications (Interc\n Source: `annual-reports/2022-23.pages.jsonl`\n- detail. The Review sought and received additional\nsubmissions, case studies and written comments on discrete issues, and held over\nPJCIS will then complete its review of this Act, which must be completed by 30 September 2020 (s 187N of\nthe Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act 1979).\n5 Australian Security Intelligence Organisation, Australian Secret Intelligence Service,\nAustralian Signals Directorate, Australian Geospatial-Intelligence Organisation, Defence Intelligence\nOrganisation, Office of National Intelligence, Australian Federal\n Source: `other-pdfs/volume-1-recommendations-and-executive-summary-foundations-and-principles-contro.pages.jsonl`\n- the Australian Federal Police Act 1979\nto the extent it relates to the performance of their intelligence functions as\npart of the NIC;\n legislation containing NIC agency investigative powers, such as the\nSurveillance Devices Act 2004 and Telecommunications (Interception and\nAccess) Act 1979;\n the adequacy of national security information handling provisions under the\nNational Security Information Act 2004, including the protection of information\nrelating to counter terrorism and foreign interference prosecutions;\n oversight-related legislation\n Source: `other-pdfs/volume-1-recommendations-and-executive-summary-foundations-and-principles-contro.pages.jsonl`\n\n### Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Act 1979\n\n**Type**: Act\n**Confidence**: high\n**Mentions**: 40\n**Register search**: https://www.legislation.sa.gov.au/search?query=Australian+Security+Intelligence+Organisation+Act+1979\n\n**Sources**:\n- `other-pdfs/volume-1-recommendations-and-executive-summary-foundations-and-principles-contro.pages.jsonl`\n- `other-pdfs/volume-2-authorisations-immunities-and-electronic-surveillance.pages.jsonl`\n- `other-pdfs/volume-3-information-technology-powers-and-oversight.pages.jsonl`\n- `other-pdfs/volume-4-accountability-and-transparency-annexes.pages.jsonl`\n\n**Evidence contexts**:\n-  any specific proposals for reform, such as Recommendation 16(c) of the\nIndependent Intelligence Review.\nWithout limiting the legislation that the review may consider, the review will consider:\n core legislation relating to the six AIC agencies, such as the Australian\nSecurity Intelligence Organisation Act 1979, the Office of National\nAssessments Act 1977, including proposed legislation to give effect to the\ntransition to the Office of National Intelligence, and Intelligence Services Act\n2001, including amendments contained in the Intelligence Services\nAmendment (Es\n Source: `other-pdfs/volume-1-recommendations-and-executive-summary-foundations-and-principles-contro.pages.jsonl`\n- .\n3.22 While not recommending a common legislative framework for the entire NIC, some\nareas of NIC legislation would benefit from simplification and modernisation. We\nrecommend the repeal of the TIA Act, Surveillance Devices Act 2004 (SD Act) and\nparts of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Act 1979 (ASIO Act), and\ntheir replacement with a single new Act governing the use of electronic\nsurveillance powers—telecommunications interception, covert access to stored\ncommunications, computers and telecommunications data, and the use of optical,\nlistening and t\n Source: `other-pdfs/volume-1-recommendations-and-executive-summary-foundations-and-principles-contro.pages.jsonl`\n- e and money flows across national borders\npresent more opportunities for organised crime and extremist groups to\nconceal and launder their illicit funds,26 requiring Australian agencies to work\nin closer partnership with their international counterparts.\n5.26 The Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Act 1979 (ASIO Act) and IS Act\ncontain additional controls that apply when ASIO, ASIS, ASD and AGO seek to\nundertake particular activities in relation to Australian citizens and permanent\nresidents. At the time of the Hope Royal Commissions, Australia did not recognis\n Source: `other-pdfs/volume-1-recommendations-and-executive-summary-foundations-and-principles-contro.pages.jsonl`\n- ation from having alternate governments fully and\nresponsibly apprised of matters of such great national concern.’124\nImplementation\nThe Fraser Government implemented many of Justice Hope’s recommendations.\nThe 1956 ASIO Act was repealed and replaced with the Australian Security\nIntelligence Organisation Act 1979 (ASIO Act). The Government had concluded\nthat ‘the legislative reforms [were so]…fundamental and wide-ranging that a\ncompletely new [ASIO] Bill, rather than amendment’ was required.125 The reforms\nwere intended to remove any legal doubts about ministerial res\n Source: `other-pdfs/volume-1-recommendations-and-executive-summary-foundations-and-principles-contro.pages.jsonl`\n- rity Review\nThe 1978 bombing of the Hilton Hotel in Sydney was described as Australia’s first\ninstance of domestic terrorism.136 Conspiracy theories, including that ASIO had\nplanted the bomb to justify its existence, circulated in the media.137 To quash these\nAustralian Security Intelligence Organisation Act 1979, Division 3, Part IV. This Tribunal was later abolished\nand the review function went to the Security Division of the AAT.\n130 Commonwealth, Parliamentary Debates, Senate, 8 March 1979 (Peter Durack, Attorney-General) pg 649.\n131 Blaxland, The Protest Years: T\n Source: `other-pdfs/volume-1-recommendations-and-executive-summary-foundations-and-principles-contro.pages.jsonl`\n\n### Intelligence and Security Act 2017\n\n**Type**: Act\n**Confidence**: high\n**Mentions**: 38\n**Register search**: https://www.legislation.sa.gov.au/search?query=Intelligence+and+Security+Act+2017\n\n**Sources**:\n- `other-pdfs/volume-1-recommendations-and-executive-summary-foundations-and-principles-contro.pages.jsonl`\n- `other-pdfs/volume-2-authorisations-immunities-and-electronic-surveillance.pages.jsonl`\n- `other-pdfs/volume-3-information-technology-powers-and-oversight.pages.jsonl`\n\n**Evidence contexts**:\n- des its\nsecurity and intelligence agencies on a civilian and military basis. The General\nIntelligence and Security Service is responsible for both domestic security and the\ncollection of intelligence offshore,441 and the Military Intelligence and Security\n438 Intelligence and Security Act 2017 (NZ), ss 7(1) and 8(1).\n439 Intelligence and Security Act 2017 (NZ), s 9.\n440 Intelligence Law 2015 (France), art L811-3.\n441 Intelligence and Security Services Act 2017 (The Netherlands), art 6.\nPage 184\n\n[page 187]\nVolume 1 Chapter 8 Foreign and security in\n Source: `other-pdfs/volume-1-recommendations-and-executive-summary-foundations-and-principles-contro.pages.jsonl`\n- litary basis. The General\nIntelligence and Security Service is responsible for both domestic security and the\ncollection of intelligence offshore,441 and the Military Intelligence and Security\n438 Intelligence and Security Act 2017 (NZ), ss 7(1) and 8(1).\n439 Intelligence and Security Act 2017 (NZ), s 9.\n440 Intelligence Law 2015 (France), art L811-3.\n441 Intelligence and Security Services Act 2017 (The Netherlands), art 6.\nPage 184\n\n[page 187]\nVolume 1 Chapter 8 Foreign and security intelligence\nService is responsible for military security, and th\n Source: `other-pdfs/volume-1-recommendations-and-executive-summary-foundations-and-principles-contro.pages.jsonl`\n- Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, 50 USC 1801.\n516 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, Memorandum Opinion (John D. Bates) (Web page,\n3 October 2011) ,\npg 72 and 73.\n517 Intelligence and Security Act 2017 (NZ) s 49.\n518 Intelligence and Security Act 2017 (NZ), s 53, 58 and 59.\n519 Intelligence and Security Act 2017 (NZ) s 54 and 60.\nPage 215\n\n[page 218]\nChapter 9 Onshore and offshore operations Volume 1\n9.85 The Intelligence and Security Act 2017 also requires\n Source: `other-pdfs/volume-1-recommendations-and-executive-summary-foundations-and-principles-contro.pages.jsonl`\n- .\n516 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, Memorandum Opinion (John D. Bates) (Web page,\n3 October 2011) ,\npg 72 and 73.\n517 Intelligence and Security Act 2017 (NZ) s 49.\n518 Intelligence and Security Act 2017 (NZ), s 53, 58 and 59.\n519 Intelligence and Security Act 2017 (NZ) s 54 and 60.\nPage 215\n\n[page 218]\nChapter 9 Onshore and offshore operations Volume 1\n9.85 The Intelligence and Security Act 2017 also requires that the Minister of\nForeign Affairs be consulted\n Source: `other-pdfs/volume-1-recommendations-and-executive-summary-foundations-and-principles-contro.pages.jsonl`\n- ion (John D. Bates) (Web page,\n3 October 2011) ,\npg 72 and 73.\n517 Intelligence and Security Act 2017 (NZ) s 49.\n518 Intelligence and Security Act 2017 (NZ), s 53, 58 and 59.\n519 Intelligence and Security Act 2017 (NZ) s 54 and 60.\nPage 215\n\n[page 218]\nChapter 9 Onshore and offshore operations Volume 1\n9.85 The Intelligence and Security Act 2017 also requires that the Minister of\nForeign Affairs be consulted before an intelligence warrant is issued if the\nproposed acti\n Source: `other-pdfs/volume-1-recommendations-and-executive-summary-foundations-and-principles-contro.pages.jsonl`\n\n### Intelligence Services Act 2001\n\n**Type**: Act\n**Confidence**: high\n**Mentions**: 35\n**Register search**: https://www.legislation.sa.gov.au/search?query=Intelligence+Services+Act+2001\n\n**Sources**:\n- `other-pdfs/volume-1-recommendations-and-executive-summary-foundations-and-principles-contro.pages.jsonl`\n- `other-pdfs/volume-2-authorisations-immunities-and-electronic-surveillance.pages.jsonl`\n- `other-pdfs/volume-3-information-technology-powers-and-oversight.pages.jsonl`\n- `other-pdfs/volume-4-accountability-and-transparency-annexes.pages.jsonl`\n- `reviews/Government-response-to-the-Comprehensive-Review-of-the-Legal-Framework-of-the-Na.pages.jsonl`\n\n**Evidence contexts**:\n- ..... 121\nThe post-Hope Era ....................................................................................................... 126\nTransparency legislation .............................................................................................. 