2.1
This chapter summarises the purpose, outcomes and priorities of the Australian Federal Police (AFP), and explores changes to the agency's performance framework, the AFP’s performance against its assessment framework, and its financial performance for the year 2019–20.
Purpose, outcomes and priorities of the AFP
2.2
The purpose of the AFP is to protect 'Australians and Australia’s interests through addressing criminal and national security threats; in essence, policing for a safer Australia'.
2.3
The functions of the AFP are outlined in section 8 of the Australian Federal Police Act 1979 (AFP Act). These include the provision of police services in relation to:
the laws, property and interests of the Commonwealth;
the investigation of state offences that have a federal aspect;
the Australian Capital Territory (ACT), the Jervis Bay Territory and Australia’s external territories;
functions conferred by the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 and the Witness Protection Act 1994 and any complementary laws;
protective and custodial functions directed by the Minister;
assisting an Australian or foreign law enforcement, intelligence, security or government regulatory agency;
establishing peace, stability and security in foreign countries;
assisting an international organisation or a non‑governmental organisation in relation to matters outside Australia;
and anything incidental or conducive to these functions.
2.4
The AFP is also guided by a Ministerial Direction, issued under section 37(2) of the AFP Act.
2.5
In 2019–20, the Department of Home Affairs Portfolio Budget Statements stipulated two outcomes for the AFP. The first outcome is 'reduced criminal and security threats to Australia’s collective economic and societal interests through cooperative policing services'. This outcome includes the two programs that the AFP's operations are divided into, the Federal Policing and National Security program and its International Police Assistance program. The second outcome of the AFP is 'a safe and secure environment through policing activities on behalf of the ACT Government'. This outcome comprises the ACT Community Policing program.
2.6
The AFP's Annual Report 2019–20 addresses Outcome one, while Outcome two is canvassed in a separate annual report published by ACT Policing. The Parliamentary Joint Committee for Law Enforcement (committee) considers the AFP's performance against its measures for Outcome one. The performance of the AFP in Outcome two is not considered here.
2.7
In terms of priorities for the reporting period, the AFP Corporate Plan 2019–20 (covering four years from 2019–20 to 2022–23) identifies that technological innovation, global trade and geopolitical tensions, wealth inequality, climate change and political instability are generating new threats such as increased movement of people, severe weather or interruptions to essential services and demand for AFP services.
2.8
The plan defines three key goals: achieving maximum operational impact, promoting cultural and organisational health, and ensuring a capable and future-ready AFP. The plan outlines seven areas of focus against which the AFP's resources are prioritised:
(1)
countering terrorism;
(2)
disrupting criminal networks;
(3)
leading national responses to human exploitation;
(4)
combating economic and serious crimes;
(5)
countering cybercrime;
(6)
protection of assets, persons and aviation; and
(7)
policing communities.
AFP performance framework and results for 2019–20
2.9
In 2018–19, the AFP’s performance was assessed against 11 performance criteria under two groupings: public value and impact (three criteria) and operational outcomes (eight criteria). The AFP's 2019–20 performance framework remains similar to that used in 2018–19. However, in total, the AFP's Outcome one, performance, was assessed against 17 criteria, as 'return on investment' and 'prevention and disruption case studies' have both been divided into three parts. The prosecution acceptance rate has also been reconfigured.
2.10
This section briefly summarises and analyses the 17 measures related to Outcome one. It then outlines some of the AFP's highlights from the year, and provides an overall committee view for Outcome one performance. This is followed by a summary of the AFP's financial performance.
2.11
The AFP aims to measure its performance by:
measuring the community’s confidence in the AFP's ability to counter threats via an annual phone survey;
calculating its return on investment via cost/benefit analysis;
providing case studies that demonstrate its prevention, disruption, response, and enforcement work;
counting its disruption activities and avoidable incidents;
assessing its response to aviation incidents within priority time frames;
providing the percentage of AFP finalised cases which resulted in a conviction or discharge; and
evaluating its external territories work.
Community confidence
2.12
In order to gauge community confidence in the AFP's contribution to law enforcement and national security, the organisation commissioned a phone survey of a random sample of the Australian public, asking them to rate their confidence in the AFP out of 10, as it had done the previous year. The target was to have 75 per cent of respondents rating their confidence as eight or more out of 10. In 2019–20, 69 per cent of respondents did so. While the AFP did not achieve the set performance target, this result nonetheless represents an improvement from the result of 61 per cent in 2018–19 and the year before that, where 62 per cent of respondents rated their confidence in the AFP as eight or more out of 10 in 2017–18.
