{ "entity_id": "B-002197", "folder": "Administrative-Review-Council", "name": "Administrative Review Council", "type": "Statutory Body", "jurisdiction": "Commonwealth", "portfolio": "Attorney-General's", "website": "https://www.ag.gov.au/legal-system/administrative-law/administrative-review-council", "data_status": "partial", "completeness": { "has_strategy_brief": true, "has_strategy_structured": true, "has_vision": false, "has_kpi_targets": true, "has_kpi_results": true, "has_strategy_overview": true, "has_legislation_text": true, "has_legislation_structured": false, "has_global_initiatives_text": false, "has_global_initiatives_structured": false, "n_global_initiatives": 0, "has_ideas": true, "has_artifacts": true, "n_ideas": 12, "n_legislation": 0, "n_artifacts": 6, "n_kpi_targets": 1, "n_kpi_results": 1, "n_outcomes": 1, "verified_own_data": true }, "strategy_profile": { "status": "needs_review", "confidence": "medium", "summary": "Reforming the legal framework of the National Intelligence Community", "official_site_url": "https://www.ag.gov.au/legal-system/administrative-law/administrative-review-council", "source_documents": [], "purpose": null, "vision": null, "strategic_priorities": [ { "title": "Reforming the legal framework of the National Intelligence Community", "description": "Reforming the legal framework of the National Intelligence Community", "source_url": "https://www.ag.gov.au/system/files/2020-12/Government-response-to-the-Comprehensive-Review-of-the-Legal-Framework-of-the-National-Intelligence-Community_1.PDF", "source_page": 4, "source_deep_url": "https://www.ag.gov.au/system/files/2020-12/Government-response-to-the-Comprehensive-Review-of-the-Legal-Framework-of-the-National-Intelligence-Community_1.PDF#page=4" } ], "values": [ { "name": "Transparency", "description": "", "source_url": "https://www.ag.gov.au/system/files/2020-12/Government-response-to-the-Comprehensive-Review-of-the-Legal-Framework-of-the-National-Intelligence-Community_1.PDF", "source_page": null }, { "name": "Oversight", "description": "", "source_url": "https://www.ag.gov.au/system/files/2020-12/Government-response-to-the-Comprehensive-Review-of-the-Legal-Framework-of-the-National-Intelligence-Community_1.PDF", "source_page": null }, { "name": "Proportionality", "description": "", "source_url": "https://www.ag.gov.au/system/files/2020-12/Government-response-to-the-Comprehensive-Review-of-the-Legal-Framework-of-the-National-Intelligence-Community_1.PDF", "source_page": null } ], "outcomes": [ { "name": "Outcome 1: Effective and proportionate intelligence legislation", "description": "To ensure that the legislation governing the national intelligence community remains effective, adapted and proportionate to the current and future national security challenges in a liberal democracy.", "activities": [ "Conducting a thorough and measured exploration of the issues facing the intelligence community", "Pursuing targeted legislative changes in other areas to ensure that agencies can undertake their functions effectively" ], "source_url": "https://www.ag.gov.au/system/files/2020-12/Government-response-to-the-Comprehensive-Review-of-the-Legal-Framework-of-the-National-Intelligence-Community_1.PDF", "source_page": 4, "source_deep_url": "https://www.ag.gov.au/system/files/2020-12/Government-response-to-the-Comprehensive-Review-of-the-Legal-Framework-of-the-National-Intelligence-Community_1.PDF#page=4" } ], "performance_measures": [ { "code": "NIC01", "measure": "Proportionality assessments", "target": "Consistent approaches", "latest_result": "Consistent approaches", "status": "Achieved", "target_source_url": "https://www.ag.gov.au/system/files/2020-12/Government-response-to-the-Comprehensive-Review-of-the-Legal-Framework-of-the-National-Intelligence-Community_1.PDF", "target_source_page": 12, "result_source_url": "", "result_source_page": 12 } ], "document_alignment_terms": { "must_support": [ "Reforming the legal framework of the National Intelligence Community" ], "watch_terms": [ "Proportionality assessments" ], "avoid_claiming_without_evidence": [] }, "review_note": "Structured strategy exists but is