Achieve a just and secure society through the maintenance and improvement of Australia’s law, justice, security and integrity frameworks.

Summary

Stakeholder and client satisfaction

Stakeholder and client satisfaction with:

• the effectiveness and quality of our policy advice and legal services (Strategic Priority Legal)
• the effectiveness and quality of our legal services (Strategic Priority Integrity)
• the effectiveness of our delivery of national security and criminal justice legislation (Strategic Priority Security)
• the effectiveness in maintaining the Commonwealth justice system (Strategic Priority Justice)
• the effectiveness in enabling a free society (Strategic Priority Rights).

Strategic priorities and key activities

• Strategic priorities Legal, Integrity, Security, Justice and Rights
• Key activities: Effective engagement with stakeholders is an essential part of all of the key activities listed in our corporate plan.

Source

• Corporate Plan 2019–23, pp. 7, 11, 13, 15 and 17
• Portfolio Budget Statements 2019–20, Programs 1.1–1.7, pp. 28–32

Target and performance result

• Satisfaction rating greater than 80 per cent:
  • Achieved – 93 per cent (Legal)
  • Achieved – 88 per cent (Integrity)
  • Achieved – 81 per cent (Security)
  • Not achieved – 74 per cent (Justice)
  • Not achieved – 65 per cent (Rights).

Not all priority areas met the 80 per cent target. However, three areas exceeded the target and overall satisfaction with the effectiveness of the department in the conduct of its business was 87.4 per cent.

Rationale

Partnering with other government and non-government organisations, industry, business, community groups and other stakeholders domestically and internationally is an important part of what we do and a key to our success. We use an annual stakeholder survey to help us identify the levels of satisfaction our stakeholders have with work across the department. The survey garners insights about stakeholder perceptions of our effectiveness in achieving our objectives and how efficiently we conduct our business. The survey is conducted by an independent consultant.

In our corporate plan, we have ten performance measures that rely on the stakeholder survey. These measures evaluate the department’s effectiveness under five of our six strategic priorities (Legal, Integrity, Security, Justice and Rights). The Australian Government Solicitor Group conducted a separate survey of its clients to assess satisfaction with specific areas of work, which relates directly to Strategic Priority Legal. Those results are outlined at Appendix 2: Stakeholder surveys.

We conduct other surveys on specific areas of work under our Strategic Priority Workplaces, which are reported separately under our Purpose results.

Analysis

This year we invited more than 2,500 stakeholders to participate in the survey and 756 responded (a response rate of 29 per cent). This is an increase of three per cent from the number of responses to the 2019 survey.

The 2020 survey results indicated satisfaction with the department’s effectiveness in conducting its business of 87.4 per cent. Overall, respondent satisfaction with the department’s effectiveness in achieving government objectives was 93 per cent, an increase of five per cent on the 2019 results.

Overall, 90 per cent of survey respondents were satisfied with their interactions with the department. This is consistent with the results of the 2019 survey.

Survey methodology and detailed results, including analysis of results by strategic priority area and business unit, and against targets and previous years’ results, are at Appendix 2: Stakeholder surveys.

Support Constitutional recognition for Indigenous Australians and Voice to Parliament

Strategic Priority and key activity

• Strategic Priority Legal
• Key activity: Work with the National Indigenous Australians Agency to support constitutional recognition for Indigenous Australians

Source

• Corporate Plan 2019–23, p. 7
• Portfolio Budget Statements 2019–20, Program 1.1, p. 28

Target and performance result

• Support delivery of a consensus option for constitutional recognition
• Establish co-design process about a Voice to Parliament

Partly Achieved - Work towards recognising Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples in the Constitution and developing proposals for a local, regional and national voice began but was delayed by the COVID‑19 pandemic because various co‑design groups could not meet face-to-face.

Rationale

We provide constitutional policy advice to support the National Indigenous Australians Agency to progress constitutional recognition for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians to ensure the process for conducting a referendum on constitutional recognition, and the form of constitutional amendments, are legally and technically sound. Subject to government agreement, our success will be demonstrated by the introduction and passage of proposed constitutional alterations and legislation in Parliament, and conduct of a referendum.

Analysis

The Australian Government is developing options for a voice. On 30 October 2019, the Minister for Indigenous Australians formally announced a co-design process to enhance local and regional decision-making to provide a voice for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians at the local, regional and national levels. A local and regional co-design group and a national co‑design group have been established, as well as a parliamentary working group and a senior advisory group.

The National Indigenous Australians Agency’s planned public consultation with communities to seek feedback and build understanding on a voice has been delayed until November 2020. This was due to the COVID‑19 pandemic restrictions. As a result, in‑person meetings were curtailed and alternative forums were difficult to arrange at short notice.

Following the voice co-design process, the government will develop and put forward a consensus option for constitutional recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians to put to a referendum, after approval by Parliament. The government has not set a timeframe or deadline for bringing questions for constitutional recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians before the Parliament. The Minister for Indigenous Australians has indicated that the challenges associated with the pandemic have delayed work on a voice and it is desirable that a voice be settled before constitutional recognition.

We are in regular contact with the National Indigenous Australians Agency to progress the voice and constitutional recognition. We will provide support and advice to the agency on the legal and technical aspects of associated proposals.

Strengthen understanding of international legal and policy issues

Strategic Priority

• Strategic Priority Legal

Source

• Corporate Plan 2019–23, p. 7
• Portfolio Budget Statements 2019–20, Program 1.1, p. 28

Target and performance

• International Law Colloquium attendees agree attendance has increased their understanding of international legal and policy issues.

Achieved – 89 per cent of attendees who responded to the survey and agreed that the colloquium increased their understanding of international legal and policy issues.

Rationale

The department conducts a great many international law activities. One example is the colloquium, which brings together leading international lawyers from the Australian Government, academia and private practice. This combination of diverse perspectives, and a focus on emerging and cross-cutting international law issues, helps break down professional silos and deepen participant understanding of topical issues. The knowledge gained and relationships formed at the event enable the department to better perform its functions and contribute to our wider objective of creating a just and secure society.

We used a survey of attendees to measure whether the colloquium increased their understanding of international legal and policy issues.

Analysis

We hosted the 2019 International Law Colloquium on 29 November 2019. The theme of this year’s event was Emerging and Cross-Cutting Issues in International Law – Integrity in International Law.