2.13
Of the AFP’s 17 measures, this was one of only two that the agency did not achieve for the 2019–20 year. The Annual Report 2019–20 observed that the survey results indicate that there is uneven knowledge among Australians about what the AFP does and its priorities. The AFP has since increased its media engagement and communication via the appointment of media liaison officers, as well as through additional media releases and greater social media presence, among other things. The AFP anticipates that these actions will have a positive impact on the overall understanding of AFP activities and brand recognition.
Return on investment – transnational crime
2.14
The transnational crime return on investment (ROI) criterion assesses the value of how much harm to the community is avoided in dollar terms when the AFP seizes drugs and investigates fraud, and divides it by how much it costs to operate the AFP teams carrying out the work. The AFP estimates how much, for example, prison, legal and medical services, absenteeism and rehabilitation would have cost the community if it had not prevented crime before it happened. The transnational ROI is based on drugs and financial crime investigations finalised within the financial year, regardless of when the drug seizure or financial crime occurred. Notably, some investigations can take up to 10 years to complete.
2.15
The AFP assesses its transnational crime efforts as having been ‘achieved’ if it returns a figure greater than 1 on its investment. The AFP’s transnational ROI for 2019–20 was 10.3. In 2018–19 it was 3.6, and in 2017–18 it was 16.0.
2.16
The increase seen in 2019–20 was due to the finalisation of several significant drug investigations. However, as the AFP has previously pointed out, lower figures do not necessarily represent weaker performance, and ROIs will alter with time. The AFP advised that it is continuing to examine new ways of reporting harm averted and ROI going forward.
2.17
Commissioner Reece Kershaw, Commissioner of the AFP, also pointed out to the committee that the calculations for determining ROI are under review, noting that these measurements are easier in the state crime area where 'you can measure your success on unlawful entries or burglaries by the number, and then you can say you prevented a 10 per cent increase or whatever.' However, for the AFP working in areas such as cybercrime, it becomes much more difficult to measure the outcomes of preventative measures. Commissioner Kershaw acknowledged that the AFP needed to 'mature in that area and have some better measurements on prevention' and noted the AFP was speaking with different groups outside the AFP and was working on updating those ROI measurements.
2.18
Commissioner Kershaw emphasised the value of the AFP's work to tackle transnational crime, which has 'well and truly arrived' in Australia where 'global syndicates target Australians and the Australian market because it's a profitable enterprise and a profitable business, sadly'.
Return on investment – assets confiscation
2.19
The AFP confiscates criminal assets so that financial benefits from offending cannot be reinvested into criminal activities. Each year, the AFP calculates ROI for assets confiscation by dividing the value of confiscated assets with the cost of running its confiscating and litigating teams.
2.20
It should be noted that cases are frequently complex and involve significant international liaison. Further, the amount confiscated each year is subject to delays in matters being litigated, the time taken to finalise litigation, the time taken to realise confiscated assets, and the value of assets when sold. Investigations are often commenced in previous years, take several years to complete, and the assets may have been realised over a number of financial periods.
2.21
In 2019–20, the AFP confiscated $38.8 million of assets against $20 million in running costs, which provided an ROI of 1.95 against a target of 1. In 2018–19, the AFP confiscated $49.7 million of assets against $18.4 million in running costs, which provided an ROI of 2.7 against a target of 1.
2.22
Commissioner Kershaw outlined a recent case of confiscating assets of a person who had been selling child exploitation material online, stating '[t]hat was a first in literally taking everything from him that he owned, including any cash that he had on him'. Commissioner Kershaw went on to explain the new approach of the AFP was to send a strong message to criminals that '[i]f you pedal and make money out of these particular crimes, we will come after you, and, in addition to that, if you use things that are an instrument of the crime, then that links us into your assets'. Commissioner Kershaw further highlighted that the 'highly committed and highly skilled' AFP asset confiscation team is 'getting better and better at identifying assets of criminals and criminal organisations'.
Return on investment – international operations
2.23
The AFP assists international law enforcement services via a range of joint operations which can relate to, for example, child exploitation, illicit drugs, and human trafficking. One such example is the partnership with the Philippine Internet Crimes Against Children Centre, 'which has arrested 53 suspects and rescued 194 child victims since February 2019'.
