Chapter 2Annual reports of departments
2.1The annual reports of the following departments for the financial year 2024-25 (the reporting period) were referred to the committee for examination and report:
Attorney-General’s Department (AGD); and
Department of Home Affairs (Home Affairs), including the Australian Border Force (ABF).
Attorney-General’s Department
Tabling of report
2.2The Attorney-General’s Department Annual Report 2024-25 was presented out of session in the Senate on 24 October 2025 and tabled in the House of Representatives on 27 October 2025. The report was submitted to the Attorney-General on 13 October 2025, meeting the requirements under section 46 of the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act 2013 (PGPA Act).
Secretary’s review
2.3In her review for 2024-25, the Secretary of AGD, Ms Katherine Jones PSM, outlined several of AGD’s achievements and priorities during the reporting period which included the:
the launch of a new First Nations Workforce Strategy;
development of a new ‘Innovate’ Reconciliation Action Plan (RAP) 2025–2027;
Standing Council of Attorneys-General agreed to the National Access to Justice Partnership;
delivering on the National Plan to End Violence against Women and Children;
reforms to the Family Law Act 1975;
work on the Oversight Legislation Amendment (Robodebt Royal Commission Response and Other Measures) Act 2024;
work to establish the Administrative Review Tribunal;
reforms to the Criminal Code Act 1995;
provision of support for the establishment of the Anti-Slavery Commissioner;
the presentation of evidence and legal arguments to the International Civil Aviation Organization on the downing of Malaysia Airlines Flight MH17; and
the tabling of the final report of the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide.
Performance reporting
2.4AGD’s reporting framework is set out in the Attorney-General’s 2024–25 Portfolio Budget Statements (AG PBS) and the Attorney-General’s Corporate Plan 2024–25 (AGD Corporate Plan). The AG PBS sets out AGD’s one outcome, and the programs administered underneath it.[2] It also sets out high-level performance measures to measure success in meeting this outcome, including standards of ‘effectiveness’ and ‘timeliness and responsiveness’.
2.5The outcome outlined in the AG PBS is reflected by the purpose set out in the AGD Corporate Plan, which is to:
‘achieve a just and secure society through the maintenance and improvement of Australia’s law, justice, security and integrity frameworks’
2.6AGD aims to achieve this purpose through four key activities which are:
providing legal services and policy advice and overseeing legal services across government;
managing casework;
administering and advising on legal and policy frameworks; and
administering and implementing programs and services.
2.7The performance of the department is measured through 14 performance measures, which comprise 23 performance targets that relate to these four key activities
2.8In the reporting period, AGD did not meet three of its 14 performance measures, as it did not meet all the performance targets associated with those measures. Those measures were:
performance measure 1.3: constitutional policy and related public law advice;
performance measure 1.5: manage significant legal issues and arrangements for Australian Government legal services; and
performance measure 4.6: crime prevention assistance.
2.9Of its 23 performance targets, 57 per cent were achieved (13 targets) and 13 per cent were partially achieved (three targets). AGD reported that 30 per cent of its targets were not achieved (seven targets).This is a slightly lower rate of achievement than reported during the previous reporting period. During the previous reporting period, 62 per cent of targets were achieved, nine per cent were partially achieved, and 29 per cent were not achieved.
Table 2.1AGD performance measures
Source: AGD, Annual report 2024-25
Table 2.2AGD performance targets
| | | | | |
Achieved | 13 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 8 |
Partly achieved | 3 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 |
Not achieved | 7 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 4 |
Source: AGD, Annual report 2024-25
2.10The seven performance targets which were not achieved are outlined in the following paragraphs.
2.11Target 1.3.1 - Average performance rating from stakeholders of 78 index points (IP) or above out of 100 for: effectiveness and timeliness and responsiveness of the provision of constitutional policy and related public law advice. Although the target of 78 IP was not met, the ratings of 76 IP for effectiveness and 73 IP for timeliness and responsiveness, represent increases of 8 IP and 9 IP respectively, from the previous reporting period. AGD explains that some feedback expressed the need for improvements to the strength of advice provided on constitutional law issues and the resolution of queries about the sharing of constitutional law advice with non-Commonwealth entities. In response, AGD notes the complexities of such issues as hindering factors. AGD also notes that it ‘will consider ways to enhance its guidance or processes’ related to the sharing of constitutional advice.