In June 2020, in preparation for the upcoming 2020 International Law Colloquium, we emailed participants and requested they complete an online survey to collect feedback on the 2019 event. The survey could be completed anonymously and had one value-based question. Participants were asked to rate their experience out of ten. The survey also included multiple free-text areas where respondents could provide comments. We received 19 responses from the approximately 70 participants. This is a return of around 27 per cent of attendees.

Attendees were asked to rate the extent to which the colloquium increased their understanding of international legal and policy issues on a scale of one to ten, with scores of five and above denoting an increased understanding. In response, 89 per cent provided a rating of six or more, with the average rating being eight. Further, all attendees who gave feedback considered the colloquium overall to be positive. All respondents reported greater than five out of ten satisfaction with the colloquium’s effectiveness. In the free-text responses, many attendees provided positive comments on the topics of discussion and the range of perspectives offered.

Build confidence and transparency in government progression of royal commission recommendations

Strategic Priority and key activity

• Strategic Priority Legal
• Key activity: Support the Commonwealth’s engagement with royal commissions

Source

• Corporate Plan 2019–23, p. 7
• Portfolio Budget Statements 2019–20, Program 1.1, p. 28

Target and performance result

• Second progress report on implementation of recommendations from the Royal Commission into Institutional Response to Child Sexual Abuse tabled

Achieved – The second progress report was tabled in Parliament on 13 December 2019.

Rationale

Royal commissions play a significant role in Australia’s political system and public life. They are a versatile instrument available to government when it needs to investigate an event or action or to delve deeply into a complex policy area.

The Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse delivered its Final Report on 15 December 2017, making 409 recommendations on how to improve laws, policies and practices to prevent and better respond to child sexual abuse in institutions. Since the release of the report, progress has been made, not just in addressing the recommendations, but in bringing about the cultural change and awareness required in Australian society to ensure that all children are safe. The Australian Government has committed to deliver five consecutive annual progress reports until December 2022. These reports will outline the government’s progress with 84 recommendations on redress and the 122 other recommendations directed to it, to be followed by a ten-year review of implementation.

We build confidence and transparency in government progression of royal commission recommendations by ensuring comprehensive progress reports are completed and tabled in Parliament on time.

Analysis

The second annual progress report on implementation of recommendations from the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse highlights the progress the government has made since its first annual progress report. In developing this report, we coordinated and synthesised input from 20 Australian Government departments and agencies. We also worked with the states and territories on recommendations that are a national priority or require a joint Australian Government, state and territory response to implement.

In all annual progress reports we use language to aid accessibility for stakeholders, including survivors. Information is grouped into five themes so it can be readily located. The reports include references to recommendations on relevant pages to ensure government is accountable and to provide transparency about the work the government is doing to address each group of recommendations.

Government lawyers are satisfied with the initiatives provided by the Australian Government Legal Service

Strategic Priority and key activity

• Strategic Priority Legal
• Key activity: Implement new arrangements for legal services, including the launch of the Australian Government Legal Service, the new Legal Services Panel and portal

Source

• Corporate Plan 2019–23, p. 7
• Portfolio Budget Statements 2019–20, Program 1.1, p. 28

Target and performance result

• Satisfaction rating greater than 80 per cent

Not achieved - Performance could not be assessed against this target as the launch of the Australian Government Legal Service (AGLS) was postponed due to COVID‑19 pandemic restrictions. Accordingly, an overarching satisfaction survey of AGLS members was not conducted for 2019–20. However, surveys of participants in two specific programs conducted under the auspices of the AGLS identified that over 80 per cent of respondents were satisfied with those programs.

Rationale

The Secretary is the leader of the Commonwealth government legal profession. The AGLS is intended to be a formal professional network for government lawyers focused on information sharing, collaboration, guidance, professional standards and training. The AGLS supports the delivery of coherent and consistent legal services across the Commonwealth. It is intended that an annual survey of AGLS members will be undertaken to ascertain members’ views of how AGLS initiatives support them to deliver coherent and consistent legal services.

Analysis

In 2019–20, in the absence of a satisfaction survey of AGLS members, satisfaction surveys of government lawyers who participated in two specific initiatives under the auspices of an in-development AGLS provided a suitable assessment of how current initiatives support members.

Results of these surveys show a high level of satisfaction with the programs (the Foundational Australian Government Lawyer Training Program and the Reciprocal Secondment Program) and demonstrate that the aims of building the skills of and the connections between government lawyers were being met. We have evaluated feedback from these sessions to see how future programs could be improved and expanded.

On average, respondents in the Foundational Australian Government Lawyer Training Program held in November 2019 rated the program as 8.15 on a scale of one to ten.

For the Reciprocal Secondment Program, in the second phase of the program, held from July 2019 to January 2020, 83 per cent of respondents and 83 per cent of responding supervisors from host organisations agreed or strongly agreed they would recommend that colleagues and organisations participate in the program. This is a reflection of their satisfaction with the program.

Strengthen whole-of-government counter-fraud activities

Strategic Priority and key activity

• Strategic Priority Integrity
• Key activity: Establish the Commonwealth Fraud Prevention Centre and strengthen whole-of-government counter-fraud activities

Source

• Corporate Plan 2019–23, p. 11
• Portfolio Budget Statements 2019–20, Program 1.2, p. 29

Target and performance result

• Establishment of the Commonwealth Fraud Prevention Centre

Achieved – The Commonwealth Fraud Prevention Centre commenced on 1 July 2019 as a two-year pilot.

• Delivery of two major projects to strengthen counter-fraud arrangements

Achieved – Counter-Fraud Capability Baseline Project and Commonwealth COVID‑19 Counter Fraud Taskforce Action Plan delivered.

Rationale

The two major projects we have reported on were selected because they represent the two most significant activities undertaken to strengthen whole-of-government counter-fraud activities during the reporting period in terms of scale and resourcing.

Analysis

We strengthened whole-of-government counter-fraud activities through the successful delivery of both targets.

This year, the Commonwealth Fraud Prevention Centre successfully delivered two major projects to strengthen counter-fraud arrangements.