126\nThe Intelligence Services Act 2001 .............................................................................. 128\nThe counter-terrorism response ................................................................................... 130\nLegislation and the impact of technological change ......\n Source: `other-pdfs/volume-1-recommendations-and-executive-summary-foundations-and-principles-contro.pages.jsonl`\n- hese reviews took the legislative framework—and the principles\nunderpinning that framework—as being largely settled. The Samuels and Codd\nInquiry in 1995 recommended that ASIS be placed onto a legislative basis (which\nultimately led to the introduction of the Intelligence Services Act 2001 (Cth)\n(IS Act)). Samuels and Codd based their recommendation on two principled\narguments:\n noting that ASIS’ operations were generally sensitive and potentially\ncontroversial, that it was ‘no longer appropriate that the formal conferral of\nPage 86\n\n[page 89]\n Source: `other-pdfs/volume-1-recommendations-and-executive-summary-foundations-and-principles-contro.pages.jsonl`\n- sed counter-terrorism and national security\nlegislation, and conducted a number of statutory reviews of laws following their\n42 RCIS, Third Report, para 356.\n43 Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security Act 1986 (Cth) s 8.\n44 Following the passage of the Intelligence Services Act 2001 (Cth).\n45 Intelligence Services Legislation Amendment Act 2005 (Cth).\nPage 98\n\n[page 101]\nVolume 1 Chapter 5 Why a Review?\nimplementation. The 2017 IIR made a number of recommendations to further\nexpand the role of the PJCIS, which are discussed in greater de\n Source: `other-pdfs/volume-1-recommendations-and-executive-summary-foundations-and-principles-contro.pages.jsonl`\n- on Act and the Privacy Act—the open government reforms have,\nnonetheless, changed the public’s expectations of Australia’s security, intelligence\nand law enforcement agencies. ASIS, ASD and AGO now publish the rules they\napply to protect Australians’ privacy.\nThe Intelligence Services Act 2001\nIn his first Royal Commission, Justice Hope recommended that ASIS be publicly\nacknowledged and given a statutory footing.182 The 1983 Sheraton Hotel incident\nand the High Court’s subsequent decision in A v Hayden heightened this\nrecommendation’s significance.\n Source: `other-pdfs/volume-1-recommendations-and-executive-summary-foundations-and-principles-contro.pages.jsonl`\n- Bill 2001, s 6(1)(e).\nPage 129\n\n[page 132]\nChapter 6 Intelligence legislation in Australia Volume 1\nASIS to its other listed legislative functions.189 The Bill expressly prohibited\nASIS’s involvement in paramilitary activities or violence against the person.\nThe Intelligence Services Act 2001 (Cth) (IS Act) passed with bipartisan support\nand received Royal Assent on 1 October 2001.190 Its enactment—100 years after\nFederation and Australia’s nascent intelligence collection endeavours—brought\nAustralia into line with its Five Eyes counterparts, all\n Source: `other-pdfs/volume-1-recommendations-and-executive-summary-foundations-and-principles-contro.pages.jsonl`\n\n### Investigatory Powers Act 2016\n\n**Type**: Act\n**Confidence**: high\n**Mentions**: 31\n**Register search**: https://www.legislation.sa.gov.au/search?query=Investigatory+Powers+Act+2016\n\n**Sources**:\n- `other-pdfs/volume-1-recommendations-and-executive-summary-foundations-and-principles-contro.pages.jsonl`\n- `other-pdfs/volume-2-authorisations-immunities-and-electronic-surveillance.pages.jsonl`\n- `other-pdfs/volume-3-information-technology-powers-and-oversight.pages.jsonl`\n\n**Evidence contexts**:\n- terial and judicial authority. Foreign\nintelligence authorisations and cybersecurity authorisations by the Minister\nunder the Communications Security Establishment Act 2019 must also be\napproved by the Information Commissioner.\n In the UK, warrants under the Investigatory Powers Act 2016 require the\napproval of the Secretary of State and a Judicial Commissioner from the\nUK Investigatory Powers Commissioner’s Office. The Investigatory Powers\nPage 52\n\n[page 55]\nVolume 1 Chapter 3 Executive summary\nCommissioner’s Office also has an inspection ro\n Source: `other-pdfs/volume-1-recommendations-and-executive-summary-foundations-and-principles-contro.pages.jsonl`\n- Open Source Center (Web Page,\n8 November 2005) .\n612 Joint Intelligence Organisation, (Web Page), \n613 Investigatory Powers Act 2016 (UK), Part 7.\n614 Mariel Soto Reyes, ‘Scandals and teen drop-off weren’t enough to stop Facebook’s growth’, Business\nInsider, (Web Page, 27 April 2019) .\nPage 250\n\n[page 253]\nVo\n Source: `other-pdfs/volume-1-recommendations-and-executive-summary-foundations-and-principles-contro.pages.jsonl`\n- cularly those conducted by\nLord David Anderson QC, the Royal United Services Institute and the Intelligence\nand Security Committee of Parliament. The authorisation framework for the use of\nintrusive powers by the UK intelligence services is spread between the\nInvestigatory Powers Act 2016, the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000,\nand the Intelligence Services Act 1994. The legislation is supplemented by codes\nof practice.58\n18.33 A major change included in the Investigatory Powers Act 2016 was the\nintroduction of a requirement for both\n Source: `other-pdfs/volume-2-authorisations-immunities-and-electronic-surveillance.pages.jsonl`\n- UK intelligence services is spread between the\nInvestigatory Powers Act 2016, the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000,\nand the Intelligence Services Act 1994. The legislation is supplemented by codes\nof practice.58\n18.33 A major change included in the Investigatory Powers Act 2016 was the\nintroduction of a requirement for both the Secretary of State and a\nJudicial Commissioner to authorise the use of intrusive powers relating to intrusive\nsurveillance,59 interception,60 equipment interference,61 bulk data interception,62 and\nthe retent\n Source: `other-pdfs/volume-2-authorisations-immunities-and-electronic-surveillance.pages.jsonl`\n- Criminal Procedure (US), Rule 41.\n58 These codes of practice are listed online (as of 29 October 2019) at\nhttps://www.gov.uk/government/publications/investigatory-powers-act-2016-codes-of-practice.\n59 Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (UK), s 32.\n60 Investigatory Powers Act 2016 (UK), Part 2 Chapter 1.\n61 Investigatory Powers Act 2016 (UK), Part 5.\n62 Investigatory Powers Act 2016 (UK), Part 6 Chapter 1.\n63 Investigatory Powers Act 2016 (UK), Part 7.\nPage 42\n\n[page 45]\nVolume 2 Chapter 18 Authorisations: Introduction and a double loc\n Source: `other-pdfs/volume-2-authorisations-immunities-and-electronic-surveillance.pages.jsonl`\n\n### Public Service Act 1999\n\n**Type**: Act\n**Confidence**: high\n**Mentions**: 28\n**Register search**: https://www.legislation.sa.gov.au/search?query=Public+Service+Act+1999\n\n**Sources**:\n- `annual-reports/2020-21.pages.jsonl`\n- `annual-reports/2021-22.pages.jsonl`\n- `annual-reports/2022-23.pages.jsonl`\n- `annual-reports/2023-24.pages.jsonl`\n- `annual-reports/2024-25.pages.jsonl`\n- `other-pdfs/volume-1-recommendations-and-executive-summary-foundations-and-principles-contro.pages.jsonl`\n\n**Evidence contexts**:\n- work are performed.\nPerformance pay\nNon-SES employees within AGS may earn or be awarded performance pay in accordance with the\nagreement. SES employees within AGS may earn or be awarded performance pay under a determination\nmade under subsection 24(1) of the Public Service Act 1999. There are 3 types of performance-based\nbonuses:\n• Net production bonus: employees designated as a Lawyer or Paralegal with a fee earning target\nare eligible to receive a bonus equivalent to 20% of the employee’s net production above their net\nproduction targ\n Source: `annual-reports/2020-21.pages.jsonl`\n- e includes all separations for ongoing\nemployees and consists of terminations, redundancies, resignations, retirements and movements to\nanother agency. It does not include machinery-of-government transfers.\nEmployment arrangements of SES and non-SES employees\nThe Public Service Act 1999 employment arrangements for the reporting period 2020–21 are provided in\nthe following table.\nTABLE 34: EMPLOYMENT ARRANGEMENTS OF SES AND NON-SES EMPLOYEES\nEmployment arrangements SES Non-SES Total\nPublic Service Act 1999 ss24(1) Collective Determination SES\n Source: `annual-reports/2020-21.pages.jsonl`\n- es provide information about remuneration for key management personnel, senior\nexecutives and highly paid staff.\nSES remuneration\nRemuneration for SES employees is established through collective and individual determinations made\nunder subsection 24(1) of the Public Service Act 1999. The 2 collective determinations cover SES\nemployees in AGS Group and SES employees in the department’s policy groups and Enabling Services\nGroup, respectively. One SES employee is also covered by an individual subsection 24(1) determination\nthat operates in\n Source: `annual-reports/2020-21.pages.jsonl`\n- • Statistics on employees who identify as\nIndigenous.\n17AG(4)(c) Information on any enterprise agreements, individual Mandatory 67\nflexibility arrangements, Australian workplace\nagreements, common-law contracts and\ndeterminations under subsection 24(1) of the Public\nService Act 1999.\n17AG(4)(c)(i) Information on the number of SES and non-SES Mandatory 183\nemployees covered by agreements identified in\nparagraph 17AG(4)(c).