incomplete." }, "global_initiatives": null, "strategy": { "reporting_period": "2024-25", "corporate_plan_period": "2025-26", "vision": null, "vision_source_page": null, "purposes": null, "purposes_source_page": null, "how_we_deliver": null, "how_we_deliver_source_page": null, "government_priorities": [ { "text": "Reforming the legal framework of the National Intelligence Community", "source_page": 4 } ], "outcomes": [ { "name": "Outcome 1: Effective and proportionate intelligence legislation", "description": "To ensure that the legislation governing the national intelligence community remains effective, adapted and proportionate to the current and future national security challenges in a liberal democracy.", "key_activities": [ "Conducting a thorough and measured exploration of the issues facing the intelligence community", "Pursuing targeted legislative changes in other areas to ensure that agencies can undertake their functions effectively" ], "source_page": 4 } ], "values": [ "Transparency", "Oversight", "Proportionality" ], "values_framework_name": null, "kpi_targets_2025_26": [ { "code": "NIC01", "measure": "Proportionality assessments", "target": "Consistent approaches", "source_page": 12 } ], "kpi_results_2024_25": [ { "code": "NIC01", "measure": "Proportionality assessments", "result": "Consistent approaches", "status": "Achieved", "source_page": 12 } ], "_source_urls": { "annual_report_url": "", "corporate_plan_url": "" } }, "ideas": [ { "entity_id": "B-002197", "entity_name": "Administrative Review Council", "folder_name": "Administrative-Review-Council", "category": "Risk & Assurance", "scale": "small", "title": "Recommendation tracker for audits, reviews, and inquiries", "idea": "Publish a single internal tracker for audit/review recommendations, owners, due dates, and implementation evidence.", "quote": "Meeting of ARC 24 November 2025 – Statement of meeting outcomes\nMinutes\n1 December 2025\nStatement to advise of the outcomes of the Administrative Review Council’s sixth meeting on Monday, 24 November 2025, including consideration of Systemic Issue Notice No 1 2025, update on the progress of the Migration Inquiry and Social Security Inquiry consultation, acceptance of a notification of a systemic issue by a member of the public, and progress of the Statement of Position responding to the broad issue raised by Systemic Issue Notice No 1 2024.", "impact": "High", "effort": "Low", "proof": "Evidence-backed", "beneficiaries": "Executives / assurance teams", "source": "pages/news-latest.html (https://www.ag.gov.au/legal-system/administrative-law/arc/administrative-review-council-news)", "implementation": [ "Pick one high-volume process or document family.", "Name an owner and baseline current volume, time, cost, and satisfaction.", "Run a 4-8 week pilot with clear before/after metrics.", "Publish lessons and decide whether to scale." ], "risks": [ "Privacy and data quality", "Change fatigue", "Unclear accountability", "Regulatory capture", "Over-automation of judgement" ] }, { "entity_id": "B-002197", "entity_name": "Administrative Review Council", "folder_name": "Administrative-Review-Council", "category": "Risk & Assurance", "scale": "large", "title": "Integrated assurance and lessons-learned system", "idea": "Create an assurance system that connects audit findings, risk registers, delivery reviews, and investment decisions.", "quote": "Meeting of ARC 24 November 2025 – Statement of meeting outcomes\nMinutes\n1 December 2025\nStatement to advise of the outcomes of the Administrative Review Council’s sixth meeting on Monday, 24 November 2025, including consideration of Systemic Issue Notice No 1 2025, update on the progress of the Migration Inquiry and Social Security Inquiry consultation, acceptance of a notification of a systemic issue by a member of the public, and progress of the Statement of Position responding to the broad issue raised by Systemic Issue Notice No 1 2024.", "impact": "Very High", "effort": "High", "proof": "Evidence-backed", "beneficiaries": "Executives / assurance teams", "source": "pages/news-latest.html (https://www.ag.gov.au/legal-system/administrative-law/arc/administrative-review-council-news)", "implementation": [ "Create a senior responsible