The first was the Counter-Fraud Capability Baseline Project, which successfully benchmarked capabilities across government programs and functions to prevent, detect and respond to fraud. The Centre completed 73 assessments and provided reports to 19 participating agencies with insights on areas of vulnerability within their programs as well as actionable suggestions to improve future capability. The reports reflected that 82 per cent of participants changed their mind about their agency’s fraud exposure, quality of existing risk assessments and the strength of their countermeasures after the assessment. This baseline project has improved our evidence base in relation to counter-fraud capability and allowed us to identify common challenges across government. This will enable us to prioritise areas in which to deliver further guidance, tools and support to agencies and policy makers.

The second project involved the development and delivery of the Commonwealth COVID‑19 Counter Fraud Taskforce Action Plan, in conjunction with the Australian Federal Police Operation Ashiba. This plan helped Australian Government agencies safeguard COVID‑19 pandemic economic stimulus packages against fraud.

Focusing on prevention, we mapped the COVID‑19 pandemic stimulus measures in order to identify risks and priority areas for support. We developed and distributed a range of products, such as guidance and toolkits, aimed at prevention, deterrence, detection and disruption of fraud. One such product was a standardised fraud risk assessment template to assist agencies to identify who might attempt fraud in relation a pandemic stimulus measure and how they might do it. Aspects of this template have been incorporated to support policy implementation of the Fair Entitlements Guarantee and used by the Department of Education, Skills and Employment and the Australian Taxation Office.

Australia's score on the Transparency International Corruption Perceptions Index

Strategic Priority and key activity

• Strategic Priority Integrity
• Key activity: Establish the Commonwealth Integrity Commission

Source

• Corporate Plan 2019–23, p. 11
• Portfolio Budget Statements 2019–20, Program 1.2, p. 29

Target and performance result

• Score of 80 or more

Not Achieved – score of 77 (ranked 12 out of 180 countries) in the Corruption Perceptions Index.

Rationale

We use international benchmarking mechanisms to monitor Australia’s position in relation to citizens’ perceptions of human rights, access to justice and corruption. Our goal is that Australia remains among the leaders in the world in terms of those countries that have fair and equitable security and justice systems that are free of corruption.

The Transparency International Corruption Perceptions Index provides an annual snapshot of the relative degree of corruption by ranking countries and territories. The index draws on 13 data sources to score and rank 180 countries and territories based on how corrupt a country’s public sector is perceived to be by experts and business executives. The index measures perceived, rather than actual, levels of public-sector corruption. However, we consider it meaningful as an indicator of public views on corruption and a measure of the success of our efforts to strengthen Australia’s response, in particular through our work on establishing the Commonwealth Integrity Commission and reforms to the Public Interest Disclosure Act 2013.

Analysis

While our target of a score of 80 or more on the Transparency International Corruption Perceptions Index was not met, Australia is consistently ranked as one of the least corrupt countries in the world. In the 2019 index, we ranked 12 out of 180 countries, representing an improvement from our 2018 ranking of 13 out of 180, with a score of 77 points out of 100, unchanged since 2017. This is a positive result that demonstrates that existing legal and policy frameworks for detecting and handling corruption are operating effectively.

Entities apply the Protective Security Policy Framework (PSPF) to protect their people, information and assets

Strategic Priority and key activity

• Strategic Priority Integrity
• Key activity: Embed protective security policy reforms

Source

• Corporate Plan 2019–23, p. 11
• Portfolio Budget Statements 2019– 20, Program 1.2, p. 29

Target and performance result

• Baseline data collected from annual PSPF reporting

Achieved – All 98 non-corporate Commonwealth entities completed a self‑assessment of their security maturity, providing baseline data for future comparison.

Rationale

Effective protective security ensures agencies have appropriate methods to protect their people, information and assets. The PSPF establishes the protocols and actions that protect the integrity of government business and data. Under the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act 2013, all non-corporate Commonwealth entities (98 in 2018–19) are required to report against their security capability and implementation of the PSPF and provide self-assessment reports through the reporting portal. This measure is a proxy for effectiveness. By collecting self-assessment reports we can measure the success of embedding protective security policies in government activity and assess the overall protective security posture of government. If an agency does not meet the core and supporting requirements of the framework, the agency is required to detail specific actions and timeframes to improve its security maturity.

Analysis

This was the first year entities were required to report using the PSPF maturity self-assessment model. Under this model, we received reports covering the 2018–19 financial year in November 2019 and analysed them during 2019–20. These reports provide a year-on-year baseline for security maturity comparison.

Law reforms contribute to meeting national security and criminal justice priorities

Strategic Priority and key activities

• Strategic Priority Security
• Key activities:
  • Make reform in criminal law and transnational crime-related frameworks including foreign bribery, corporate crime and online safety
  • Implement measures that counter terrorism and provide effective frameworks for the management of terrorism offenders

Source

• Corporate Plan 2019–23, p. 13
• Portfolio Budget Statements 2019–20, Program 1.2, p. 29

Target and performance result

• Qualitative demonstrated achievements against government national security and criminal justice priorities

Achieved – Details of the significant work we undertook this year to contribute to national security and criminal justice priorities are outlined in the analysis section below.

Rationale

We measure the effectiveness of our achievements based on the introduction of legislation and meeting of stakeholder expectations, as qualitative data can be difficult to measure in the short term. For example, new powers afforded by legislative change may not be immediately exercised.

Analysis

We have implemented reforms to Australia’s criminal law and national security framework to ensure the safety and protection of communities in Australia and respond to new and emerging threats. This has contributed to the government’s priority of keeping Australians safe. It is important that such reforms are appropriate and adapted and do not unduly limit individual rights in protecting the community.