\n17AG(4)(c)(ii) The salary ranges available for APS employees by If applicable, 184\nclassification level. Mandatory\n17\n Source: `annual-reports/2020-21.pages.jsonl`\n- ons Regulations 2019 55\nProtective Security Policy Framework 50\nS\nPublic Governance, Performance and\nAccountability Act 2013 2, 59, 61, 77, 89 Safe Work Australia 3, 9, 33\nPublic Interest Disclosure Act 2013 66 Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988\nPublic Service Act 1999 67 73\ncollective determinations 181, 183 Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation\npurchasing 76 Commission 9\nSeafarers Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation\nR\nAuthority 9\nReconciliation Action Plan Working Group 72\nSecretary 2, 22, 58\nRegistered Organisation\n Source: `annual-reports/2020-21.pages.jsonl`\n\n### Criminal Code Act 1995\n\n**Type**: Act\n**Confidence**: high\n**Mentions**: 26\n**Register search**: https://www.legislation.sa.gov.au/search?query=Criminal+Code+Act+1995\n\n**Sources**:\n- `annual-reports/2020-21.pages.jsonl`\n- `annual-reports/2021-22.pages.jsonl`\n- `annual-reports/2022-23.pages.jsonl`\n- `annual-reports/2023-24.pages.jsonl`\n- `annual-reports/2024-25.pages.jsonl`\n- `other-pdfs/volume-2-authorisations-immunities-and-electronic-surveillance.pages.jsonl`\n- `other-pdfs/volume-3-information-technology-powers-and-oversight.pages.jsonl`\n- `other-pdfs/volume-4-accountability-and-transparency-annexes.pages.jsonl`\n\n**Evidence contexts**:\n- tained high ethical standards for the behaviour of our employees.\nAs part of their acceptance of an offer of employment, new employees sign a statement to acknowledge\nthat they have read and understood the APS Values, Code of Conduct and relevant parts of the\nCriminal Code Act 1995. Our induction program provides clear guidance for new employees in relation to\nthe APS Values, Code of Conduct and Employment Principles.\nThe department participates in the Australian Public Service Commission Ethics Contact Officer Network.\nInformation is a\n Source: `annual-reports/2020-21.pages.jsonl`\n- The department maintains high ethical standards of our employees. As part of their acceptance of an\noffer of employment, new employees sign a statement to acknowledge that they have read and\nunderstood the APS Values, Code of Conduct and relevant parts of the Criminal Code Act 1995. Our\ninduction program provides clear guidance for new employees in relation to the APS Values, Code of\nConduct and Employment Principles.\nThe department participates in the Australian Public Service Commission Ethics Contact Officer Network.\nInformation is a\n Source: `annual-reports/2021-22.pages.jsonl`\n- rapid antigen testing 4\n129, 130\nresponding to 4\ninternational crime cooperation, federal offender,\nworkplace vaccination issues 4\ninternational family law, private international\nCrimes (Appeal and Review) Act 2001 (NSW) 40\nlaw and United Nations human rights\nCriminal Code Act 1995 39\ncommittee communications casework 18–20,\nCulturally and Linguistically Diverse (CALD)\n129, 130\nNetwork 48\nperformance measures 18–20, 129, 130\ncyber security 50\ncash flow statement 65\nCelebrating Ability Network 47\nD\nChidgey, Sarah (Deputy Secretary) 80, 1\n Source: `annual-reports/2021-22.pages.jsonl`\n- The department maintains high ethical standards of our employees. As part of their acceptance of an\noffer of employment, new employees sign a statement to acknowledge that they have read and\nunderstood the APS Values, Code of Conduct and relevant parts of the Criminal Code Act 1995. Our\ninduction program provides clear guidance for new employees in relation to the APS Values, Code of\nConduct and Employment Principles.\nThe department participates in the Australian Public Service Commission Ethics Contact Officer Network.\nInformation is a\n Source: `annual-reports/2022-23.pages.jsonl`\n- rgy-efficiency practices 56\nCrimes and Other Legislation Amendment (Omnibus) Bill Enterprise Agreements 43, 147\n2023 40, 41 entity resource statement 2022–23 127–32\nCrimes (Penalty Unit) Amendment Bill 2002 41 establish and support royal commissions and other\nCriminal Code Act 1995 38 bodies (key activity 5) 5, 12, 14, 34\ncriminal justice and national security legislative reform 4 performance measure 34, 138\nCulturally and Linguistically Diverse (CALD) Network 50 support for the overarching and ongoing purpose of\ncyber security 4, 6, 52\n Source: `annual-reports/2022-23.pages.jsonl`\n\n### Proceeds of Crime Act 2002\n\n**Type**: Act\n**Confidence**: high\n**Mentions**: 25\n**Register search**: https://www.legislation.sa.gov.au/search?query=Proceeds+of+Crime+Act+2002\n\n**Sources**:\n- `annual-reports/2022-23.pages.jsonl`\n- `annual-reports/2023-24.pages.jsonl`\n- `annual-reports/2024-25.pages.jsonl`\n- `other-pdfs/volume-1-recommendations-and-executive-summary-foundations-and-principles-contro.pages.jsonl`\n- `other-pdfs/volume-3-information-technology-powers-and-oversight.pages.jsonl`\n\n**Evidence contexts**:\n- pendix 2: Methodologies.\nThis is the first time the stakeholder survey was used to measure this new target that resulted from\nmachinery of government changes in 2022.\nWe work closely with the Business Grants Hub to administer crime prevention grants under the Proceeds\nof Crime Act 2002. Respondents agreed that we work collaboratively with the Hub on grant program\nadministration. Responses also indicated that we stood out in areas of ‘professionalism, capability and\npreparedness’. One comment indicated that a delay in finalising Grant Opport\n Source: `annual-reports/2022-23.pages.jsonl`\n- 2021–22. The major expenses in 2022–23 are $418.987 million in grant payments and $124.910 million in\nsupplier payments.\nThe total administered revenue for 2022–23 was $40.396 million compared to $235.888 million in 2021–\n22. The major revenue in 2022–23 was Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 receipts of $31.644 million.\n2 AGS operate on a cost recovered basis and do not receive departmental capital budget to fund asset replacement, as such\nthe unfunded depreciation amount of $15.108m is the depreciation expense after excluding AGS depreciation ex\n Source: `annual-reports/2022-23.pages.jsonl`\n- ng Industry (Long Service Leave Funding) - 146,241 -\nTotal taxation revenue - 146,241 -\nNon-taxation revenue\nRevenue from contracts with customers 2,057 2,061 1,914\nInterest - 7 -\nRecoveries - personal benefit recoveries - 35,078 -\nComcare receipts - 50,341 -\nProceeds of Crime Act 2002 (POCA) receipts 31,644 - 34,574\nOther non-taxation revenue 6,695 1,578 -\nTotal non-taxation revenue 40,396 89,065 36,488\nTotal revenue 40,396 235,306 36,488\nGains\nOther gains - 582 -\nTotal gains - 582 -\nTotal Income 40,396 235,888 36,488\nNet (cost of) service\n Source: `annual-reports/2022-23.pages.jsonl`\n- to less\ndemand than expected for the Justice Services program and\nStrengthening Community Safety in Central Australia\nprogram.\nTotal own-source revenue 3,908 The variance is due to higher than anticipated receipts\nadministered on behalf of received under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 which are\nGovernment used to fund crime prevention and law enforcement\nactivities. This function was transferred to the department\nfrom Home Affairs during 2022–23 as a result of the\nmachinery of government change.\nTotal other comprehensive income 13,565 The\n Source: `annual-reports/2022-23.pages.jsonl`\n- an Rights Commission that were not\nbudgeted.\nAdministered Schedule of Assets and Liabilities\nTotal financial assets 31,709 The variance is primarily driven by the budgeted amount\nnot reflecting the increase cash and cash equivalents due\nto the transfer of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 programs\n(POCA) special account from Home Affairs and increase in\ne quity accounted investments in 2022–23.\n77\n\n[page 82]\nAnnual Report 2022–23 14BPart 4: Financial statements\nATTORNEY-GENERAL'S DEPARTMENT\nNOTES TO AND FORMING PART OF THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS\n Source: `annual-reports/2022-23.pages.jsonl`\n\n### Freedom of Information Act 1982\n\n**Type**: Act\n**Confidence**: high\n**Mentions**: 23\n**Register search**: https://www.legislation.sa.gov.au/search?query=Freedom+of+Information+Act+1982\n\n**Sources**:\n- `annual-reports/2020-21.pages.jsonl`\n- `annual-reports/2021-22.pages.jsonl`\n- `annual-reports/2022-23.pages.jsonl`\n- `annual-reports/2023-24.pages.jsonl`\n- `annual-reports/2024-25.pages.jsonl`\n- `other-pdfs/volume-1-recommendations-and-executive-summary-foundations-and-principles-contro.pages.jsonl`\n- `other-pdfs/volume-2-authorisations-immunities-and-electronic-surveillance.pages.jsonl`\n- `other-pdfs/volume-4-accountability-and-transparency-annexes.pages.jsonl`\n\n**Evidence contexts**:\n- ests are\neffectively represented from agency-specific and whole-of-government perspectives.\n5.2.2 Requests for access to royal commission records consist of administrative requests made under the\nRoyal Commissions Regulations 2019, applications made under the Freedom of Information Act 1982 (FOI\nAct) and documents subject to a court subpoena or other compulsory process. To measure timeliness and\nappropriateness of responses to these requests, applications are considered by category, recorded in a\ndatabase and monitored against the relevant timef\n Source: `annual-reports/2020-21.pages.jsonl`\n- contractor’s premises where appropriate.\nDuring 2020–21, the department had 50 contracts in excess of $10,000 to a total value of $13.907 million\nthat were exempt from being reported on AusTender on the basis that they would disclose matters\nexempt under the Freedom of Information Act 1982.\nGrants\nInformation on grants awarded by the department for the period 1 July 2020 to 30 June 2021 is available\non the Australian Government GrantConnect website (www.grants.gov.au).\n78\n\n[page 83]\nAnnual Report 2020–21 Part 3: Management and accountability\nAd\n Source: `annual-reports/2020-21.pages.jsonl`\n- rtiliser.\nThe integration of energy-efficiency practices into our organisation and planning processes allows us to\nreduce our energy costs and decrease the consumption of resources.\nFreedom of information\nInformation Publication Scheme\nEntities subject to the Freedom of Information Act 1982 are required to publish information to the public\nas part of the Information Publication Scheme. This requirement is set out in section 8 of the Act. The\ndepartment’s section 8 statement and a plan showing the information we publish in accordance with the\nSch\n Source: `annual-reports/2020-21.pages.jsonl`\n- dment (Protecting Vulnerable\n51, 64\nWorkers) Act 2017 65\nFraud Control Handbook 62\nFair Work Amendment (Supporting Australia’s Jobs\nfraud prevention and control 50, 62\nand Economic Recovery) Bill 2021 4, 33, 64\nfreedom of information 80\nFair Work Commission 9\nFreedom of Information Act 1982 55, 80\nAnnual Wage Review 33–4\nFair Work Ombudsman 3, 4, 9, 33 G\nfamily and marriage law frameworks gender equality 71\nadministration 29–31 Gender Equality Action Plan 71\nquantitative assessment 29 Gifford, Cameron (Chief Operating Officer, AGD) 8,\nfamily cou\n Source: `annual-reports/2020-21.pages.jsonl`\n- e contractor’s premises where appropriate.