owner and cross-functional delivery team.", "Map legislation, data, privacy, procurement, cyber, and workforce constraints.", "Co-design with users and frontline staff before technology selection.", "Stage delivery through pilots, benefits tracking, and public reporting." ], "risks": [ "Privacy and data quality", "Change fatigue", "Unclear accountability", "Regulatory capture", "Over-automation of judgement" ] }, { "entity_id": "B-002197", "entity_name": "Administrative Review Council", "folder_name": "Administrative-Review-Council", "category": "Citizen Services", "scale": "small", "title": "Plain-language service pages and proactive status updates", "idea": "Rewrite high-volume pages and letters into plain language, add status notifications, and measure contact reduction.", "quote": "[Page 56]\nChapter 18 Authorisations: Introduction and a double lock system Volume 2\nactivity relates directly to NZ citizens and permanent residents, must be jointly\nissued by the Minister and a Commissioner of Intelligence Warrants.117\nThe Minister and Commissioner of Intelligence Warrants must consider the same\nstatutory criteria in issuing the warrant.118 Where the person is not a NZ citizen or\npermanent resident, the warrant requires only the approval of the Minister.119\nThe Netherlands\n18.81 The Netherlands introduced the Intelligence and Security Services Act 2017 to\nreplace the Intelligence and Security Services Act 2002, which was considered\noutdated and no longer fit for purpose.120 The Dutch Government requested a\nspecial state committee (the Dessens Committee) assess the existing laws and\nmake recommendations.", "impact": "High", "effort": "Low", "proof": "Evidence-backed", "beneficiaries": "Citizens / service users", "source": "other-pdfs/volume-2-authorisations-immunities-and-electronic-surveillance.pdf (https://www.ag.gov.au/system/files/2020-12/volume-2-authorisations-immunities-and-electronic-surveillance.PDF)", "implementation": [ "Pick one high-volume process or document family.", "Name an owner and baseline current volume, time, cost, and satisfaction.", "Run a 4-8 week pilot with clear before/after metrics.", "Publish lessons and decide whether to scale." ], "risks": [ "Privacy and data quality", "Change fatigue", "Unclear accountability", "Digital exclusion", "Low public trust if feedback is not acted on" ] }, { "entity_id": "B-002197", "entity_name": "Administrative Review Council", "folder_name": "Administrative-Review-Council", "category": "Citizen Services", "scale": "large", "title": "Single front door for life-event based services", "idea": "Bundle services around life events so citizens can complete related steps across agencies in one journey.", "quote": "[Page 56]\nChapter 18 Authorisations: Introduction and a double lock system Volume 2\nactivity relates directly to NZ citizens and permanent residents, must be jointly\nissued by the Minister and a Commissioner of Intelligence Warrants.117\nThe Minister and Commissioner of Intelligence Warrants must consider the same\nstatutory criteria in issuing the warrant.118 Where the person is not a NZ citizen or\npermanent resident, the warrant requires only the approval of the Minister.119\nThe Netherlands\n18.81 The Netherlands introduced the Intelligence and Security Services Act 2017 to\nreplace the Intelligence and Security Services Act 2002, which was considered\noutdated and no longer fit for purpose.120 The Dutch Government requested a\nspecial state committee (the Dessens Committee) assess the existing laws and\nmake recommendations.", "impact": "Very High", "effort": "High", "proof": "Evidence-backed", "beneficiaries": "Citizens / service users", "source": "other-pdfs/volume-2-authorisations-immunities-and-electronic-surveillance.pdf (https://www.ag.gov.au/system/files/2020-12/volume-2-authorisations-immunities-and-electronic-surveillance.PDF)", "implementation": [ "Create a senior responsible owner and cross-functional delivery team.", "Map legislation, data, privacy, procurement, cyber, and workforce constraints.", "Co-design with users and frontline staff before technology selection.", "Stage delivery through pilots, benefits tracking, and public