2.24
Due to the international nature of this work, the AFP is unable to fully capture the benefits of its contribution in its performance measurement and reporting. For example, the AFP calculates its ROI for international operations based only on the value of international drug seizures, which involved the AFP (that is, the value of the harm that could have been caused to the Australian community had drugs reached it) divided by the cost of the AFP carrying out its international work for the year.
2.25
The AFP's ROI target is to achieve a figure greater than 1. Commissioner Kershaw noted that the AFP's 'international network alone is quite large for a country because we are, unfortunately, a profitable market.'
2.26
In 2019–20, there were approximately $6 billion worth of drugs and precursors seized against AFP costs of $145 million. This results in an ROI of 46. The ROI for 2018–19 was 22 and in 2017–18 the ROI was 32.
2.27
As the methodology captures only AFP work involving drugs, an operational focus on prevention and child exploitation matters can impact ROI. The AFP noted that the methodology of calculating ROI for international operations—as with the methodology for calculating ROI in other operational areas outlined earlier in this chapter—is currently under review.
Prevention case study analysis—domestic and international
2.28
The AFP carries out a diverse range of prevention activities, such as working with vulnerable individuals to prevent crime, targeting the underlying causes of crime, and maintaining order. Prevention can include education campaigns, policing control orders, or referring potential risks to other agencies.
2.29
During the 2019–20 year, the AFP highlighted some of its prevention work, such as using social media to educate Australians on scams and the establishment of a Bribery Prevention Network to combat foreign bribery.
2.30
Deputy Commissioner Brett Pointing, Deputy Commissioner of Operations for the AFP, highlighted for the committee that while there is 'a constant pressure to build taskforces and arrest teams…maintaining your prevention strategy is critical.' Deputy Commissioner Pointing further outlined that the AFP ensures prevention work is protected by having dedicated prevention‑focused staff in a range of areas such as child protection, human trafficking or cybercrime. The AFP also runs 'very well-constructed programs like ThinkUKnow and Look a Little Deeper to prevent forced marriage', in addition to 'partnering with the community to make sure we get the multiplier effect'.
2.31
The AFP evaluated the outcomes of the ThinkUKnow campaign, and found that it was not only successful in educating children on online safety, but also educating teachers and parents as well. Deputy Commissioner Pointing informed the committee that in the 2019–2020 period, the AFP made 233 presentations which were delivered to over 13 000 parents, carers and teachers. As a result of COVID-19, the AFP pivoted to delivering online content, but indicated that it expects to return to face-to-face training after the pandemic.
2.32
The AFP’s target for the prevention criterion is framed broadly as ‘successfully targeted crime prevention’. The Annual Report 2019–20 explains that prevention is 'notoriously difficult to measure', and thus the agency has used qualitative case studies to showcase some of its work and processes. The Annual Report 2019–20 flagged that the AFP will continue to examine ways to demonstrate its preventative impact.
2.33
As outlined earlier in this chapter, the AFP is currently working on improvements to measuring the ROI for hard-to-measure targets such as prevention. Deputy Commissioner Pointing advised the committee that prevention is 'a challenging area to measure, but it's certainly one we keep a very close eye on in terms of making sure we remain effective in the prevention space'.
Committee view
2.34
The committee commends the prevention activities of the AFP and its contribution to protecting not only Australian children but also children overseas. The Annual Report 2019–20 notes that prevention often takes place within other AFP work, such as disruption and enforcement, and the committee appreciates the difficulty with delineating the boundary between coexisting and complementary work for the purposes of reporting and evaluation.
2.35
In addition to case studies, the AFP might consider providing a summary, for example, of how many people or schools have accessed the National Missing Persons and ThinkUKnow campaigns during the year and any outcomes or trends. It might also review whether there are additional figures that could be included which provide insight into how many cases, services, and campaigns the AFP carries out during a year as part of its prevention work.
2.36
The AFP might consider providing an approximate breakdown of how much prevention work is carried out as a proportion of the AFP’s total prevent, disrupt, enforce, and respond efforts for the year. This would provide the committee with an understanding of the organisation’s current resourcing distribution and any trends over time.
2.37
The committee commends the AFP for the work being undertaken in improving ROI measurements and looks forward to reading the results of that work in future annual reports.