\nDuring 2021–22, the department had 46 contracts in excess of $10,000 to a total value of $5,254 million\nthat were exempt from being reported on AusTender on the basis that they would disclose matters\nexempt under the Freedom of Information Act 1982.\nDetails of the new and ongoing reportable non-consultancy contracts entered into in 2021–22 are shown\nin the following tables.\nInformation on the value of reportable non-consultancy contracts is available on the AusTender website\n(www.tenders.gov.au).\nTABLE\n Source: `annual-reports/2021-22.pages.jsonl`\n\n### Fair Entitlements Guarantee Act 2012\n\n**Type**: Act\n**Confidence**: high\n**Mentions**: 19\n**Register search**: https://www.legislation.sa.gov.au/search?query=Fair+Entitlements+Guarantee+Act+2012\n\n**Sources**:\n- `annual-reports/2020-21.pages.jsonl`\n- `annual-reports/2021-22.pages.jsonl`\n- `annual-reports/2022-23.pages.jsonl`\n\n**Evidence contexts**:\n- y. Assessing claims for FEG entitlements involves\nworking with insolvency practitioners and reconstructing employment records. The time it takes to\nfinalise an individual claim depends on a number of issues, including factors outside the department’s\ncontrol. The Fair Entitlements Guarantee Act 2012 makes FEG not payable where a dividend will be\ndeclared within 16 weeks. The 14-week average processing target timeframe reflects an internal priority\nto reduce the overall processing time for claims.\n47\n\n[page 52]\nAnnual Report 2020–21 Part 2: Annual perform\n Source: `annual-reports/2020-21.pages.jsonl`\n- arch 2021)\nThe Administrative Appeals Tribunal accepted that the provision in the Corporations Act 2001 that deems\ntermination of an employee’s employment to have occurred on the ‘relevant date’ was irrelevant to the\nassessment of the redundancy pay under the Fair Entitlements Guarantee Act 2012 (FEG Act) in\ncircumstances where the Fair Work Act 2009 governs redundancy. The Tribunal accordingly found that\nthe small business redundancy provisions in the FEG Act applied. The Tribunal confirmed that this\nconclusion is not affected by the appointment of\n Source: `annual-reports/2020-21.pages.jsonl`\n- .\nWarren v Secretary, Attorney-General’s Department [2021] FCA 89\nThe Federal Court found that casual loadings paid to Mr Warren under his employment agreement could\nnot be used to reduce subsequently claimed annual leave and redundancy entitlements under the\nFair Entitlements Guarantee Act 2012. The Secretary filed a Notice of Appeal to the Full Court of the\nFederal Court on 12 March 2021.\nReports by parliamentary committees\nThe department provided evidence to and appeared before several parliamentary committees.\nJoint Select Committee on Australia’\n Source: `annual-reports/2020-21.pages.jsonl`\n- ncluding legal assistance for witnesses.\nThe total administered revenue for 2020–21 includes $139.610 million in levies collected by the Coal\nMining Industry (Long Service Leave Funding) Corporation and personal benefit recoveries of\n$47.234 million under the Fair Entitlements Guarantee Act 2012.\n84\n\n[page 89]\nAnnual Report 2020–21 Part 4: Financial statements\nINDEPENDENT AUDITOR’S REPORT\nTo the Attorney-General\nIn my opinion, the financial statements of the Attorney-General’s Department (the Entity) for the year ended 30\nJune 2021:\n(a) comply with A\n Source: `annual-reports/2020-21.pages.jsonl`\n- 843\n128\n\n[page 133]\nAnnual Report 2020–21 Part 4: Financial statements\n2021 2020\n$'000 $'000\n5.1C: Personal benefits\nHigh Court Justices (Long Leave Payments) Act 1979 1,104 −\nFormer Solicitor-Generals' pensions - interest cost 79 112\nWitness expenses 180 260\nFair Entitlements Guarantee Act 2012 payments 104,603 175,691\nOther personal benefits 422 473\nTotal personal benefits 106,388 176,536\n5.1D: Grants\nAustralian Government entities (related entities) 51,988 60,348\nState and territory governments 25,460 26,366\nNon-profit organisations 29,822 116,714\n Source: `annual-reports/2020-21.pages.jsonl`\n\n### Surveillance Devices Act 2004\n\n**Type**: Act\n**Confidence**: high\n**Mentions**: 16\n**Register search**: https://www.legislation.sa.gov.au/search?query=Surveillance+Devices+Act+2004\n\n**Sources**:\n- `other-pdfs/volume-1-recommendations-and-executive-summary-foundations-and-principles-contro.pages.jsonl`\n- `other-pdfs/volume-2-authorisations-immunities-and-electronic-surveillance.pages.jsonl`\n- `other-pdfs/volume-3-information-technology-powers-and-oversight.pages.jsonl`\n- `other-pdfs/volume-4-accountability-and-transparency-annexes.pages.jsonl`\n\n**Evidence contexts**:\n- ACIC, AUSTRAC and\nDepartment of Home Affairs, such as the Australian Federal Police Act 1979\nto the extent it relates to the performance of their intelligence functions as\npart of the NIC;\n legislation containing NIC agency investigative powers, such as the\nSurveillance Devices Act 2004 and Telecommunications (Interception and\nAccess) Act 1979;\n the adequacy of national security information handling provisions under the\nNational Security Information Act 2004, including the protection of information\nrelating to counter terrorism and foreign\n Source: `other-pdfs/volume-1-recommendations-and-executive-summary-foundations-and-principles-contro.pages.jsonl`\n- he ASIO Act in 1999.243 In 2014,\nASIO’s computer and data access powers were expanded and modernised,\nincluding to update the definition of ‘computer’, allow for access via third party\ncomputers and to align ASIO’s surveillance device powers with those in the\nSurveillance Devices Act 2004.244 Parliament’s consideration of the Bill was\ninfluenced by its privacy implications, with concerns that the expanded powers\nwould enable ASIO to ‘implant spyware on the computers of innocent people’.245\nLater that year, to ‘prevent further degradation of th\n Source: `other-pdfs/volume-1-recommendations-and-executive-summary-foundations-and-principles-contro.pages.jsonl`\n- n only be exercised for the purpose\nof obtaining evidence in relation to criminal offences, not for the purpose of\nproducing intelligence. For example, the AFP can only obtain search warrants\nunder the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth), or surveillance warrants under the\nSurveillance Devices Act 2004 (Cth) (SD Act), for the purpose of obtaining\nevidence (as opposed to intelligence) in relation to a criminal offence.\n702 ACC Act, s 31.\nPage 270\n\n[page 273]\nVolume 1 Chapter 12 Security intelligence and law enforcement\n12.50 The ACIC represents a hybrid mode\n Source: `other-pdfs/volume-1-recommendations-and-executive-summary-foundations-and-principles-contro.pages.jsonl`\n- ia’s ACIC, the UK has a National Crime Agency responsible for\nstrategic criminal intelligence and investigating some serious and organised crime\ntypes. The National Crime Agency can task UK police partners to assist it in the\nexercise of its functions.710\n703 Surveillance Devices Act 2004 (Cth) (SD Act) s 14; Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act\n1979 (Cth) (TIA Act) ss 46, 46A, 116.\n704 ACC Act, Div 2 of Pt II (examinations), s 22 (search warrants). An ‘intelligence operation’ means an\noperation that is primarily directed towards t\n Source: `other-pdfs/volume-1-recommendations-and-executive-summary-foundations-and-principles-contro.pages.jsonl`\n- CC Act),143 allow warrants to be obtained for intelligence purposes\n(for example, the collection of security, foreign or criminal intelligence). These\nwarrants can be contrasted with warrants in the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth)\n(Crimes Act), and some warrants in the Surveillance Devices Act 2004 (Cth)\n143 For example, search warrants in the Australian Crime Commission Act 2002 (Cth) (ACC Act) may be\nissued for the purposes of an intelligence operation (amongst other criteria), and ASIO warrants in the\nTelecommunications (Interception and Access) Act\n Source: `other-pdfs/volume-2-authorisations-immunities-and-electronic-surveillance.pages.jsonl`\n\n### Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security Act 1986\n\n**Type**: Act\n**Confidence**: high\n**Mentions**: 15\n**Register search**: https://www.legislation.sa.gov.au/search?query=Inspector-General+of+Intelligence+and+Security+Act+1986\n\n**Sources**:\n- `other-pdfs/volume-1-recommendations-and-executive-summary-foundations-and-principles-contro.pages.jsonl`\n- `other-pdfs/volume-2-authorisations-immunities-and-electronic-surveillance.pages.jsonl`\n- `other-pdfs/volume-3-information-technology-powers-and-oversight.pages.jsonl`\n- `other-pdfs/volume-4-accountability-and-transparency-annexes.pages.jsonl`\n\n**Evidence contexts**:\n- cy of national security information handling provisions under the\nNational Security Information Act 2004, including the protection of information\nrelating to counter terrorism and foreign interference prosecutions;\n oversight-related legislation, such as the Inspector-General of Intelligence\nand Security Act 1986 and Independent National Security Legislation Monitor\nAct 2010.\nThe review team will have full access to all material applicable to its examination. Relevant\ndepartments and agencies are to cooperate fully with the review and provide any\nrequested assistance.\n Source: `other-pdfs/volume-1-recommendations-and-executive-summary-foundations-and-principles-contro.pages.jsonl`\n- rk under the Criminal Code. In recent years, the PJCIS has, as a\nmatter of practice, reviewed proposed counter-terrorism and national security\nlegislation, and conducted a number of statutory reviews of laws following their\n42 RCIS, Third Report, para 356.\n43 Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security Act 1986 (Cth) s 8.\n44 Following the passage of the Intelligence Services Act 2001 (Cth).\n45 Intelligence Services Legislation Amendment Act 2005 (Cth).