Criminal law reforms

This year, we progressed a number of important reforms that contribute to meeting criminal justice priorities:

• We facilitated the passage of the Crimes Legislation Amendment (Sexual Crimes Against Children and Community Protection Measures) Act 2020. This Act made reforms to the Crimes Act 1914 to protect children from online predators.
• We delivered the Criminal Code Amendment (Agricultural Protection) Act 2019 which strengthens protections for farmers and introduced new offences for those who use a carriage service to incite trespass, property damage or theft on agricultural land.
• We delivered the Crimes Regulations 2019, which prescribe relevant forms, functions, laws and authorities to ensure proper functioning of the criminal justice processes set out in the Crimes Act 1914 and facilitate a coordinated approach between Australian, state and territory governments.
• We enhanced Australia’s legal framework for international crime cooperation through regulations to complete Australia’s domestic implementation of the Treaty between the Government of Australia and the Government of the United Arab Emirates concerning Transfer of Sentenced Persons.
• We supported the Department of Home Affairs to develop and introduce the Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (International Production Orders) Bill 2020 into the Parliament. This legislation creates a framework to access electronic data for criminal law enforcement and national security purposes in Australia and overseas. This work enhances Australia’s legal framework for international crime cooperation, which contributes to criminal offenders facing justice, making the Australian community safer.
• We arranged for the reintroduction of the Crimes Legislation Amendment (Combatting Corporate Crime) Bill 2019 into the Senate after it lapsed at the last federal election. The bill enhances the tools available to law enforcement and prosecutors to tackle corporate crime, which costs Australia billions of dollars every year and hurts business, Australia’s international reputation as well as Australia’s economic wellbeing.

In December 2019, we submitted Australia’s Phase 4 follow-up report to the OECD Working Group on Bribery in International Business Transactions, The report outlined Australia’s efforts to strengthen enforcement of the foreign bribery offence and implement the 13 recommendations identified during the Phase 4 evaluation.

Counter-terrorism measures

We contributed to developing and implementing the government’s national security legislation program by providing policy advice about the rule of law and the appropriate balance between the protection of the community and the protection of rights and freedoms of individuals.

We worked with the Department of Home Affairs to ensure that ASIO has appropriate powers to respond to current and emerging threats to Australia’s security, including through the introduction of:

• the Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (International Production Orders) Bill 2020, which would facilitate ASIO’s access to internationally held data relevant to national security matters
• the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Amendment Bill 2020, which would allow ASIO to internally authorise surveillance devices and amend ASIO’s powers to conduct compulsory questioning to obtain intelligence in relation to national security matters.

We delivered the Counter-Terrorism Legislation Amendment (2019 Measures No. 1) Act 2019. The Act implements the 2017 agreement of the Council of Australian Governments to ensure there is a presumption against bail and parole for people who have links to terrorist activity, and contains measures to strengthen the Continuing Detention Order scheme. These reforms reduce the risk that terrorist offenders will be released from incarceration when they continue to pose a threat of committing further terrorism offences.

We supported the Attorney‑General’s role under the National Security Information (Criminal and Civil Proceedings) Act 2004 (Cth), which provides a framework for how national security information is disclosed and protected in legal proceedings.

Australia's factor score on the World Justice Project Rule of Law Index

Strategic Priorities

• Strategic priorities Security, Justice and Rights

Source

• Corporate Plan 2019–23, pp. 13, 15 and 17
• Portfolio Budget Statements 2019–20, Programs 1.1, 1.2, pp. 28–29

Target and performance result

• Fundamental rights (Factor 4) – score greater than 0.75

Achieved – score of 0.79.

• Civil justice (Factor 7) – score greater than 0.75

Achieved – score of 0.75.

• Criminal justice (Factor 8) – score greater than 0.75

Not Achieved – score of 0.73.

Rationale

We use international benchmarking mechanisms to monitor Australia’s position in relation to citizens' perceptions of human rights, access to justice and corruption. Our goal is that Australia remains among the leaders in the world in terms of those countries that have fair and equitable security and justice systems that are free of corruption.

The independent World Justice Project Rule of Law Index reflects how the rule of law (at its simplest, the principle that the law applies to everyone equally) is perceived and experienced by a country’s population and by in-country experts in 126 countries and jurisdictions worldwide. Some of the factors evaluated in the index may not directly relate to the department’s activities and our community impact. However, we consider them meaningful as indicators of the perceived long-term and broad health of Australia’s justice and security systems, which the department contributes to with other agencies and institutions across Australia, and the matters that communities regard as important.

We use Australia’s regional and global position on fundamental rights (Factor 4) to measure the protection of the human rights established under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights that are most closely related to rule-of-law concerns.

We use Australia’s regional and global position on civil justice (Factor 7) to measure whether people can resolve their grievances peacefully and effectively through the civil justice system.

We use Australia’s regional and global position on criminal justice (Factor 8) to benchmark our impact on the community and measure the effectiveness of the federal criminal justice system.

Analysis

Australia’s overall score on the 2019 index was 0.80, which is a global rank of 11 out of 126 countries and a regional rank of 2 out of 15 countries in the East Asia and Pacific region.

Factor 4 – Fundamental Rights

This factor considers the enforcement of laws that provide equal protections; the right to life and security; the due process of law and the rights of the accused; freedom of opinion and expression, belief and religion; assembly and association; the rights to privacy; labour rights and freedom from discrimination. In 2020, Australia has a Factor 4 score of 0.79; a ranking of 12 out of 126 countries globally and 2 out of 15 countries in the East Asia and Pacific region. This is consistent with the rankings in the 2019 and 2018 indexes. Our global country ranking improved from 13 to 12.

Factor 7 – Civil Justice

This factor considers whether justice systems are accessible and affordable and free of discrimination, corruption and improper influence by public officials. It also measures whether court proceedings are conducted without reasonable delays and if decisions are enforced effectively, and measures accessibility, impartiality and effectiveness of alternative dispute-resolution mechanisms. In 2020, Australia has a Factor 7 score of 0.76; a ranking of 14 out of 126 countries globally and 6 out of 15 countries in the East Asia and Pacific region. This factor score is consistent with the 2019 score and maintains the 0.01 increase on the 2017–18 score.

Factor 8 – Criminal Justice

This factor considers whether criminal investigation, adjudication and correctional systems are effective and whether the system is impartial and non-discriminatory, free of corruption and improper influence and protective of due process and the rights of the accused. In 2020, Australia has a Factor 8 score of 0.73; a ranking of 11 out of 126 countries globally and 3 out of 15 countries in the East Asia and Pacific region. This is consistent with the 2019 score. Our global country ranking improved from 12 to 11.

Supporting an integrated, efficient and effective legal assistance sector

Strategic Priority and key activity

• Strategic Priority Justice
• Key activity: Negotiate and implement new legal assistance funding arrangements with states and territories

Source

• Corporate Plan 2019–23, p. 15
• Portfolio Budget Statements 2019–20, Programs 1.1, 1.4, 1.6, pp. 28, 30–31

Target and performance result

• Qualitative demonstrated achievement of more effective, efficient or innovative ways to meet clients' legal needs and capability levels, and/or resolve legal problems in a timely way

Achieved – Case studies from states and territories have demonstrated innovation in methods of delivering legal services and how improved outcomes have been achieved, either for priority clients or in efficiency or effectiveness of services.