Disruption case study analysis—domestic and international
2.38
The AFP defines ‘disruption’ as 'delaying, diverting or otherwise complicating the commission of crimes or the operations of a criminal entity'. Again, the AFP’s target is framed broadly as ‘successfully undertook disruption’. The Annual Report 2019–20 provides five case studies outlining some of the AFP’s domestic and international activities in disrupting domestic terrorist activities, online child sexual exploitation, drug importation, methamphetamine manufacturing, and human trafficking.
Disruption count
2.39
The Annual Report 2019–20 provides the number of disruption activities the organisation carried out during the year in a separate criterion. In 2019–20, the AFP recorded 294 disruptions. In terms of the nature of these activities, 58 per cent were international disruptions, and 42 per cent were national disruptions, and the majority related to drugs, cybercrime and child exploitation.
2.40
Commissioner Kershaw outlined for the committee the changes in how the AFP targets its disruption work to respond to the ever-increasing globalisation of transnational serious and organised crime, including working closely with partners in Five Eyes countries. Commissioner Kershaw told the committee:
For us it's about how we dismantle those syndicates. That has always been the challenge with OMCGs and others. They're like triffids—they just keep growing back. It's something we are determined to fix. Our techniques include asset seizure, making arrests, putting away people for life, and educating the public on how to work with us and report these crimes.
Avoidable incidents
2.41
The AFP provides protection to individuals who have been identified by the Australian Government or the AFP as being at risk in both Australia and during international travel. The AFP measures the success of its work through the number of incidents that occurred and caused injury, death or embarrassment, which could have been avoided through intelligence and action.
2.42
In 2019–20, the AFP's target was to have less than two avoidable incidents occur in the period. The AFP recorded zero.
Committee view
2.43
The significance and scope of the AFP’s disruption work are well illustrated in the Annual Report 2019–20 through the inclusion of case studies. Again, the difficulty of setting a quantitative target for disruption is not lost on the committee. In addition to the case studies, the AFP might consider providing a brief discussion of how it prioritises disruption activities, the proportion of total resourcing its disruption activities represented for the year, how yearly targets are set, and trends over time.
2.44
With regards to protective services and avoidable incidents, the committee commends the AFP’s work in this area; its results are a testament to its intelligence and response efforts.
Response case study analysis
2.45
The AFP introduced a new performance measure in 2018–19, which aims to gauge how the AFP responded to time-critical incidents such as drug seizures, vessels in distress, alarms at officeholder and diplomatic premises and aviation incidents. In 2019–20, the AFP assisted in responding to national emergencies, including bushfires and COVID-19. The Annual Report 2019–20 provided three case studies that outlined some of its work during these emergencies, including responding to the fires in and around the ACT; assisting the evacuation response from Wuhan, China; and managing safety measures arising from the pandemic.
2.46
The AFP’s 2019–20 target for this measure was again framed broadly as ‘successfully delivered response’.
Committee view
2.47
The committee acknowledges the response results of the AFP and thanks the agency for providing illuminating case studies which demonstrate the complexity of its work. The committee appreciates the difficulty in setting targets for, and measuring the success of, the AFP's work responding to time‑critical incidents, given this work is broad in scope, unpredictable in nature, and each incident is unique. In future annual reports, the AFP might consider including information on how priority levels and expected response times are set, the approximate number and types of incidents that were responded to, and trends over time.
Response to aviation incidents within priority time frames
2.48
The AFP measures its performance at airports through the time it has taken to respond to incidents. Incidents have priority levels ranging from one to four (depending on whether they are life-threatening or present no immediate danger), and each target response time varies. For 2019–20, priority levels one and two had targets of 90 per cent, and priority levels three and four had targets of 95 per cent. The AFP aims to have 90 per cent of priority one incidents responded to within 10 minutes, while other police jurisdictions across Australia aim to have between 80 and 90 per cent of their priority one call-outs responded to within 10 and 15 minutes.
2.49
From April 2020, the number of incidents fell significantly as travel restrictions were imposed due to the pandemic. Despite the impact of COVID-19 and the AFP's focus on escorting passengers to quarantine, as well as a comparatively high target response time, the AFP exceeded its targets in all priority levels.
Committee view
2.50
The committee acknowledges the excellent response times of the AFP in responding to aviation incidents, despite rising traffic at airports (prior to the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic in the latter part of the reporting year, at least), and against a particularly lean target. In future annual reports, the AFP might wish to include some discussion around the quality of its responses, how targets are set, whether and why targets differ from year to year, and any trends in the types of incidents the AFP is responding to at airports (noting that border and travel restrictions imposed as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic will likely make a comparison between 2019–20 and previous years challenging).