\nPage 98\n\n[page 101]\nVolume 1 Chapter 5 Why a Review?\nimplementation. The 2017 IIR made a number of recommendations\n Source: `other-pdfs/volume-1-recommendations-and-executive-summary-foundations-and-principles-contro.pages.jsonl`\n- protections to carry out their functions.\nInspector-General of Intelligence and Security\nThe Hawke Government welcomed Justice Hope’s recommendation to establish\nan Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security (IGIS), implemented through the\npassage of the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security Act 1986. The\nIGIS’s functions included overseeing agencies’ compliance with the law, ensuring\nthat agencies conducted their activities with legality and propriety, and reviewing\nthe effectiveness and appropriateness of certain procedures and measures\nrelating to empl\n Source: `other-pdfs/volume-1-recommendations-and-executive-summary-foundations-and-principles-contro.pages.jsonl`\n- ing legal advice, or for the purpose of legal\nproceedings, or where information has been published\npreviously.\n488 See, eg, Crimes Act ss 15HM, 15HN, 15HO, 15HR, 15HS, 15HT, 15HU, 15HV, 15HW, 15HX, 15HY.\n489 Crimes Act, s 15HO.\n490 ASIO Act, s 35Q. See, also, Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security Act 1986 (Cth), s 8.\n491 Crimes Act, s 15HK.\n492 ASIO Act, s 35P.\nPage 205\n\n[page 208]\nChapter 24 Immunities Volume 2\nSupporting principles\n24.99 Controlled and special intelligence operations share common features.\nFor example, both adopt an application-based authori\n Source: `other-pdfs/volume-2-authorisations-immunities-and-electronic-surveillance.pages.jsonl`\n- conduct was in the public interest.198\nOverview of specific secrecy offences\n35.32 In addition to the general secrecy offences in the Criminal Code, NIC agencies are\nsubject to a number of specific secrecy offences. Core NIC agency legislation\n(including the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security Act 1986 (Cth)\n(IGIS Act)) contains at least 53 specific secrecy offences.199\n35.33 There are further specific secrecy offences in NIC-related legislation, such as the\nTelecommunications (Interception and Access) Act 1979 (Cth) (TIA Act), the\nSurveillance Devices Act\n Source: `other-pdfs/volume-3-information-technology-powers-and-oversight.pages.jsonl`\n\n### Office of National Intelligence Act 2018\n\n**Type**: Act\n**Confidence**: high\n**Mentions**: 15\n**Register search**: https://www.legislation.sa.gov.au/search?query=Office+of+National+Intelligence+Act+2018\n\n**Sources**:\n- `other-pdfs/volume-1-recommendations-and-executive-summary-foundations-and-principles-contro.pages.jsonl`\n- `other-pdfs/volume-3-information-technology-powers-and-oversight.pages.jsonl`\n- `other-pdfs/volume-4-accountability-and-transparency-annexes.pages.jsonl`\n\n**Evidence contexts**:\n- r instance, in the recently\nestablished taskforce to combat foreign interference, where agencies with\ncomplementary functions, powers and skills have been brought together for a\ncommon purpose.\nCoordination and cooperation\nOffice of National Intelligence\n3.47 The Office of National Intelligence Act 2018 (ONI Act) has established a solid\nfoundation for ONI’s leadership and coordination of the NIC. As it is newly\nestablished, we do not recommend changes, although aspects of the coordination\nmachinery will need to be closely monitored, such as the relationship\n Source: `other-pdfs/volume-1-recommendations-and-executive-summary-foundations-and-principles-contro.pages.jsonl`\n- ity legislation [had been] used for matters unrelated to\ncounter-terrorism or national security’.293\nThe NIC: Establishment and coordination\nBetween 2017 and 2018, legislative and machinery of government changes further\ntransformed the intelligence community. The Office of National Intelligence\nAct 2018 gave effect to Justice Hope’s recommendation that a single agency\nshould ‘assume responsibilities for the leadership and coordination of the\nAustralian intelligence community as a whole’.294 The establishment of\nthe Home Affairs portfolio, and the transfer of\n Source: `other-pdfs/volume-1-recommendations-and-executive-summary-foundations-and-principles-contro.pages.jsonl`\n- ordinated and\nintegrated national intelligence community.306 The 2017 IIR recommended new\nlegislation for ONA to achieve an ‘even higher level of collective performance\nthrough strengthening integration across Australia’s national intelligence\nenterprise’.307\nThe Office of National Intelligence Act 2018 was passed in November 2018 with\nbipartisan support. The Act continued ONA as the Office of National Intelligence in\nthe Prime Minister’s portfolio, and it committed ONI to ‘leading the [national\nintelligence community’s] integration, strategic planning and c\n Source: `other-pdfs/volume-1-recommendations-and-executive-summary-foundations-and-principles-contro.pages.jsonl`\n- 307 2017 IIR, Executive Summary, pg 5.\n308 Commonwealth, Parliamentary Debates, House of Representatives, 28 June 2018 (Christian Porter,\nAttorney-General) pg 6741.\n309 Explanatory Memorandum, Office of National Intelligence Bill 2017, pg 4, para 14 a-g.\n310 Office of National Intelligence Act 2018 (Cth), s 15.\n311 Office of National Intelligence Act 2018 (Cth), ss 17 and 18.\n312 Explanatory Memorandum, Office of National Intelligence Bill 2017, pg 4, para 15.\n313 Office of National Intelligence Act 2018 (Cth), s 19.\nPage 150\n\n[page 153]\nVolume 1 Chapte\n Source: `other-pdfs/volume-1-recommendations-and-executive-summary-foundations-and-principles-contro.pages.jsonl`\n- Parliamentary Debates, House of Representatives, 28 June 2018 (Christian Porter,\nAttorney-General) pg 6741.\n309 Explanatory Memorandum, Office of National Intelligence Bill 2017, pg 4, para 14 a-g.\n310 Office of National Intelligence Act 2018 (Cth), s 15.\n311 Office of National Intelligence Act 2018 (Cth), ss 17 and 18.\n312 Explanatory Memorandum, Office of National Intelligence Bill 2017, pg 4, para 15.\n313 Office of National Intelligence Act 2018 (Cth), s 19.\nPage 150\n\n[page 153]\nVolume 1 Chapter 6 Intelligence legislation in Australia\neach of its Five\n Source: `other-pdfs/volume-1-recommendations-and-executive-summary-foundations-and-principles-contro.pages.jsonl`\n\n### Australian Crime Commission Act 2002\n\n**Type**: Act\n**Confidence**: high\n**Mentions**: 14\n**Register search**: https://www.legislation.sa.gov.au/search?query=Australian+Crime+Commission+Act+2002\n\n**Sources**:\n- `other-pdfs/volume-1-recommendations-and-executive-summary-foundations-and-principles-contro.pages.jsonl`\n- `other-pdfs/volume-2-authorisations-immunities-and-electronic-surveillance.pages.jsonl`\n- `other-pdfs/volume-3-information-technology-powers-and-oversight.pages.jsonl`\n- `other-pdfs/volume-4-accountability-and-transparency-annexes.pages.jsonl`\n\n**Evidence contexts**:\n- elf-incrimination. However, there are protections associated with these\npowers including:\n they can only be used for special operations or special investigations, which\nmust be approved by the Board679\n673 National Crime Authority Act 1984 (Cth) ss 7, 8.\n674 Australian Crime Commission Act 2002 (Cth) (ACC Act) s 7B.\n675 Explanatory Memorandum, Australian Crime Commission Amendment (National Policing Information) Bill\n2015, pg 2.\n676 Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission, Annual Report (2018-19) pg 4.\n677 ACC Act, ss 7A(a), (b).\n678 Senate Stan\n Source: `other-pdfs/volume-1-recommendations-and-executive-summary-foundations-and-principles-contro.pages.jsonl`\n- provisions are articulated in the Office of Parliamentary Counsel’s Drafting Direction\nNo. 3.6 Commonwealth bodies (May 2019), pg 35.\n778 Intelligence Services Act 2001 (Cth) (IS Act) ss 23, 27H; Office of National Intelligence Act 2018 (Cth)\n(ONI Act) s 31; Australian Crime Commission Act 2002 (Cth) (ACC Act) s 44.\nPage 283\n\n[page 286]\nChapter 13 Statutory authorities and the National Intelligence Community Volume 1\nconsiders that, in assessing whether an agency should be established as a\nstatutory authority, the following factors must be considere\n Source: `other-pdfs/volume-1-recommendations-and-executive-summary-foundations-and-principles-contro.pages.jsonl`\n- mple, the collection of security, foreign or criminal intelligence). These\nwarrants can be contrasted with warrants in the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth)\n(Crimes Act), and some warrants in the Surveillance Devices Act 2004 (Cth)\n143 For example, search warrants in the Australian Crime Commission Act 2002 (Cth) (ACC Act) may be\nissued for the purposes of an intelligence operation (amongst other criteria), and ASIO warrants in the\nTelecommunications (Interception and Access) Act 1979 (Cth) (TIA Act) are issued in relation to the\ncollection of intelligence (amon\n Source: `other-pdfs/volume-2-authorisations-immunities-and-electronic-surveillance.pages.jsonl`\n- ies are not inconsistent with this principle.