2.12Target 1.5.1 – Average performance rating from stakeholders of 78 index points out of 100 for effectiveness of initiatives to support compliance with obligations under the Legal Services Directions 2017. AGD reported a performance rating from stakeholders of 73 IP which fell short of the target by five IP.AGD reports that feedback from the survey included that ‘[AGD] could play a more active role in coordinating cross-cutting issues and supporting other departments on these issues.’
2.13Target 1.5.2 – Satisfaction of government lawyers with initiatives provided by the Australian Government Legal Service (AGLS) greater than 80%. AGD reported a survey result of 72 per cent for government lawyers’ satisfaction, falling short of the target by 8 per cent, however, also indicating an improvement of 12 per cent from the previous reporting period. AGD noted the need to ‘improve engagement with government lawyers to understand their concerns, improve AGLS initiatives, and better communicate the purpose and scope of the AGLS to … [their] members’.
2.14Target 4.1.1 – Average performance rating from stakeholders of 78 index points out of 100 for effectiveness and timeliness and responsiveness in the department’s roles and responsibilities under the legal assistance grant programs and the National Legal Assistance Partnership. The reported stakeholder ratings of 69 IP for effectiveness and 65 IP for timeliness and responsiveness represent three IP and one IP increases respectively, from the previous reporting period. AGD explains that some stakeholder feedback indicated difficulties ‘to work with short timeframes to deliver feedback’. AGD also notes that it acknowledges ‘the scope for change within the parameters of existing arrangements or government decisions is often limited which can reduce… [their] capacity to adopt stakeholder comments’.
2.15AGD states that it ‘will continue to prioritise clear and consistent stakeholder engagement and allow maximum time for consultation processes’, however, it is unclear how this will occur in practice given the constraints identified. It would be beneficial for AGD to specify how improvements could be made given the limitations they have outlined.
2.16Target 4.6.1 – Average performance rating from stakeholders of 78 index points or above out of 100 for: effectiveness and timeliness and responsiveness of funding provided for community crime prevention and safety initiatives. The reported results of 77 IP for effectiveness and 75 IP for timeliness and responsiveness fell short of the targeted average of 78 IP. This represents respective three IP and five IP increases from the previous reporting period. AGD notes that ‘the department continues to strengthen its performance.’
2.17Target 4.7.1 – Average performance rating from stakeholders of 78 index points or above out of 100 for: effectiveness and timeliness and responsiveness in relation to the provision of the Document Verification Service (DVS) and the Face Verification Service (FVS). The reported stakeholder rating was 76 IP for both effectiveness and timeliness and responsiveness. AGD identifies two factors as having an impact on this rating; the new regulatory framework under the Identity Verification Services Act 2023 and Ex-Tropical Cyclone Alfred.
2.18AGD has provided substantial information on how these factors may have affected their performance rating, however, in the case of the impacts of Cyclone Alfred, it may be useful to identify ways in which these could be mitigated to promote the smooth operation of the DVS and FVS (given that this is a possibility).
2.19Target 4.7.2 - The average time to verify documents through the Document Verification Service and Face Verification Service, where a result is returned, is less than 3 seconds. The reported time to verify documents was 5.3 seconds, 2.3 seconds slower than the target. AGD notes that due to ‘complicated facial biometric matching, it may not be currently possible to meet this performance goal’, while also noting that it will ‘seek improvements in response times’.
Australian National Audit Office performance audits
2.20The Australian National Audit Office (ANAO) released the report Performance Statements of Major Australian Government Entities — Outcomes from the 2024–25 Audit Program on 5 February 2026.
2.21The report assessed the maturity of AGD’s approach to performance reporting as ‘Embedded’, the second highest rating out of five possible ratings, however, lower than the previous period’s ‘Advanced’ rating.
2.22The report highlights that AGD has the opportunity to ‘uplift the quality of performance measures to more fulsomely tell its performance story’. There is also specific mention of ‘the lack of a documented approach to explain ongoing reliance on proxy efficiency measures’.