• By 30 June 2020, establish the National Strategic Framework for Legal Assistance in partnership with all states and territories

Achieved – The National Strategic Framework for Legal Assistance was agreed to and established by the Council of Attorneys-General on 29 November 2019.

• By 30 June 2020, finalise the National Legal Assistance Partnership in partnership with all states and territories

Achieved – The Prime Minister, premiers and chief ministers signed the National Legal Assistance Partnership 2020–25 in June 2020.

Rationale

The Australian, state and territory governments recognise they have mutual interest in working together to improve access to justice and resolve legal problems for the most disadvantaged people in Australia and maximise service delivery through the effective and efficient use of available resources.

We measure our achievement of more effective, efficient or innovative ways to meet clients' legal needs and capability levels, and/or resolve legal problems in a timely way through the receipt of case studies provided by the states and territories, under the National Partnership Agreement on Legal Assistance Services 2015–20 (NPA) and case studies provided by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Legal Services under the Indigenous Legal Assistance Program 2015–20 (ILAP). Each state and territory must provide a de-identified summary of a case study demonstrating how a service being delivered within the sector is more effective, efficient or innovative and better meets clients’ legal needs and capability levels and resolves legal problems in a timely way. States and territories must also conduct two surveys of Legal Aid Commission clients and two surveys of Community Legal Centre clients to assess whether services are tailored to meet clients’ legal needs and capability levels. Recognising that many legal assistance providers use existing, and extensive, client survey processes and methodologies, the department does not prescribe a specific methodology for client surveys. However, we do provide a mandatory set of client survey questions and request that states and territories provide a brief overview of the survey methodology and sample size. At a minimum, jurisdictions are asked to provide a percentage breakdown of the results for each response option for each survey question.

We also measure our effectiveness in developing and securing agreement to the National Strategic Framework for Legal Assistance and the National Legal Assistance Partnership. These measures are a proxy for effectiveness. They are integral to providing the policy framework and funding to support an Australia-wide legal assistance sector that is integrated, efficient and effective.

Analysis

By achieving the three targets under this measure, we have contributed to the maintenance of an integrated, efficient and effective legal assistance sector across Australia.

Demonstrated achievement of effectiveness, efficiency and innovation in provision of legal assistance

Case studies under the ILAP have been received from all seven Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Legal Services during 2019–20 as part of their performance reporting. In the final year of reporting under the NPA, case studies will be provided by 30 September 2020 for the financial year 2019–20. This enables a full report of the indicators, benchmarks and milestones for the financial year to be provided to the department at the expiry of the NPA. As such, in order to assess performance against this measure for 2019–20, we considered case studies provided under the NPA for the 2018–19 financial year and these were provided to the department in March 2019.

These case studies provide a realistic, on-the-ground picture of how the objectives, outcomes and outputs of the NPA were being met while the program was being delivered. The case studies demonstrated innovation in methods of delivering legal services and how improved outcomes have been achieved, either for priority clients or in efficiency or effectiveness of services. The case studies also outlined the benefits of ‘wrap around' services, telephone triaging, community legal education and targeted social support services to vulnerable clients.

Surveys by the Legal Aid Commission and the Community Legal Centre were conducted in 2019–2020 using standardised questions. The ILAP similarly requires surveys to be conducted using standardised questions. Results of these surveys will not be known until final reporting under the NPA and ILAP is provided and after the publication of this annual report. However, survey results received in 2019 demonstrated overall client satisfaction was high and that quality services were delivered appropriately and had made a positive difference to clients’ legal outcomes.

National Strategic Framework for Legal Assistance

This year, we worked closely with states and territories and the legal assistance sector to develop the framework. It provides the policy framework for all government legal assistance funding and covers all Commonwealth, state and territory government-funded legal assistance. This includes generalist and specialist legal assistance services delivered by legal aid commissions and community legal centres. It also includes Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander‑specific legal assistance services delivered by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Legal Services and Family Violence Prevention and Legal Services.

National Legal Assistance Partnership

This year, we finalised the National Legal Assistance Partnership 2020–25 (NLAP), which is a $2 billion national partnership agreement with states and territories, under the National Strategic Framework for Legal Assistance, for Commonwealth funded legal assistance. The NLAP supports the accessibility of the justice system and assists people experiencing disadvantage to resolve their legal issues through funding for vital frontline legal assistance services delivered by legal aid commissions and community legal centres. For the first time, the NLAP includes funding for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander legal services previously delivered through the ILAP. The NLAP includes a formal commitment to self-determination; the first time these principles have been included within legal assistance arrangements. The NLAP includes an increased focus on data collection across the sector, and the Australian Bureau of Statistics will bring its data expertise to this work. The signing of the NLAP represents a significant achievement and provides funding certainty to the legal assistance sector.

In negotiating the NLAP with the states and territories, extensive work was conducted and each jurisdiction was visited at least twice. This considerable effort ensured that the legal assistance sector was consulted on the development of the NLAP and we met with sector representatives at least once in each jurisdiction.

Reforms to the federal courts

Strategic Priority and key activities

• Strategic Priority Justice
• Key activities:
  • Progress structural improvements to arrangements for the federal courts (excluding the High Court of Australia)
  • Improve the family law system

Source

• Corporate Plan 2019–23, p. 15
• Portfolio Budget Statements 2019–20, Programs 1.1, 1.4, pp. 28, 30

Target and performance result

• Draft legislation provided to the Attorney‑General for introduction in the Parliament within expected timeframes

Achieved – Court reform bills were introduced into the Parliament on 5 December 2019.

Rationale

Currently, the Family Court of Australia and the Federal Circuit Court of Australia have largely overlapping family law jurisdiction, while having different case management approaches and procedures, rules and fees. This can cause frustration, difficulties and delays for families, often at a time when they are particularly vulnerable. The vast majority of family law cases are handled by the Federal Circuit Court. The court reform bills create a new federal family law court structure to increase efficiencies, enabling family law matters to be dealt with quickly. The bills would also improve the accessibility of the justice system by reducing confusion and creating a simpler pathway to resolve disputes through the introduction of a legislated single point of entry for first instance federal family law matters.