\n21.3 As with our discussion of warrant thresholds and durations in Chapter 19, warrants\nand ministerial authorisations, we have not considered the application of these\nprinciples to authorisation provisions in the Australian Crime Commission Act 2002\n(Cth) or Crimes Act 1914 (Cth). Although both are within the Review’s Terms of\nReference, we recognise their considerably broader application in the\nlaw enforcement context. Public submissions have not raised any concerns in\nrelation to these provisions, and\n Source: `other-pdfs/volume-2-authorisations-immunities-and-electronic-surveillance.pages.jsonl`\n- 001 (Cth)\n(IS Act), ss 6(1)(b), (d), (da), 6B(1)(d), (f), 7(1)(b), (f), 11(2AA), 39(1)(c), (2)-(3), 39A(1)(c), (2)-(3), 40(1)(c),\n(2)-(3), 40B(1)(c), (2)-(3); Office of National Intelligence Act 2018 (Cth) (ONI Act), ss 7(1)(e)-(g), 38, 39,\n42(1)(c), (2)-(3); Australian Crime Commission Act 2002 (Cth) (ACC Act), ss 7A(a), (fa), 51(2), (4),\n59AA-59AC; Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Act 2006 (Cth) (AML/CTF Act), ss\n121(3), 125-133C; Australian Federal Police Act 1979 (Cth) (AFP Act), ss 8(bf)-(bh), 60A(2)(c)-(f), (2A)-(2D);\nAustr\n Source: `other-pdfs/volume-3-information-technology-powers-and-oversight.pages.jsonl`\n\n### Public Interest Disclosure Act 2013\n\n**Type**: Act\n**Confidence**: high\n**Mentions**: 14\n**Register search**: https://www.legislation.sa.gov.au/search?query=Public+Interest+Disclosure+Act+2013\n\n**Sources**:\n- `annual-reports/2020-21.pages.jsonl`\n- `annual-reports/2022-23.pages.jsonl`\n- `other-pdfs/volume-1-recommendations-and-executive-summary-foundations-and-principles-contro.pages.jsonl`\n- `other-pdfs/volume-3-information-technology-powers-and-oversight.pages.jsonl`\n- `other-pdfs/volume-4-accountability-and-transparency-annexes.pages.jsonl`\n\n**Evidence contexts**:\n- reeing or agreeing in principle to all of the recommendations. Accordingly, the\ndepartment has expanded its consideration of whether relevant legislation adequately protects\npublic-interest journalism. The committee also made 3 recommendations relating to the Public Interest\nDisclosure Act 2013 (PID Act). The government accepted all 3 recommendations and has implemented 1\nrecommendation by releasing the government response to the 2016 independent review of the PID Act\nundertaken by Mr Philip Moss AM on 16 December 2020. The department is considering\n Source: `annual-reports/2020-21.pages.jsonl`\n- verarching and ongoing support 55\nOrders – What You Need to Know guide 30 Royal Commissions Regulations 2019 55\nProtective Security Policy Framework 50\nS\nPublic Governance, Performance and\nAccountability Act 2013 2, 59, 61, 77, 89 Safe Work Australia 3, 9, 33\nPublic Interest Disclosure Act 2013 66 Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988\nPublic Service Act 1999 67 73\ncollective determinations 181, 183 Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation\npurchasing 76 Commission 9\nSeafarers Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation\nR\nAuthority 9\nReconciliat\n Source: `annual-reports/2020-21.pages.jsonl`\n- ed strong legal and policy advice to lead a whole-of-government approach to prepare\nfor the commencement of the commission. We produced education and awareness-raising materials and\nconducted over 50 presentations.\nWe also delivered priority amendments to the Public Interest Disclosure Act 2013 that implements the\nfirst stage of a whistleblowing framework for the public sector. Improvements to the scheme were in\nplace when the National Anti-Corruption Commission commenced on 1 July 2023 to ensure a cohesive,\neffective policy implementation.\nWe suppo\n Source: `annual-reports/2022-23.pages.jsonl`\n- ance, Performance and Accountability Act Shifting our mindset (workforce strategy) 46\n2013 1, 11, 35, 36, 37, 54, 61 significant achievements 3–6\nPublic Governance, Per\n\n_…truncated, open the .md file for the full content._", "global_initiatives_md": "# Global Ideas Input - Attorney-General's Department\n\nUse the source text files in this folder to produce implementable ideas for Australia.\n\nFor each idea, separate:\n- large structural reforms\n- small/cheap operational changes\n- overseas case-study evidence\n- university/research support\n- consulting/association trend support\n- implementation steps in the Australian context\n- risks, prerequisites, and likely owner\n\n## Sources\n\n- [association] World Bank Governance Global Practice - https://www.worldbank.org/en/topic/governance - `source-text/association-worldbank.org-governance.txt`\n- [consulting] Deloitte Government and Public Services - https://www.deloitte.com/global/en/Industries/government-public.html - `source-text/consulting-deloitte.com-government-public.txt`\n- [university] Harvard Kennedy School Ash Center - https://ash.harvard.edu/ - `source-text/university-ash.harvard.edu-Harvard-Kennedy-School-Ash-Center.txt`", "strategy": { "reporting_period": "2024-25", "corporate_plan_period": "2025-26", "vision": "null", "vision_source_page": null, "purposes": "Achieve a just and secure society through the maintenance and improvement of Australia’s law, justice, security and integrity frameworks. [CP p.8]", "purposes_source_page": 8, "how_we_deliver": "We deliver high-quality legal services, provide high-quality policy advice and oversee the efficient and effective provision of legal services to the Australian Government and its entities. [AR p.12]", "how_we_deliver_source_page": 12, "government_priorities": [ { "text": "Supporting the transition to a new Attorney-General", "source_page": 2 }, { "text": "Implementing Machinery of Government changes", "source_page": 2 }, { "text": "Our commitment to Reconciliation and improving First Nations representation", "source_page": 3 }, { "text": "Investing in the responsible use of Artificial Intelligence (AI)", "source_page": 3 }, { "text": "Improving Australia’s law justice, security and integrity frameworks", "source_page": 4 } ], "outcomes": [ { "name": "Outcome 1: A just and secure society", "description": "Through the maintenance and improvement of Australia’s law, justice, security and integrity frameworks.", "key_activities": [ "Provide legal services and policy advice and oversee legal services across government", "Manage casework", "Administer and advise on legal and policy frameworks", "Administer and implement programs and services" ], "source_page": 8 } ], "values": [ "integrity", "accountability", "respect", "collaboration", "innovation" ], "values_framework_name": "null", "kpi_targets_2025_26": [ { "code": "CCE01", "measure": "Overall client satisfaction", "target": "80%", "source_page": 28 }, { "code": "CCE02", "measure": "Average performance rating from stakeholders", "target": "78 index points", "source_page": 27 }, { "code": "CCE03", "measure": "AGS Net Production", "target": "103%", "source_page": 28 }, { "code": "CCE04", "measure": "Average performance rating from stakeholders", "target": "78 index points", "source_page": 29 }, { "code": "CCE05", "measure": "Minimum of casework matters finalised", "target": "1,745", "source_page": 29 }, { "code": "CCE06", "measure": "Percentage of extradition legal proceedings heard and determined", "target": "80%", "source_page": 29 }, { "code": "CCE07", "measure": "Average performance rating from stakeholders", "target": "78 index points", "source_page": 31 }, { "code": "CCE08", "measure": "Percentage of assessed policy advice to the Minister rated as effective", "target": "100%", "source_page": 31 } ], "kpi_results_2024_25": [ { "code": "CCE01", "measure": "Overall client satisfaction", "result": "80%", "status": "Achieved", "source_page": 28 }, { "code": "CCE02", "measure": "Average performance rating from stakeholders", "result": "79 index points", "status": "Partly achieved", "source_page": 27 }, { "code": "CCE03", "measure": "AGS Net Production", "result": "104%", "status": "Achieved", "source_page": 28 }, { "code": "CCE04", "measure": "Average performance rating from stakeholders", "result": "76 index points", "status": "Not achieved", "source_page": 29 }, { "code": "CCE05", "measure": "Minimum of casework matters finalised", "result": "2,310", "status": "Achieved", "source_page": 29 }, { "code": "CCE06", "measure": "Percentage of extradition legal proceedings heard and determined", "result": "87.5%", "status": "Achieved", "source_page": 29 }, { "code": "CCE07", "measure": "Average performance rating from stakeholders", "result": "78 index points", "status": "Partly achieved", "source_page": 31 }, { "code": "CCE08", "measure": "Percentage of assessed policy advice to the Minister rated as effective", "result": "100%", "status": "Achieved", "source_page": 31 } ], "_source_urls": { "annual_report_url": "", "corporate_plan_url": "" } }, "ideas": [ { "entity_id": "S-SA-001", "entity_name": "Attorney-General's Department", "folder_name": "Attorney-General-s-Department", "category": "Data & Performance", "scale": "small", "title": "KPI evidence register with named owners", "idea": "Create a simple register mapping each KPI to source data, owner, frequency, target, and last result.", "quote": "[Page 150]\n146 Annual\nReport\n2023–24\nAppendix\n2:\nMethodologies\nTABLE 16: PERFORMANCE MEASURES AND SURVEY RESULTS FOR EFFECTIVENESS AND EFFICIENCY\nKey activity Performance measure 2024 Effectiveness Efficiency Number Response\ntarget result result of rate 1\nresponses\n1: Provide legal services and Performance measure 1.2: International law and policy advice 77ip 82ip 76ip 118 22%\npolicy advice and oversee legal\nservices across government\nPerformance measure 1.3: Constitutional policy and related 77ip 68ip 64ip 58 26%\npublic law advice\nPerformance measure 1.5: Manage significant legal issues and 77ip 73ip N/A 63 23%\narrangements for Australian Government Legal Services 2\n2: Manage casework Performance measure 2.1: International crime cooperation, 77ip 76ip 69ip 225 25%\nfederal offender, international family law and private\ninternational law casework", "impact": "High", "effort": "Low", "proof": "Evidence-backed", "beneficiaries": "Executives / Parliament / public", "source": "annual-reports/2023-24.pdf", "implementation": [ "Pick one high-volume process or document family.", "Name an owner and baseline current volume, time, cost, and satisfaction.", "Run a 4-8 week pilot with clear before/after metrics.", "Publish lessons and decide whether to scale." ], "risks": [ "Privacy and data quality", "Change fatigue", "Unclear accountability" ] }, { "entity_id": "S-SA-001", "entity_name": "Attorney-General's Department", "folder_name": "Attorney-General-s-Department", "category": "Data & Performance", "scale": "large", "title": "Outcome dashboard linking budget, delivery, and public impact", "idea": "Build a public-facing outcome dashboard showing spend, outputs, outcomes, and delivery confidence.", "quote": "[Page 150]\n146 Annual\nReport\n2023–24\nAppendix\n2:\nMethodologies\nTABLE 16: PERFORMANCE MEASURES AND SURVEY RESULTS FOR EFFECTIVENESS AND EFFICIENCY\nKey activity Performance measure 2024 Effectiveness Efficiency Number Response\ntarget result result of rate 1\nresponses\n1: Provide legal services and Performance measure 1.2: International law and policy advice 77ip 82ip 76ip 118 22%\npolicy advice and oversee legal\nservices across government\nPerformance measure 1.3: Constitutional policy and related 77ip 68ip 64ip 