reporting." ], "risks": [ "Privacy and data quality", "Change fatigue", "Unclear accountability", "Digital exclusion", "Low public trust if feedback is not acted on" ] }, { "entity_id": "B-002197", "entity_name": "Administrative Review Council", "folder_name": "Administrative-Review-Council", "category": "Staff Productivity", "scale": "small", "title": "Reusable briefing and summary assistant for internal documents", "idea": "Create controlled templates for summarising reports, submissions, minutes, and ministerial briefs.", "quote": "[pages 96,97,98]\norise ASIO to exercise its\nother warrant powers for the purpose of collecting foreign intelligence inside\nAustralia.203 They cannot be used to collect foreign intelligence on Australians.204\n19.84 To issue a foreign intelligence collection warrant under the ASIO Act, the\nAttorney-General must be satisfied, on the basis of advice from the\nDefence Minister or Foreign Minister, that the collection of the foreign intelligence\nis in the interests of Australia’s national security, Australia’s foreign relations or\nAustralia’s national economic well-being.205 ASIO can then access its search,\n202 Australian Chemical Refiners Pty Ltd v Bradwell (Court of Criminal Appeal, NSW Supreme Court,\n28 February 1986).", "impact": "High", "effort": "Low", "proof": "Evidence-backed", "beneficiaries": "APS staff / executives", "source": "other-pdfs/volume-2-authorisations-immunities-and-electronic-surveillance.pdf (https://www.ag.gov.au/system/files/2020-12/volume-2-authorisations-immunities-and-electronic-surveillance.PDF)", "implementation": [ "Pick one high-volume process or document family.", "Name an owner and baseline current volume, time, cost, and satisfaction.", "Run a 4-8 week pilot with clear before/after metrics.", "Publish lessons and decide whether to scale." ], "risks": [ "Privacy and data quality", "Change fatigue", "Unclear accountability", "Sensitive information leakage", "Inconsistent quality of generated drafts" ] }, { "entity_id": "B-002197", "entity_name": "Administrative Review Council", "folder_name": "Administrative-Review-Council", "category": "Staff Productivity", "scale": "large", "title": "Department-wide knowledge and briefing platform", "idea": "Build a secure knowledge platform that lets staff search, summarise, and cite approved departmental material.", "quote": "[pages 96,97,98]\norise ASIO to exercise its\nother warrant powers for the purpose of collecting foreign intelligence inside\nAustralia.203 They cannot be used to collect foreign intelligence on Australians.204\n19.84 To issue a foreign intelligence collection warrant under the ASIO Act, the\nAttorney-General must be satisfied, on the basis of advice from the\nDefence Minister or Foreign Minister, that the collection of the foreign intelligence\nis in the interests of Australia’s national security, Australia’s foreign relations or\nAustralia’s national economic well-being.205 ASIO can then access its search,\n202 Australian Chemical Refiners Pty Ltd v Bradwell (Court of Criminal Appeal, NSW Supreme Court,\n28 February 1986).", "impact": "Very High", "effort": "High", "proof": "Evidence-backed", "beneficiaries": "APS staff / executives", "source": "other-pdfs/volume-2-authorisations-immunities-and-electronic-surveillance.pdf (https://www.ag.gov.au/system/files/2020-12/volume-2-authorisations-immunities-and-electronic-surveillance.PDF)", "implementation": [ "Create a senior responsible owner and cross-functional delivery team.", "Map legislation, data, privacy, procurement, cyber, and workforce constraints.", "Co-design with users and frontline staff before technology selection.", "Stage delivery through pilots, benefits tracking, and public reporting." ], "risks": [ "Privacy and data quality", "Change fatigue", "Unclear accountability", "Sensitive information leakage", "Inconsistent quality of generated drafts" ] }, { "entity_id": "B-002197", "entity_name": "Administrative Review Council", "folder_name": "Administrative-Review-Council", "category": "Regulation & Policy", "scale": "small", "title": "Regulatory burden scan for forms, guidance, and reporting", "idea": "Identify the top 10 highest-friction reporting