Analysis

We previously prepared the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia Bill 2018 and the accompanying Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2018 to give effect to the government’s proposed structural reforms. These bills were introduced to the Parliament on 23 August 2018 and referred to the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee for inquiry and report. The committee tabled its report on 14 February 2019. The bills lapsed when the Parliament was prorogued prior to the 2019 federal election.

After the election and following consideration by the Attorney‑General, we amended the 2018 bills to address recommendations of the committee. The Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia Bill 2019 and the accompanying Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2019 were introduced to Parliament on 5 December 2019. These bills were referred to the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 20 November 2020.

Increased understanding of the policy process by Pacific partners

Strategic Priority and key activity

• Strategic Priority Justice
• Key activity: Support regional partners to develop strong law and justice sectors and effective policy frameworks

Source

• Corporate Plan 2019–23, p. 15
• Portfolio Budget Statements 2019–20, Program 1.2, p. 29

Target and performance result

• A majority of legal policy training attendees advise increased understanding

Achieved – All 16 attendees of the 2019 Pacific legal policy training programs reported a strong improvement in their understanding of the stages of the policy development process.

Rationale

The department’s two flagship Pacific training programs aim to improve participant understanding of the legal policy process. The two-week Policy Champions Program uses a train-the-trainer approach to teach the methods and skills fundamental to developing good legal policy; from obtaining information about a policy problem through to presenting policy solutions to decision-makers and implementing and evaluating the results. Under the Twinning Program, a small number of Policy Champions participants remain in Canberra for another six weeks to progress a specific policy project considered a priority by their home agency. Further individual capacity building on legal policy is achieved through peer-to-peer mentoring by departmental staff as well as meetings with subject-matter experts from academia, government and the community sector.

We assess our performance through anonymous post-program surveys of all participants.

Analysis

The 2019 Policy Champions Program cohort included 12 officials from nine Pacific-region countries. Anonymous post-program surveys were completed by all participants who were asked to self-assess various learning outcomes on a scale of 1 to 10. All participants reported an improvement in their understanding of the key stages of the policy-development process. Training effectiveness was further substantiated by observations made by departmental staff of the ability of participants to deliver the course content themselves during the practical component of the program.

The 2019 Twinning Program was attended by four officials—one each from Fiji, Kiribati, Solomon Islands and Papua New Guinea. All four participants completed anonymous post-program surveys to assess various learning outcomes on a scale of 1 to 10. All four reported an improvement in their understanding of the key stages of the policy-development process, as well as their confidence to develop or contribute to policy. All participants completed regular reflection journals throughout the program to track and record their progress and also participated in an end-of-program roundtable discussion with departmental staff to provide feedback on the program. These two initiatives provided additional qualitative information to corroborate the results of the surveys.

Evaluation and design review mechanisms for all major human rights projects

Strategic Priority

• Strategic Priority Rights

Source

• Corporate Plan 2019–23, p. 17
• Portfolio Budget Statements 2019–20, Program 1.1, p. 28

Target and performance result

• Promoting human rights through policy and legislative change

Achieved - This year, we promoted human rights through various mechanisms, including advising on human rights policy issues, leading Australia's appearances before United Nations human rights treaty bodies and engaging with non-government organisations.

Rationale

This measure is assessed on a qualitative basis, analysing the ways in which the department has contributed to major human rights projects that promote human rights including legislative changes, policy development and advice and reporting to and appearances before United Nations human rights treaty bodies. The projects we participate in necessarily change in different years depending on the international treaty system reporting cycle and government priorities.

Analysis

We advise on policies and laws to help people enjoy a life where their rights are respected and protected. We achieve this through advice on the human rights implications of government policy proposals, draft legislation and submissions to Cabinet to promote consistency with Australia’s obligations under international human rights treaties and domestic law. We also produce a guide to drafting statements of compatibility with human rights and provide advice to agencies to assist with their preparation. Statements of compatibility are required for all bills and disallowable instruments and assess whether the legislation is compatible with the rights and freedoms recognised in the seven core international human rights treaties to which Australia is a party. Where rights are limited, statements of compatibility must explain how that limitation is reasonable, necessary and proportionate to a legitimate aim.

This year, we supported legislative reviews to ensure that the mechanisms that promote human rights are working effectively. For example, in 2019–20, we provided expert advice to stakeholders, including Australian, state and territory governments and the Attorney‑General in relation to the three standards made under the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 to provide greater detail on the rights and responsibilities about equal access and opportunity for people with a disability. We engaged with agencies in relation to the ongoing Transport Standards review and proposed amendments to the Premises Standards, which includes the introduction of adult assisted change rooms. We also commenced the scheduled reviews of the Premises Standards and Education Standards.

Appearances, reporting and visits

We led Australia’s appearance before the United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child on 9 and 10 September 2019 and the Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities on 12 and 13 September 2019. We facilitated consideration of the concluding observations by agencies at all levels of government. We also facilitated a grant to support Ms Rosemary Kayess to participate as a member of the committee for the remainder of her term.

Australia is due to submit its third Universal Periodic Review national report to the United Nations in October 2020. We commenced work on the national report that responds to the recommendations Australia received during its second-cycle review in 2015. This covers the breadth of Australia’s international human rights obligations. Australia’s appearance has been postponed to early 2021 due to the pandemic.

We implement the Optional Protocol on the Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment that provides increased transparency and accountability in places of detention across Australia to support of Australia’s international human rights obligations. Work commenced, in consultation with states and territories, on visits by the Subcommittee on Prevention of Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment and by the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention. Due to the COVID‑19 pandemic, the visits were postponed.

Non-Government Organisation Forum

We led the Non-Government Organisation Forum held on 12 December 2019. The forum provides closer engagement between civil society and agencies and helps us evaluate the effectiveness of consultations throughout the treaty body reporting process. Discussions included consideration of issues such as the Optional Protocol on the Convention against Torture and upcoming United Nations treaty body reporting. Attendees provided comments that informed the drafting of treaty body reports. These were communicated to other agencies to action as appropriate. A minute was circulated to stakeholders following the meeting outlining key dates and action items for 2020–21.