Financial performance
2.23The department reports that the operating result for 2024-25 was a comprehensive loss of $23.296 million compared to a comprehensive income of $6.930 million in the previous reporting period. After accounting for $16.066 million of funded depreciation and amortisation of $25.836 million and the impacts of accounting adjustments under the Australian Accounting Standards Board 16 of $10.269 million, the result was a loss of $7.729 million.
2.24During the reporting period, AGD reported that its administered expenses for 2024-25 were $505.128 million compared to $522.551 million in 2023-24. The major expenses included $431.096 million in grant payments and $33.455 million in supplier payments.
2.25The total administered revenue for the reporting period was $56.031 million compared to $68.364 million in the previous period. The major source of revenue for 2024-25 was Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 revenue of $44.613 million.
Conclusion
2.26The committee considers the report to be ‘apparently satisfactory’.
Department of Home Affairs, including the Australian Border Force
Tabling of the report
2.27The Department of Home Affairs Annual Report 2023-24 was tabled in the Senate on 4 November 2025 and the House of Representatives on 31 October 2025. The report was submitted to the Minister for Home Affairs on 10 October 2025, meeting the requirements under section 46 of the PGPA Act.
Secretary’s review
2.28The Secretary of Home Affairs, Ms Stephanie Foster PSM, provided a review for the annual report.
2.29The Secretary outlined a number of initiatives that Home Affairs implemented throughout the reporting period, including:
the passage of the Cyber Security Act 2024;
reforms to the Protective Security Policy Framework;
release of Countering Foreign Interference in Australia: Working together towards a more secure Australia;
release of A Safer Australia: Australia’s Counter-terrorism and Violent Extremism Strategy;
finalisation of 179 816 citizenship by conferral applications;
establishment ofOffice of Community Cohesion and the Office of Multicultural Affairs;
the passage of the Migration Amendment (Removal and Other Measures) Act 2024 and the Migration Amendment Act 2024;
Performance reporting
2.30Home Affairs’ performance framework is set out in the 2024-25 Home Affairs Portfolio Budget Statements (Home Affairs PBS) and the Home Affairs 2024-25 Corporate Plan (Home Affairs Corporate Plan). The Home Affairs PBS outlines the department’s three outcomes and the programs related to each of them, as well as several performance criteria. The Home Affairs Corporate Plan also refers to these three outcomes which are:
outcome 1 – deliver national coordination regulation and policy that safeguard Australia’s domestic interests from national security threats, including cyber threats;
outcome 2 – support a united and prosperous Australia through effective coordination and delivery of immigration and citizenship policy and programs underpinned by robust integrity and assurance; and
outcome 3 – advance a prosperous and secure Australia through trade and travel facilitation and modernisation, and effective customs, immigration, maritime and enforcement activities across the border continuum.
2.31Each outcome contains several performance measures through which Home Affairs assesses its performance. There are 25 performance measures which comprise 82 performance targets.
2.32Of its 29 performance measures, Home Affairs met 14 (48 per cent), substantially met four (14 per cent) and did not meet 11 (38 per cent) measures. This suggests a substantial decrease in performance compared to the previous reporting period during which, of nine performance measures, four (44 per cent) were met and five (55 per cent) were substantially met.
2.33 Of the 82 constituent performance targets, Home Affairs met 52 (63 per cent), substantially met five (6 per cent), did not meet 18 (22 per cent) and seven (9 per cent) were categorised as ‘unable to be determined’. In the previous reporting period, out of the 38 performance targets these numbers were 27 (71 per cent), two (five per cent), eight (21 per cent) and one (3 per cent) respectively.
Table 2.3Home Affairs performance measures
| | | | | |
Met | 14 | 0 | 4 | 4 | 6 |
Substantially Met | 4 | 0 | 2 | 2 | 0 |
Not Met | 11 | 1 | 2 | 5 | 3 |
Source: Home Affairs, Annual Report 2024-25
Table 2.4Home Affairs performance targets
| | | | | |
Met | 52 | 0 | 17 | 20 | 15 |
Substantially Met | 5 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 2 |
Not Met | 18 | 1 | 3 | 10 | 4 |
Unable to be determined | 7 | 0 | 3 | 2 | 2 |
Source: Home Affairs, Annual Report 2024-25
2.34Of the performance measures that were not met, several which could have been reported on with greater detail in the Home Affairs annual report are discussed in the following paragraphs.