obligations and simplify guidance, forms, or evidence requirements.", "quote": "This stemmed from amendments made to the\nIntelligence and Security Committee Act 1996 in 2013, requiring that a review be\nundertaken every five to seven years of the agencies, the legislation governing the\nagencies and their oversight legislation.112\n18.79 Their report—Intelligence and Security in a Free Society—recommended greater\nconsistency in the authorising framework across NZSIS and GCSB to provide a\ngreater level of accountability, improve agency cooperation and provide clarity to\nboth agencies and the public on the scope of agencies’ powers.113 In respect of the\nauthorisation process, Sir Cullen and Dame Reddy considered there was a\nbalance to be struck between placing sufficient safeguards on the agencies’\nintrusive activities, while providing the agencies with enough flexibility to perform\ntheir functions.114 They considered this balance best struck by requiring judicial", "impact": "High", "effort": "Low", "proof": "Evidence-backed", "beneficiaries": "Regulated entities / policy teams", "source": "other-pdfs/volume-2-authorisations-immunities-and-electronic-surveillance.pdf (https://www.ag.gov.au/system/files/2020-12/volume-2-authorisations-immunities-and-electronic-surveillance.PDF)", "implementation": [ "Pick one high-volume process or document family.", "Name an owner and baseline current volume, time, cost, and satisfaction.", "Run a 4-8 week pilot with clear before/after metrics.", "Publish lessons and decide whether to scale." ], "risks": [ "Privacy and data quality", "Change fatigue", "Unclear accountability", "Regulatory capture", "Over-automation of judgement" ] }, { "entity_id": "B-002197", "entity_name": "Administrative Review Council", "folder_name": "Administrative-Review-Council", "category": "Regulation & Policy", "scale": "large", "title": "Adaptive regulation program with live feedback loops", "idea": "Create an adaptive regulation model using sandboxes, industry data, risk scoring, and regular rule updates.", "quote": "This stemmed from amendments made to the\nIntelligence and Security Committee Act 1996 in 2013, requiring that a review be\nundertaken every five to seven years of the agencies, the legislation governing the\nagencies and their oversight legislation.112\n18.79 Their report—Intelligence and Security in a Free Society—recommended greater\nconsistency in the authorising framework across NZSIS and GCSB to provide a\ngreater level of accountability, improve agency cooperation and provide clarity to\nboth agencies and the public on the scope of agencies’ powers.113 In respect of the\nauthorisation process, Sir Cullen and Dame Reddy considered there was a\nbalance to be struck between placing sufficient safeguards on the agencies’\nintrusive activities, while providing the agencies with enough flexibility to perform\ntheir functions.114 They considered this balance best struck by requiring judicial", "impact": "Very High", "effort": "High", "proof": "Evidence-backed", "beneficiaries": "Regulated entities / policy teams", "source": "other-pdfs/volume-2-authorisations-immunities-and-electronic-surveillance.pdf (https://www.ag.gov.au/system/files/2020-12/volume-2-authorisations-immunities-and-electronic-surveillance.PDF)", "implementation": [ "Create a senior responsible owner and cross-functional delivery team.", "Map legislation, data, privacy, procurement, cyber, and workforce constraints.", "Co-design with users and frontline staff before technology selection.", "Stage delivery through pilots, benefits tracking, and public reporting." ], "risks": [ "Privacy and data quality", "Change fatigue", "Unclear accountability", "Regulatory capture", "Over-automation of judgement" ] }, { "entity_id": "B-002197", "entity_name": "Administrative Review Council", "folder_name": "Administrative-Review-Council", "category": "Data & Performance", "scale": "small", "title": "KPI evidence register with named owners", "idea": "Create a simple register mapping each KPI to source data, owner, frequency, target, and last result.", "quote": "[Page 115]\nVolume 2 Chapter 20 Class authorisations\n20.11 Warrants issued in relation