Ensuring appropriate recognition of religious freedoms

Strategic Priority and key activity

• Strategic Priority Rights
• Key activity: Lead the government’s response to the Religious Freedom Review

Source

• Corporate Plan 2019–23, p. 17
• Portfolio Budget Statements 2019–20, Program 1.1, p. 28

Target and performance result

• Draft legislation provided to the Attorney‑General for introduction in the Parliament within expected timeframes

Partly Achieved – We met all expected timeframes for exposure draft legislation for public consultation in 2019–20.

Rationale

The Religious Freedom Review identified an opportunity to enhance the statutory protection of the right to freedom of religion in Australian law. In response, the Australian Government committed to measures to give effect to the review’s recommendations. This included developing a legislative package to better protect the right to freedom of religion in Australian law.

We measure our success through the delivery of a Religious Discrimination Bill and the creation of the new office of the Freedom of Religion Commissioner in the Australian Human Rights Commission.

Analysis

The Australian Government invited submissions on a package of exposure draft legislation on religious freedom. The first consultation was held between 29 August and 2 October 2019 and the second consultation was held between 10 December 2019 and 31 January 2020. The legislative package is intended to implement the government’s response to the Religious Freedom Review and includes a Religious Discrimination Bill. This bill provides comprehensive protection against discrimination on the basis of religious belief or activity in specified areas of public life. We managed both consultation processes, including processing approximately 13,000 public submissions received. Feedback on the submissions was provided to the Attorney‑General within expected timeframes.

Due to the impact of the COVID‑19 pandemic, progress on this work has been delayed.

Stakeholder and client satisfaction

Stakeholder and client satisfaction with the timeliness of:

• ​our policy advice and legal services (Strategic Priority Legal)
• our policy advice, program work and legislative change (Strategic Priority Integrity)
• our policy advice, program work and legislative change (Strategic Priority Security)
• our policy advice, program work and legislative change (Strategic Priority Justice)
• our policy advice, program work and legislative change (Strategic Priority Rights)

Strategic Priority

• Strategic priorities Legal, Integrity, Security, Justice and Rights

Source

• Corporate Plan 2019–23, p. 7, 11, 13, 15 and 17
• Portfolio Budget Statements 2019–20, Programs 1.1–1.7, pp. 28–32

Target and performance result

• Satisfaction rating greater than 80 per cent:
  • Achieved – 89 per cent (Legal)
  • Achieved – 82 per cent (Integrity)
  • Achieved – 82 per cent (Security)
  • Not achieved – 70 per cent (Justice)
  • Not achieved – 76 per cent (Rights).

Rationale

The Attorney-General’s Department primarily provides policy and legal advice to government. There are challenges to measuring the efficiency of the provision of legal and policy advice. Efficiency can be defined as the unit cost (e.g. in terms of dollars spent or human resources committed) of an output (e.g. a service) generated by an activity.¹ These challenges include: attributing the effects of policy outcomes in complex environments; measuring potentially intangible outcomes (feelings of safety, trust or confidence) and the non-linear nature of policy development. In addition, sources of data to accurately measure the efficiency of our policy and legal advice are scarce, especially over a financial year.

Accordingly, we use the five efficiency measures as a proxy to evaluate stakeholder satisfaction with our efficiency. This is measured through the timeliness of our information and advice, support to others to achieve their priorities and the accessibility of our staff.

We measure stakeholder satisfaction through our annual stakeholder survey, details of which are set out in relation to the effectiveness measures. The survey is conducted annually, this provides trend information that allows us to assess our efficiency over time against consistent markers.

Analysis

This year, we invited more than 2,500 stakeholders to participate in the survey and 756 responded (a response rate of 29 per cent). This is an increase of three per cent on responses to the 2019 survey.

The 2020 survey results indicate respondent satisfaction of 84.7 per cent with the department’s efficiency in meeting its goals and in supporting government. This is consistent with the results of the 2019 survey.

Survey methodology and detailed results, including analysis of results by strategic priority area and business unit, and comparison to targets and previous years’ results, can be found at Appendix 2: Stakeholder surveys.

The Australian Government Solicitor Group conducted a separate survey of its clients to assess satisfaction with specific areas of work. Those results are outlined at Appendix 2: Stakeholder surveys.

Royal Commissions reports are delivered on time in accordance with the terms of reference

Strategic Priority and key activity

• Strategic Priority Legal
• Key activity: Support the Commonwealth’s engagement with royal commissions

Source

• Corporate Plan 2019–23, p. 7
• Portfolio Budget Statements 2019–20, Programs 1.1, 1.7, pp. 28, 32

Target and performance result

• Interim report of the Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety submitted to the Governor-General by 31 October 2019

Achieved – The Interim Report was delivered to the Governor-General on 31 October 2019 and we supported the Attorney‑General to table it in Parliament the same day.

Note: The Corporate Plan 2019–23 included a target under this measure, ‘Final report of the Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety submitted to the Governor-General by 30 April 2020’. The Governor-General signed Amended Letters Patent on 25 June 2020 to extend the due date for the final report of the Royal Commission to 26 February 2021. As the new due date falls outside of the 2019–20 financial year, we have not reported against that target.

Rationale

The government assists the royal commission by providing information and evidence in a timely manner. We coordinate this on behalf of government.

Ensuring comprehensive progress reports are completed and tabled in the Parliament on time helps to build confidence and transparency in government progression of royal commission recommendations. In the absence of alternative ways to measure our efficiency in completing this work, we use the timely tabling of reports as a proxy for efficiency.

Analysis

Following the establishment of the Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety, we played an integral role by providing high-quality legal services and supporting the government’s engagement with the royal commission. We facilitated requests to produce information and coordinated witness appearances required by the royal commission of government agencies. While royal commissioners are independent of government in their decision-making, this support and engagement ensures the royal commission has the necessary information to effectively and efficiently fulfil its terms of reference. This contributed to the delivery and tabling of the interim report by the target date of 31 October 2019.