2.35Administration of the Protective Security Policy Framework supports Government cyber security resilience. This measure was not met as target 13 – ‘Complete 100% of scheduled activities required in 2024–25 to transform the Protective Security Policy Framework to a modern administrative compliance framework - was not met. Home Affairs explains that this target was not met as the creation of the required Standard Operating Procedure had not been considered by the Government Security Committee as of 30 June 2025.
2.36Counter foreign interference threats through capability and awareness activities and targeted initiatives. This measure was not met as target 24 – ‘Deliver all announced department-led initiatives to counter foreign interference scheduled for completion in 2024–25’ – was not met. Home Affairs explains that one of the two announced department-led initiatives was not completed.
2.37Delivery of the Migration and Citizenship Programs contributes to economic prosperity and aligns to national interests. This measure was not met as target 31 – ‘90% of citizenship by conferral applications are finalised within agreed target timeframes from lodgement to decision’ – was not met with 22.88 per cent of applications being finalised within the agreed target timeframe of six months. Home Affairs did note an increase in the on-hand caseload of 35 070, from 117 789 in the previous reporting period to 152 859 in this reporting period. However, given that this is an increase of approximately 30 per cent in the on-hand caseload relative to the previous reporting period, it is unclear why this would have caused Home Affairs to fall short of target 31 by 67.12 per cent.
2.38Regulation of Registered Migration Agents and implementation of migrant worker exploitation reforms supports the integrity of the visa and migration system. Home Affairs reports that this performance measure was not met due to targets 46, 47 and 49 not being met. Home Affairs indicated a reason for not meeting these targets was due to an increase in caseload from 105 to 276 in addition to loss of corporate knowledge. However, given the findings of ANAO’s report, Department of Home Affairs’ Regulation of Migration Agents, that Home Affairs’ regulation of migration agents ‘is not effective’ and that ‘appropriate arrangements are not in place to support the regulation of migration agents’ it would be beneficial for Home Affairs to provide further detail on how it can improve its performance against these targets.
Australian National Audit Office performance audits
2.39Home Affairs is also included in the ANAO report, Performance Statements of Major Australian Government Entities — Outcomes from the 2024–25 Audit Program.
2.40Home Affairs maturity in their approach to performance reporting was rated as baseline, the middle rating out of five. The ANAO report also highlights several ‘significant’ findings in relation to Home Affairs performance reporting:
instances where methodologies for reporting of results were ‘not being followed or being changed’ and ‘key terms and definitions not being identified or inconsistently applied, poor record keeping, and incomplete or inaccurate populations underpinning results’;
‘deficiencies in Home Affairs’ survey administration, introducing risks of bias and unreliable and unverifiable data;’ and
‘lack of assurance over the accuracy and completeness of data sets provided by third parties and used for the performance results for the targets on the Humanitarian Settlement Program and Settlement Engagement and Transition Support’.
2.41The ANAO further states two ‘moderate’ findings related to:
‘inadequate performance statements preparation processes’; and
‘the meaningfulness of reporting against several targets, which the ANAO found were too narrowly defined to effectively assess the department’s key activities and objectives.’
Financial performance
2.42Home Affairs reports a $300.1 million operating deficit compared with a $288.4 million operating deficit recorded in the previous reporting period. The department also incurred $496.5 million in depreciation and amortisation expenses and $212.8 million in principal repayments for leased assets.
2.43The department’s administered expenses for the reporting period were $2.2 billion, an increase of $2.0 billion during the previous reporting period. Home Affairs attributes most of this increase to ‘higher onshore compliance and detention costs and increased Unauthorised Maritime Arrival offshore management costs’.
2.44Home Affairs reported that its net asset position was $0.9 billion (assets minus liabilities), equivalent to the net asset position reported in the previous reporting period.
Conclusion
2.45Noting the observations in the preceding paragraphs, on balance the committee considers the annual report to be ‘apparently satisfactory’.