to particular premises or things, albeit not focused on a\nparticular person, are still specific and targeted, in the sense that they target a\nparticular premises, computer or thing.", "impact": "High", "effort": "Low", "proof": "Evidence-backed", "beneficiaries": "Executives / Parliament / public", "source": "other-pdfs/volume-2-authorisations-immunities-and-electronic-surveillance.pdf (https://www.ag.gov.au/system/files/2020-12/volume-2-authorisations-immunities-and-electronic-surveillance.PDF)", "implementation": [ "Pick one high-volume process or document family.", "Name an owner and baseline current volume, time, cost, and satisfaction.", "Run a 4-8 week pilot with clear before/after metrics.", "Publish lessons and decide whether to scale." ], "risks": [ "Privacy and data quality", "Change fatigue", "Unclear accountability" ] }, { "entity_id": "B-002197", "entity_name": "Administrative Review Council", "folder_name": "Administrative-Review-Council", "category": "Data & Performance", "scale": "large", "title": "Outcome dashboard linking budget, delivery, and public impact", "idea": "Build a public-facing outcome dashboard showing spend, outputs, outcomes, and delivery confidence.", "quote": "[Page 115]\nVolume 2 Chapter 20 Class authorisations\n20.11 Warrants issued in relation to particular premises or things, albeit not focused on a\nparticular person, are still specific and targeted, in the sense that they target a\nparticular premises, computer or thing.", "impact": "Very High", "effort": "High", "proof": "Evidence-backed", "beneficiaries": "Executives / Parliament / public", "source": "other-pdfs/volume-2-authorisations-immunities-and-electronic-surveillance.pdf (https://www.ag.gov.au/system/files/2020-12/volume-2-authorisations-immunities-and-electronic-surveillance.PDF)", "implementation": [ "Create a senior responsible owner and cross-functional delivery team.", "Map legislation, data, privacy, procurement, cyber, and workforce constraints.", "Co-design with users and frontline staff before technology selection.", "Stage delivery through pilots, benefits tracking, and public reporting." ], "risks": [ "Privacy and data quality", "Change fatigue", "Unclear accountability" ] }, { "entity_id": "B-002197", "entity_name": "Administrative Review Council", "folder_name": "Administrative-Review-Council", "category": "Case Processing", "scale": "small", "title": "Triage queue for stuck or ageing cases", "idea": "Use existing case data to flag ageing, duplicate, incomplete, or high-risk cases for earlier intervention.", "quote": "[Page 70]\nChapter 44 Australian Security Intelligence Organisation security Volume 4\nassessments\ninformation contained in the assessment, and agencies must proceed on the basis\nof those findings.182\n44.20 The ASIO Act contains two key prohibitions in relation to security assessments:\n it prohibits a Commonwealth agency from taking prescribed administrative\naction on the basis of any communication made by ASIO in relation to a\nperson which does not amount to a security assessment,183 and\n it prohibits ASIO from making any communication to a state, which it knows\nis intended or likely to be used by that state in considering prescribed\nadministrative action against a person, except in the form of a security\nassessment.184\n44.21 In other words, the ASIO Act does not prevent ASIO from communicating security\nadvice in situations where prescribed administrative action may result.", "impact": "High", "effort": "Low", "proof": "Evidence-backed", "beneficiaries": "Applicants / case officers", "source": "other-pdfs/volume-4-accountability-and-transparency-annexes.pdf (https://www.ag.gov.au/system/files/2020-12/volume-4-accountability-and-transparency-annexes.PDF)", "implementation": [ "Pick one high-volume process or document family.", "Name an owner and baseline current volume, time, cost, and satisfaction.", "Run a 4-8 week pilot with clear before/after metrics.", "Publish lessons and decide whether to scale." ], "risks": [ "Privacy and data quality", "Change fatigue", "Unclear accountability" ] }, { "entity_id": "B-002197", "entity_name": "Administrative Review