Enforcement case study analysis
2.51
The AFP introduced a new performance assessment criterion in 2018–19, which aims to measure its success in enforcement activities. Enforcement activities can range from investigating offences, assisting other agencies with their enforcement, and cooperative international activities. The AFP's contribution often forms part of a larger process in which prosecution and sentencing, for example, are outside of the AFP's control.
2.52
In 2019–20, the AFP's target for this measure was 'successfully targeted crime prevention'. The Annual Report 2019–20 provided three case studies to demonstrate the interconnected nature of, and outcomes from, this work. These included the finalisation of a lengthy and complex international drug importation case, disruption of a malware network that provided remote access to unsuspecting victims' computers, and identifying and removing serious drug importation vulnerabilities at the Melbourne waterfront.
2.53
Commissioner Kershaw provided further details to the committee on the malware network the AFP disrupted, which included 14 500 licences sold to users in 124 different countries, with 191 licences sold to customers believed to be located in Australia. The AFP led the global operation against the network, which resulted in 85 search warrants and 13 arrests in Australia. Commissioner Kershaw further outlined that a brief of evidence was being prepared for prosecution, which identified crimes including 'computer misuse offences, possible fraud offences, sexual offences, money laundering, domestic abuse, domestic violence abuse, child exploitation and narcotics'.
Committee view
2.54
The AFP's enforcement work is commendable, and again the committee acknowledges the difficulty of setting a qualitative or quantitative target when the nature of the work is dynamic, unique, and significantly broad in scope.
2.55
In addition to providing case studies, the AFP might include information on how it prioritises its work, the approximate number and types of incidents that were responded to, and any trends over time.
2.56
The AFP might also consider ways in which an approximate breakdown of how much enforcement work is carried out as a proportion of the AFP’s total prevent, disrupt, enforce, and respond efforts for the year could be included in future reports.
Prosecution acceptance rate
2.57
The following section discusses changes to the way the AFP reports on the quality of its investigations.
2.58
In 2018–19, the AFP introduced a third new performance assessment criterion relating to the quality of its investigations. The AFP had previously reported on the conviction rate of individuals who had been successfully prosecuted for a Commonwealth crime by the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions (CDPP). However, as prosecution is outside of the AFP’s control, the agency replaced this rate with the number of prosecution cases that have been accepted by the CDPP (the acceptance rate). In 2018–19, 95 per cent of AFP briefs to the CDPP, for which the CDPP completed its assessment in 2018–19, were accepted for prosecution..
2.59
At the committee’s hearing on 28 May 2020, where it examined the AFP's Annual Report 2018–19, the committee questioned whether it would not be more useful to report on both prosecution and acceptance rates in future as both indicate the quality of AFP investigations. Commissioner Kershaw agreed that that there is an opportunity for the agency to improve its reporting and that the organisation was considering including additional measures such as caseloads, run times, expenditure and acceptance rates.
2.60
In this committee's most recent examination of the AFP's annual report, it noted that ACT Policing, which is part of the AFP, measures this information in a different way. ACT Policing measures the percentage of briefs it delivered to the Director of Public Prosecutions within designated timeframes, as opposed to the number of briefs that have been accepted by the CDPP as done by the AFP. In addition to timeliness of briefs, ACT Policing tracks the percentage of cases that are finalised by the offence being proven in court. Further, ACT Policing tracks the percentage of cases which were 'otherwise resolved', which aims to measure matters where defendants were unfit to plead due to mental illness.
2.61
In the Annual Report 2019–20, the AFP pointed out that the CDPP figures only cover a small portion of the AFP's prosecutorial-related outcomes, as AFP officers can lay charges autonomously. For example, in 2019–20, AFP National Investigations charged 285 people with 891 offences, while at airports AFP members charged 225 people with 316 counts of offences. The majority of these arrests led to court hearings.
2.62
In light of this, the Annual Report 2019–20 provides the percentage of AFP finalised cases that resulted in a conviction or discharge. The AFP explained that as each case may have more than one offender charged with multiple offences, this enables a greater portion of AFP work to be included in the measure. The quality of AFP briefs used in prosecutions is also indirectly measured using the assumption that adequate quality ensured the court process occurred while matters the CDPP elected not to argue were reflected in matters being discharged.