58 26%\npublic law advice\nPerformance measure 1.5: Manage significant legal issues and 77ip 73ip N/A 63 23%\narrangements for Australian Government Legal Services 2\n2: Manage casework Performance measure 2.1: International crime cooperation, 77ip 76ip 69ip 225 25%\nfederal offender, international family law and private\ninternational law casework", "impact": "Very High", "effort": "High", "proof": "Evidence-backed", "beneficiaries": "Executives / Parliament / public", "source": "annual-reports/2023-24.pdf", "implementation": [ "Create a senior responsible owner and cross-functional delivery team.", "Map legislation, data, privacy, procurement, cyber, and workforce constraints.", "Co-design with users and frontline staff before technology selection.", "Stage delivery through pilots, benefits tracking, and public reporting." ], "risks": [ "Privacy and data quality", "Change fatigue", "Unclear accountability" ] }, { "entity_id": "S-SA-001", "entity_name": "Attorney-General's Department", "folder_name": "Attorney-General-s-Department", "category": "Citizen Services", "scale": "small", "title": "Plain-language service pages and proactive status updates", "idea": "Rewrite high-volume pages and letters into plain language, add status notifications, and measure contact reduction.", "quote": "Portfolio Budget Corporate Plan Annual Report\nStatements 2022–26 2022–23\nOutcomes Purposes Performance\nmeasures and targets\nPrograms: Key activities:\nPrograms Key activities:\n1.1 Operating Expenses 1 Provide legal services :\n1, 2, 3, 4, 5\n– Legal Services and and policy advice and\n1.1\nFamilies oversee legal services 1, 2, 3, 4\n1.2 Operating Expenses across government 1.2\n1\n– National Security 2 Manage casework 1.3\nand International 3 Administer and advise 4\n1.3 Australian on legal and policy 1.4 4\nGovernment frameworks 1.5\n4\nSolicitor 4 Administer and\n1.6\n1.4 Justice Services implement programs 5\n1.5 Family Relationships and services 1.7\n1.6 Criminal Justice 5 Establish and support\n1.7 Royal Commissions royal commissions and\nother bodies\nAchieve a just and secure society through the maintenance and improvement of\nAustralia’s law, justice and integrity frameworks", "impact": "High", "effort": "Low", "proof": "Evidence-backed", "beneficiaries": "Citizens / service users", "source": "annual-reports/2022-23.pdf", "implementation": [ "Pick one high-volume process or document family.", "Name an owner and baseline current volume, time, cost, and satisfaction.", "Run a 4-8 week pilot with clear before/after metrics.", "Publish lessons and decide whether to scale." ], "risks": [ "Privacy and data quality", "Change fatigue", "Unclear accountability", "Digital exclusion", "Low public trust if feedback is not acted on" ] }, { "entity_id": "S-SA-001", "entity_name": "Attorney-General's Department", "folder_name": "Attorney-General-s-Department", "category": "Citizen Services", "scale": "large", "title": "Single front door for life-event based services", "idea": "Bundle services around life events so citizens can complete related steps across agencies in one journey.", "quote": "Portfolio Budget Corporate Plan Annual Report\nStatements 2022–26 2022–23\nOutcomes Purposes Performance\nmeasures and targets\nPrograms: Key activities:\nPrograms Key activities:\n1.1 Operating Expenses 1 Provide legal services :\n1, 2, 3, 4, 5\n– Legal Services and and policy advice and\n1.1\nFamilies oversee legal services 1, 2, 3, 4\n1.2 Operating Expenses across government 1.2\n1\n– National Security 2 Manage casework 1.3\nand International 3 Administer and advise 4\n1.3 Australian on legal and policy 1.4 4\nGovernment frameworks 1.5\n4\nSolicitor 4 Administer and\n1.6\n1.4 Justice Services implement programs 5\n1.5 Family Relationships and services 1.7\n1.6 Criminal Justice 5 Establish and support\n1.7 Royal Commissions royal commissions and\nother bodies\nAchieve a just and secure society through the maintenance and improvement of\nAustralia’s law, justice and integrity frameworks", "impact": "Very High", "effort": "High", "proof": "Evidence-backed", "beneficiaries": "Citizens / service users", "source": "annual-reports/2022-23.pdf", "implementation": [ "Create a senior responsible owner and cross-functional delivery team.", "Map legislation, data, privacy, procurement, cyber, and workforce constraints.", "Co-design with users and frontline staff before technology selection.", "Stage delivery through pilots, benefits tracking, and public reporting." ], "risks": [ "Privacy and data quality", "Change fatigue", "Unclear accountability", "Digital exclusion", "Low public trust if feedback is not acted on" ] }, { "entity_id": "S-SA-001", "entity_name": "Attorney-General's Department", "folder_name": "Attorney-General-s-Department", "category": "Staff Productivity", "scale": "small", "title": "Reusable briefing and summary assistant for internal documents", "idea": "Create controlled templates for summarising reports, submissions, minutes, and ministerial briefs.", "quote": "Our Key Activities\nKey Activity 1 Key Activity 2 Key Activity 3 Key Activity 4\nProvide legal services Manage casework Administer and advise Administer and\nand policy advice and on legal policy and implement programs\noversee legal services frameworks and services\nacross government\n1.1 AGS legal services 2.1 International crime 3.1 Administration of 4.1 Legal assistance\ncooperation, federal legal and policy\n1.2 International law offender international law frameworks for which the 4.2 Family Relationship\nand policy advice casework department is responsible Services Program\n1.3 Constitutional policy 4.3 Building counter-fraud\nand related public law capability across\nadvice government\n1.4 Operation of AGS 4.4 Administration of the\nForeign Influence\n1.5 Manage significant Transparency Scheme,\nlegal issues and Lobbying Code of Conduct\narrangements for and Modern Slavery", "impact": "High", "effort": "Low", "proof": "Evidence-backed", "beneficiaries": "APS staff / executives", "source": "annual-reports/2024-25.pdf", "implementation": [ "Pick one high-volume process or document family.", "Name an owner and baseline current volume, time, cost, and satisfaction.", "Run a 4-8 week pilot with clear before/after metrics.", "Publish lessons and decide whether to scale." ], "risks": [ "Privacy and data quality", "Change fatigue", "Unclear accountability", "Sensitive information leakage", "Inconsistent quality of generated drafts" ] }, { "entity_id": "S-SA-001", "entity_name": "Attorney-General's Department", "folder_name": "Attorney-General-s-Department", "category": "Staff Productivity", "scale": "large", "title": "Department-wide knowledge and briefing platform", "idea": "Build a secure knowledge platform that lets staff search, summarise, and cite approved departmental material.", "quote": "Our Key Activities\nKey Activity 1 Key Activity 2 Key Activity 3 Key Activity 4\nProvide legal services Manage casework Administer and advise Administer and\nand policy advice and on legal policy and implement programs\noversee legal services frameworks and services\nacross government\n1.1 AGS legal services 2.1 International crime 3.1 Administration of 4.1 Legal assistance\ncooperation, federal legal and policy\n1.2 International law offender international law frameworks for which the 4.2 Family Relationship\nand policy advice casework department is responsible Services Program\n1.3 Constitutional policy 4.3 Building counter-fraud\nand related public law capability across\nadvice government\n1.4 Operation of AGS 4.4 Administration of the\nForeign Influence\n1.5 Manage significant Transparency Scheme,\nlegal issues and Lobbying Code of Conduct\narrangements for and Modern Slavery", "impact": "Very High", "effort": "High", "proof": "Evidence-backed", "beneficiaries": "APS staff / executives", "source": "annual-reports/2024-25.pdf", "implementation": [ "Create a senior responsible owner and cross-functional delivery team.", "Map legislation, data, privacy, procurement, cyber, and workforce constraints.", "Co-design with users and frontline staff before technology selection.", "Stage delivery through pilots, benefits tracking, and public reporting." ], "risks": [ "Privacy and data quality", "Change fatigue", "Unclear accountability", "Sensitive information leakage", "Inconsistent quality of generated drafts" ] }, { "entity_id": "S-SA-001", "entity_name": "Attorney-General's Department", "folder_name": "Attorney-General-s-Department", "category": "Regulation & Policy", "scale": "small", "title": "Regulatory burden scan for forms, guidance, and reporting", "idea": "Identify the top 10 highest-friction reporting obligations and simplify guidance, forms, or evidence requirements.", "quote": "Our Key Activities\nKey Activity 1 Key Activity 2 Key Activity 3 Key Activity 4\nProvide legal services Manage casework Administer and advise Administer and\nand policy advice and on legal policy and implement programs\noversee legal services frameworks and services\nacross government\n1.1 AGS legal services 2.1 International crime 3.1 Administration of 4.1 Legal assistance\ncooperation, federal legal and policy\n1.2 International law offender international law frameworks for which the 4.2 Family Relationship\nand policy advice casework department is responsible Services Program\n1.3 Constitutional policy 4.3 Building counter-fraud\nand related public law capability across\nadvice government\n1.4 Operation of AGS 4.4 Administration of the\nForeign Influence\n1.5 Manage significant Transparency Scheme,\nlegal issues and Lobbying Code of Conduct\narrangements for and Modern Slavery", "impact": "High", "effort": "Low", "proof": "Evidence-backed", "beneficiaries": "Regulated entities / policy teams", "source": "annual-reports/2024-25.pdf", "implementation": [ "Pick one high-volume process or document family.", "Name an owner and baseline current volume, time, cost, and satisfaction.", "Run a 4-8 week pilot with clear before/after metrics.", "Publish lessons and decide whether to scale." ], "risks": [ "Privacy and data quality", "Change fatigue", "Unclear accountability", "Regulatory capture", "Over-automation of judgement" ] }, { "entity_id": "S-SA-001", "entity_name": "Attorney-General's