Publication of registrations on the Foreign Influence Transparency Scheme register

Strategic Priority and key activity

• Strategic Priority Integrity
• Key activity: Improve transparency of foreign influence in federal political and government processes and decisions through increased awareness of the Foreign Influence Transparency Scheme

Source

• Corporate Plan 2019–23, p. 11
• Portfolio Budget Statements 2019–20, Program 1.2, p. 29

Target and performance result

• 85 per cent of registrations published in less than three weeks

Achieved – In 2019–20, 87 per cent of registrations were published with three weeks of lodgement and 99 per cent were published within four weeks of lodgement. These figures exclude two registrations that were not published within these timeframes for reasons beyond the department’s control (one was due to an IT issue and the other was due to extended engagement with the registrant to resolve details of the registration before it could be published).

Rationale

The Foreign Influence Transparency Scheme provides the public and decision‑makers with visibility of the nature and extent of activities being undertaken in Australia, on behalf of foreign principals, to influence federal governmental and political processes. The timely publication of registrations assists to ensure that the public and decision-makers have visibility of such activities, at the time they are being undertaken. By facilitating the publication of registrations within three weeks of lodgement, the department maximises the visibility of these activities and the effectiveness of the scheme.

Analysis

We provided increased transparency about the forms and sources of foreign influence in Australia’s political and governmental processes through the Foreign Influence Transparency Scheme. In 2019–20, we upgraded the online register to improve its functionality and usability and developed a portal through which all registration requests are received. This portal tracks data to provide statistics on the timing for publication of registrations.

We delivered information sessions and presentations to agencies, businesses and community groups. We continued these activities during the COVID‑19 pandemic, where possible.

Casework matters finalised

Strategic Priority and key activity

• Strategic Priority Justice
• Key activity: Conduct extradition, mutual assistance, transfer of prisoners and international child abduction casework

Source

• Corporate Plan 2019–23, p. 15
• Portfolio Budget Statements 2019–20, Program 1.2, p. 29

Target and performance result

• 900 matters finalised

Achieved – We finalised 1,391 casework matters in 2019–20. Casework matters capture extradition and mutual assistance requests, international transfer of prisoners, parole and international family law matters.

Rationale

We are responsible for undertaking casework to facilitate international cooperation in criminal and family law matters. Our criminal casework promotes criminal accountability and the opportunity for individuals charged with Commonwealth crimes to be appropriately rehabilitated. Our international family law casework ensures that disputes of child custody are resolved in a fair manner and in an appropriate court.

Every casework matter we deal with is different and the length of time required to process and finalise both incoming and outgoing requests can be affected by a wide range of factors, many beyond our control. These include the legal processes of foreign countries, the responsiveness of foreign agencies and Australian law enforcement agencies, how long court proceedings take and the extent to which they are contested and delays in conducting transfers. Given the varied and variable nature of this work, measuring our efficiency in managing our caseload is challenging.² Accordingly, we use the number of cases finalised each year as a proxy for efficiency.

Analysis

A total of 1,391 cases were finalised in 2019–20. This exceeded the target of 900 and is an increase on the 1,156 cases finalised in the previous year.

During 2019–20, we:

• finalised 33 extradition requests (40 in 2018–19)
• finalised 817 mutual assistance requests (908 in 2018–19)
• finalised 26 international transfer of prisoner applications (46 in 2018–19)
• finalised the following decisions about federal offenders:
  • 300 parole decisions (306 in 2018–19)
  • 14 decisions about early release on licence (8 in 2018–19)
  • 0 decisions about interstate transfer of federal prisoners (also 0 in 2018–19)
  • 14 decisions about overseas travel for parolees (16 in 2018–19)
  • 16 decisions about breaches of parole (17 in 2018–19)
  • 6 decisions about petitions for the Royal Prerogative of Mercy (1 in 2018–19)
  • 1 decision under the Crimes (Superannuation Benefits) Act 1989 (2 in 2018–19)
• managed the following international family law matters:
  • received 127 new applications and finalised 114 applications under the 1980 Hague Abduction Convention for the return of children who have been abducted to or from Australia (145 applications received and 113 finalised in 2018–19)
  • assisted with 25 requests for cooperation under the 1996 Hague Child Protection Convention, dealing with a range of issues, including requests for transnational placement of children between Australia and other countries that are parties to the Convention (28 in 2018–19)
  • arranged for the registration of 32 parenting orders in Australia and overseas (49 in 2018–19).

While the overall number of cases finalised has increased this year, the numbers finalised in certain casework areas declined. However, it is worth noting that these statistics do not reflect the differential complexity of matters or represent the entirety of the subject area casework loads. As noted in the Rationale, external factors beyond the department's control impact on our ability to finalise cases. In addition, this year the availability of partners, domestically and internationally as well as staffing numbers were affected by the COVID‑19 pandemic.

Further information on the number of mutual assistance, extradition and international transfer of prisoner matters dealt with this year can be found in Appendix 5: Extradition and mutual assistance.

Submissions to the United Nations human rights committees with respect to individual complaints

Strategic Priority

• Strategic Priority Rights

Source

• Corporate Plan 2019–23, p. 17
• Portfolio Budget Statements 2019–20, Program 1.1, p. 28

Target and performance result

• 80 per cent completed within relevant timeframes

Achieved – 97 per cent were completed within relevant timeframes.

Rationale

We coordinate Australia’s response to individual communications made against Australia under human rights treaties. This includes preparing a response, in consultation with the relevant policy areas, addressing the allegations and providing Australia’s views on its international law obligations. This ensures that Australia’s responses are submitted in a timely manner to support expeditious consideration by the relevant treaty body and contribute to the effective functioning of the United Nations human rights system. Each complaint is unique in terms of complexity and subject matter and the resources required to prepare a timely response varies. This makes evaluating the efficiency of our work challenging. Thus, we use the completion of responses within the timeframes set by the relevant United Nations human rights committees as a proxy for efficiency.

Analysis

During 2019–20, we increased the proportion of communications we responded to on time. This improvement was due to a number of factors, including effective prioritisation and case load management. Without additional staffing resources, the department made a total of 35 submissions of which 34 were completed within relevant timeframes (compared to seven out of eight completed within relevant timeframes in 2018–19). This represents an increase in submissions of over 130 per cent. As a result of the COVID‑19 pandemic, the committees extended the timeframes for a number of submissions. All States Parties, including Australia, were granted an automatic extension of two months for all responses, meaning there was more time to complete responses within the timeframes. Further, due to the 2018 election caretaker period, we received a number of extensions into 2019–20 that resulted in more responses being submitted during 2019–20.