2.63
Of the finalised national (excluding airport) cases in 2019–20 that reached court, 94 per cent resulted in a sentence and 6 per cent were discharged. The yearly target was 95 per cent.
Committee view
2.64
The committee commends the AFP for its high quality and effective brief preparation, which is demonstrated through a high prosecution acceptance rate. As mentioned earlier, the AFP previously reported the conviction rate of individuals who had been successfully prosecuted for a Commonwealth crime by the CDPP, and the committee is of the view that the AFP should include both of these rates in its annual reporting.
2.65
The committee notes that the annual report states that 'no briefs were refused due to poor quality' yet five per cent of briefs were not proceeded with due to insufficient evidence. Should a similar situation occur in future, some discussion as to why this occurred might be helpful.
Mission and external territories performance evaluation
2.66
The AFP provides community policing in Australia’s external territories, including Christmas Island, Norfolk Island, Cocos (Keeling) Islands, and Jervis Bay. AFP International Operations is responsible for managing community policing and a variety of other functions in these territories, including customs, border protection and immigration functions and land and maritime search and rescue operations. The AFP also provides several international police assistance missions which focus on capacity building across the Pacific, Timor‑Leste, and the Solomon Islands.
2.67
While the AFP also provides community policing services to the ACT Government, ACT Policing is not included in its 'mission and external territories performance evaluation' measure, as ACT Policing provides a separate annual report.
2.68
The aim of this performance criterion is to ensure the AFP undertakes 'systematic and in-depth internal and independent assessments of programs and strategies that provide evidence to inform mission programming and decision making'.
2.69
The AFP Corporate Plan 2019–20 notes that assessments for this performance criterion are optional. The plan forecasts which international policing mission evaluations will take place in each reporting period.
2.70
The AFP's Annual Report 2017–18 provided a table that outlined how each international policing mission had performed overall against effectiveness, efficiency, gender equality, and sustainability targets for the first half of the reporting period (July to December 2017). However, it did not provide any comment on the performance of external territories policing.
2.71
The Annual Report 2018–19 did not provide a similar table but instead discussed the single evaluation that was planned for that year. The results of the evaluation were not presented until the following reporting period and thus marked ‘pending’ in the report. The Annual Report 2019–20 does not provide the results or discussion of the evaluation.
2.72
In 2019–20, internal mid-term reviews were conducted of the Solomon Islands Police Development Program and the Timor-Leste Police Development Program. In addition, a health check was conducted of the Pacific Transnational Crime Network. The AFP reported that the results of these evaluations were positive and will inform future decision-making.
2.73
The Pacific Police Development Program was also reviewed between April and June 2019, and according to the Annual Report 2018–19, the results would not be available until the next reporting period. However, the Annual Report 2019–20 does not provide the results or discussion of the evaluation.
2.74
However, Commissioner Kershaw informed the committee of the recent McDermott review, which evaluated the impact of AFP work under the government's Pacific Step-Up program. Commissioner Kershaw stated:
I'm pretty pleased with how we're tracking there and also with the relationships that go back a long way now. I speak regularly at the Pacific Island Chiefs of Police and I speak regularly to the commissioner of PNG, the commissioner of the Solomon Islands and some of the other commissioners out there, who are always very grateful for the AFP's and Australia's support. We also work, as you know, with our New Zealand cousins in making sure that we support our Pacific partners there. We're pretty happy. We've got a few tweaks we've identified through the McDermott review.
2.75
Overall, the AFP’s target for its mission and external territories performance evaluation criterion is to have ‘evaluations completed and recommendations addressed’. However, it seems that not all missions and external territories are reported on in this section of the Annual Report 2019–20, evaluations may not be completed or made available in the same time period, and implementation of recommendations may span several years.
Committee view
2.76
The committee acknowledges the significant contribution of the AFP to the Australian community and acknowledges the difficulty it faces in measuring and assessing its performance on an annual basis. The AFP works within a much larger system, often collaboratively and internationally, and it is impossible to measure all the benefits arising from its work.
2.77
The committee encourages the AFP to continue to seek new ways to measure community confidence and notes that the AFP is reviewing the importance of the role of public knowledge of the organisation.