Department", "folder_name": "Attorney-General-s-Department", "category": "Regulation & Policy", "scale": "large", "title": "Adaptive regulation program with live feedback loops", "idea": "Create an adaptive regulation model using sandboxes, industry data, risk scoring, and regular rule updates.", "quote": "Our Key Activities\nKey Activity 1 Key Activity 2 Key Activity 3 Key Activity 4\nProvide legal services Manage casework Administer and advise Administer and\nand policy advice and on legal policy and implement programs\noversee legal services frameworks and services\nacross government\n1.1 AGS legal services 2.1 International crime 3.1 Administration of 4.1 Legal assistance\ncooperation, federal legal and policy\n1.2 International law offender international law frameworks for which the 4.2 Family Relationship\nand policy advice casework department is responsible Services Program\n1.3 Constitutional policy 4.3 Building counter-fraud\nand related public law capability across\nadvice government\n1.4 Operation of AGS 4.4 Administration of the\nForeign Influence\n1.5 Manage significant Transparency Scheme,\nlegal issues and Lobbying Code of Conduct\narrangements for and Modern Slavery", "impact": "Very High", "effort": "High", "proof": "Evidence-backed", "beneficiaries": "Regulated entities / policy teams", "source": "annual-reports/2024-25.pdf", "implementation": [ "Create a senior responsible owner and cross-functional delivery team.", "Map legislation, data, privacy, procurement, cyber, and workforce constraints.", "Co-design with users and frontline staff before technology selection.", "Stage delivery through pilots, benefits tracking, and public reporting." ], "risks": [ "Privacy and data quality", "Change fatigue", "Unclear accountability", "Regulatory capture", "Over-automation of judgement" ] }, { "entity_id": "S-SA-001", "entity_name": "Attorney-General's Department", "folder_name": "Attorney-General-s-Department", "category": "Risk & Assurance", "scale": "small", "title": "Recommendation tracker for audits, reviews, and inquiries", "idea": "Publish a single internal tracker for audit/review recommendations, owners, due dates, and implementation evidence.", "quote": "The department’s independent Audit and Risk Management Committee oversaw the\ndepartment’s implementation of the ANAO recommendations and agreed in August 2021 that the\nrecommendations had been addressed and completed.", "impact": "High", "effort": "Low", "proof": "Evidence-backed", "beneficiaries": "Executives / assurance teams", "source": "annual-reports/2021-22.pdf", "implementation": [ "Pick one high-volume process or document family.", "Name an owner and baseline current volume, time, cost, and satisfaction.", "Run a 4-8 week pilot with clear before/after metrics.", "Publish lessons and decide whether to scale." ], "risks": [ "Privacy and data quality", "Change fatigue", "Unclear accountability", "Regulatory capture", "Over-automation of judgement" ] }, { "entity_id": "S-SA-001", "entity_name": "Attorney-General's Department", "folder_name": "Attorney-General-s-Department", "category": "Risk & Assurance", "scale": "large", "title": "Integrated assurance and lessons-learned system", "idea": "Create an assurance system that connects audit findings, risk registers, delivery reviews, and investment decisions.", "quote": "The department’s independent Audit and Risk Management Committee oversaw the\ndepartment’s implementation of the ANAO recommendations and agreed in August 2021 that the\nrecommendations had been addressed and completed.", "impact": "Very High", "effort": "High", "proof": "Evidence-backed", "beneficiaries": "Executives / assurance teams", "source": "annual-reports/2021-22.pdf", "implementation": [ "Create a senior responsible owner and cross-functional delivery team.", "Map legislation, data, privacy, procurement, cyber, and workforce constraints.", "Co-design with users and frontline staff before technology selection.", "Stage delivery through pilots, benefits tracking, and public reporting." ], "risks": [ "Privacy and data quality", "Change fatigue", "Unclear accountability", "Regulatory capture", "Over-automation of judgement" ] }, { "entity_id": "S-SA-001", "entity_name": "Attorney-General's Department", "folder_name": "Attorney-General-s-Department", "category": "Citizen Participation", "scale": "small", "title": "Consultation feedback summaries with response tracking", "idea": "Summarise consultation submissions by theme and publish what changed in response.", "quote": "Performance targets Result\n4.7.1 Stakeholder and client satisfaction greater than 80% in relation to: ACHIEVED\n• effectiveness (expertise and quality of relationship)\n• efficiency (timeliness and responsiveness)\n4.7.2 Qualitative analysis shows that the department’s engagement in the Pacific has ACHIEVED\ncontributed to improved Pacific capacity to address and collaborate on law and justice\nissues\nSource\nPortfolio Budget Statements 2020–21, Outcome 1, Program 1.2, page 33\nCorporate Plan 2020–24, page 41\n4.7.1 In response to questions related to this target in the department’s stakeholder survey, 100% of\nrespondents rated our effectiveness and efficiency positively.", "impact": "High", "effort": "Low", "proof": "Evidence-backed", "beneficiaries": "Citizens / stakeholders / policy teams", "source": "annual-reports/2020-21.pdf", "implementation": [ "Pick one high-volume process or document family.", "Name an owner and baseline current volume, time, cost, and satisfaction.", "Run a 4-8 week pilot with clear before/after metrics.", "Publish lessons and decide whether to scale." ], "risks": [ "Privacy and data quality", "Change fatigue", "Unclear accountability", "Digital exclusion", "Low public trust if feedback is not acted on" ] }, { "entity_id": "S-SA-001", "entity_name": "Attorney-General's Department", "folder_name": "Attorney-General-s-Department", "category": "Citizen Participation", "scale": "large", "title": "Always-on policy participation platform", "idea": "Create a standing participation platform where citizens and stakeholders can propose, vote, and track ideas.", "quote": "Performance targets Result\n4.7.1 Stakeholder and client satisfaction greater than 80% in relation to: ACHIEVED\n• effectiveness (expertise and quality of relationship)\n• efficiency (timeliness and responsiveness)\n4.7.2 Qualitative analysis shows that the department’s engagement in the Pacific has ACHIEVED\ncontributed to improved Pacific capacity to address and collaborate on law and justice\nissues\nSource\nPortfolio Budget Statements 2020–21, Outcome 1, Program 1.2, page 33\nCorporate Plan 2020–24, page 41\n4.7.1 In response to questions related to this target in the department’s stakeholder survey, 100% of\nrespondents rated our effectiveness and efficiency positively.", "impact": "Very High", "effort": "High", "proof": "Evidence-backed", "beneficiaries": "Citizens / stakeholders / policy teams", "source": "annual-reports/2020-21.pdf", "implementation": [ "Create a senior responsible owner and cross-functional delivery team.", "Map legislation, data, privacy, procurement, cyber, and workforce constraints.", "Co-design with users and frontline staff before technology selection.", "Stage delivery through pilots, benefits tracking, and public reporting." ], "risks": [ "Privacy and data quality", "Change fatigue", "Unclear accountability", "Digital exclusion", "Low public trust if feedback is not acted on" ] } ], "legislation_administered": [], "artifacts": [ { "category": "annual-reports", "year": null, "url": null, "file": "annual-reports/2020-21.pdf", "bytes": 2691056, "link_text": "" }, { "category": "annual-reports", "year": null, "url": null, "file": "annual-reports/2021-22.pdf", "bytes": 5341990, "link_text": "" }, { "category": "annual-reports", "year": null, "url": null, "file": "annual-reports/2022-23.pdf", "bytes": 7298594, "link_text": "" }, { "category": "annual-reports", "year": null, "url": null, "file": "annual-reports/2023-24.pdf", "bytes": 4947356, "link_text": "" }, { "category": "annual-reports", "year": null, "url": null, "file": "annual-reports/2024-25.pdf", "bytes": 3533747, "link_text": "" }, { "category": "other-pdfs", "year": null, "url": null, "file": "other-pdfs/Multicultural-Access-and-Equity-Plan-2017-18.pdf", "bytes": 3198956, "link_text": "" }, { "category": "other-pdfs", "year": null, "url": null, "file": "other-pdfs/volume-1-recommendations-and-executive-summary-foundations-and-principles-contro.pdf", "bytes": 3288023, "link_text": "" }, { "category": "other-pdfs", "year": null, "url": null, "file": "other-pdfs/volume-2-authorisations-immunities-and-electronic-surveillance.pdf", "bytes": 6379196, "link_text": "" }, { "category": "other-pdfs", "year": null, "url": null, "file": "other-pdfs/volume-3-information-technology-powers-and-oversight.pdf", "bytes": 2413050, "link_text": "" }, { "category": "other-pdfs", "year": null, "url": null, "file": "other-pdfs/volume-4-accountability-and-transparency-annexes.pdf", "bytes": 1659557, "link_text": "" }, { "category": "reviews", "year": null, "url": null, "file": "reviews/Government-response-to-the-Comprehensive-Review-of-the-Legal-Framework-of-the-Na.pdf", "bytes": 1134841, "link_text": "" } ], "_meta": { "snapshot_built_at": "2026-05-13T11:02:36+00:00", "strategy_brief_meta": { "model": "nova-micro", "folder": "Attorney-General-s-Department", "annual_report": { "file": "annual-reports\\2024-25.txt", "url": null, "year": "2024-25" }, "corporate_plan": { "file": null, "url": "", "year": null }, "usage": { "input_tokens": 23894, "output_tokens": 1296, "total_tokens": 25190, "model": "nova-micro" }, "cost_usd": 0.0010177300000000001, "elapsed_seconds": 6.96, "generated_at": "2026-05-13T03:57:11+00:00" }, "ideas_manifest": { "entity_id": "S-SA-001", "entity_name": "Attorney-General's Department", "folder_name": "Attorney-General-s-Department", "generated_at": "2026-05-09T23:06:26.966862+00:00", "idea_count": 12, "markdown": "ideas/Attorney-General-s-Department_ideas.md", "jsonl": "ideas/ideas.jsonl", "inputs": [ "Attorney-General-s-Department_strategy-overview.md", "strategy-evidence.json", "global-intelligence/source-manifest.json" ] }, "global_intel_meta": null } }