2.78
The AFP's ROI is impressive considering that much of the benefits from its work have not been captured. With regards to the ROI in transnational crime efforts, the committee appreciates the inclusion of a five‑year chart in its annual report, which demonstrates the fluctuations in ROI over time. As investigations can sometimes take up to ten years to complete, it may be useful for the AFP to broaden the time range of its chart. Briefly unpacking how the policing landscape of fraud is changing and impacting the AFP's ROI, may also be of benefit.
2.79
Further clarity could be provided in the annual report on the AFP's performance in external territories and international policing missions. The framework for assessing the AFP's work is unclear; for example, the performance framework and results for Norfolk Island do not appear to be reported on in the annual report or publicly available elsewhere. It may also be difficult for the AFP to meet its ‘evaluations completed and recommendations addressed' target annually, due to evaluations spanning reporting periods. The AFP might consider providing greater detail on its external territories and international assistance missions' performance framework and the results of its assessments. The annual report may also benefit from including a table that captures several reporting periods of results of evaluations.
Notable outcomes in 2019–20
2.80
In addition to the Outcome One performance results discussed above, the AFP made a number of significant contributions during the 2019–20 year. These include:
assisting more than 65,000 Australians who were returning from overseas and going into hotel quarantine due to the COVID-19 pandemic;
seizing 18.6 billion tonnes of illicit drugs and precursors at the border;
making Australia’s largest ever onshore methamphetamine seizure (1.6 tonnes); and
deploying a team to New Zealand to assist with disaster victim identification and family investigative liaison officer efforts following the volcanic eruption on White Island.
2.81
Commissioner Kershaw also highlighted the AFP work conducted in Operation Cepheus, where the AFP 'coordinated a global week of action in 16 countries, consisting of 85 search warrants, 13 arrests and seizure of 434 items as part of a major global cybercrime operation'.
Committee view - Outcome One overall performance
2.82
The AFP's overall performance for 2019–20 was positive, and the committee notes that the AFP's workload remains relatively stable despite the pandemic and bushfires where investigations were suspended, officers re-tasked, or matters delayed due to travel restrictions and physical distancing requirements. The AFP closed 3062 cases during the year compared to 3416 the year prior. Breaking this down, it began the year with 3362 cases, received 2954 new referrals, closed 3062 cases and had 3254 cases on hand at the end of the period.
2.83
The committee thanks the AFP for the significant efforts of the AFP during 2019–20 in addressing new challenges that arose directly from the COVID-19 pandemic, whilst also pivoting to new ways to undertake ongoing work with the limitations imposed by adhering to COVID-19 safety. The impact that the AFP had on assisting Australia to remain relatively stable during this time cannot be overstated.
2.84
The committee reiterates the views stated in its review of the Annual Report 2018–19, 'that it is essential that the AFP has a rigorous and meaningful annual performance framework in place which can demonstrate the effectiveness, quality, and quantity of its work'. The committee again advises that the organisation's broad targets of 'successfully prevented, disrupted, responded and enforced crime' could potentially be further broken down to facilitate deeper analysis.
2.85
However, the committee also acknowledges the work being undertaken by the AFP to improve the measurements of the ROI metrics, and believes that a more nuanced approach to the ROI statistics will give a more accurate overview of the outcomes of the AFP's work.
2.86
As always, the committee greatly appreciates the inclusion of case studies to illustrate the AFP's work, which allows the committee a window into the AFP's significant contributions to detect, disrupt and prevent serious crime in Australia and our region.
Financial performance of the AFP in 2019–20
2.87
The AFP’s departmental operating income for 2019–20 was $1435 million. This comprised $1128 million in government appropriation, $170 million from the ACT Government for policing services, and $137 million in other revenue. The AFP further received $78 million in government appropriations for departmental capital expenditure and $53 million in equity injections for specific initiatives. It also administered $8 million in expenses on behalf of the government during the year.
2.88
The AFP reported a departmental comprehensive loss of $114 million for 2019–20. After adjusting for the impact of depreciation expenses of $200 million and including the impact of lease payments of $94 million and the revaluation of non-financial assets of $23 million, the AFP recorded a deficit for the year of $31 million. The deficit was predominately a result of the recognition of an additional provision in respect of unpaid superannuation, the procurement of protective equipment in response to COVID-19 and the bushfires, and reduced leave taken by employees as a result of COVID-19.
2.89
The following chapter considers the AFP's progress in improving mental health in its workforce, the AFP's strategic and organisational restructure, key reports and findings from external scrutiny agencies that were released during or pertain to the 2019–20 year, and compliance with annual report requirements.