Council", "folder_name": "Administrative-Review-Council", "category": "Case Processing", "scale": "large", "title": "End-to-end case processing redesign", "idea": "Redesign the case pathway around risk-based triage, reusable evidence, and automated eligibility checks.", "quote": "[Page 70]\nChapter 44 Australian Security Intelligence Organisation security Volume 4\nassessments\ninformation contained in the assessment, and agencies must proceed on the basis\nof those findings.182\n44.20 The ASIO Act contains two key prohibitions in relation to security assessments:\n it prohibits a Commonwealth agency from taking prescribed administrative\naction on the basis of any communication made by ASIO in relation to a\nperson which does not amount to a security assessment,183 and\n it prohibits ASIO from making any communication to a state, which it knows\nis intended or likely to be used by that state in considering prescribed\nadministrative action against a person, except in the form of a security\nassessment.184\n44.21 In other words, the ASIO Act does not prevent ASIO from communicating security\nadvice in situations where prescribed administrative action may result.", "impact": "Very High", "effort": "High", "proof": "Evidence-backed", "beneficiaries": "Applicants / case officers", "source": "other-pdfs/volume-4-accountability-and-transparency-annexes.pdf (https://www.ag.gov.au/system/files/2020-12/volume-4-accountability-and-transparency-annexes.PDF)", "implementation": [ "Create a senior responsible owner and cross-functional delivery team.", "Map legislation, data, privacy, procurement, cyber, and workforce constraints.", "Co-design with users and frontline staff before technology selection.", "Stage delivery through pilots, benefits tracking, and public reporting." ], "risks": [ "Privacy and data quality", "Change fatigue", "Unclear accountability" ] } ], "legislation_administered": [], "artifacts": [ { "category": "reviews", "year": "2020", "url": "https://www.ag.gov.au/system/files/2020-12/Government-response-to-the-Comprehensive-Review-of-the-Legal-Framework-of-the-National-Intelligence-Community_1.PDF", "file": "reviews/Government-response-to-the-Comprehensive-Review-of-the-Legal-Framework-of-the-Na.pdf", "bytes": 1134841, "link_text": "Government response to the Comprehensive review of the legal framework of the National Intelligence Community [PDF 1.08 MB]" }, { "category": "other-pdfs", "year": "2020", "url": "https://www.ag.gov.au/system/files/2020-12/volume-1-recommendations-and-executive-summary-foundations-and-principles-control-coordination-and-cooperation.PDF", "file": "other-pdfs/volume-1-recommendations-and-executive-summary-foundations-and-principles-contro.pdf", "bytes": 3288023, "link_text": "Volume 1 Recommendations and Executive Summary; Foundations and Principles; Control, Coordination and Cooperation [PDF 3.14 MB]" }, { "category": "other-pdfs", "year": "2020", "url": "https://www.ag.gov.au/system/files/2020-12/volume-2-authorisations-immunities-and-electronic-surveillance.PDF", "file": "other-pdfs/volume-2-authorisations-immunities-and-electronic-surveillance.pdf", "bytes": 6379196, "link_text": "Volume 2 Authorisations, Immunities and Electronic Surveillance [PDF 6.08 MB]" }, { "category": "other-pdfs", "year": "2020", "url": "https://www.ag.gov.au/system/files/2020-12/volume-3-information-technology-powers-and-oversight.PDF", "file": "other-pdfs/volume-3-information-technology-powers-and-oversight.pdf", "bytes": 2413050, "link_text": "Volume 3 Information, Technology, Powers and Oversight [PDF 2.3 MB]" }, { "category": "other-pdfs", "year": "2020", "url": "https://www.ag.gov.au/system/files/2020-12/volume-4-accountability-and-transparency-annexes.PDF", "file": "other-pdfs/volume-4-accountability-and-transparency-annexes.pdf", "bytes": 1659557, "link_text": "Volume 4 Accountability and Transparency; Annexes [PDF 1.58 MB]" }, { "category": "other-pdfs", "year": "2025", "url": "https://www.art.gov.au/sites/default/files/2025-09/Notice_of_Systemic_Issue_No_1_of_2025.pdf", "file": "other-pdfs/Notice_of_Systemic_Issue_No_1_of_2025.pdf", "bytes": 182573, "link_text": "Read a copy of the Notice of Systemic Issue No. 1 of 2025" } ], "_meta": { "snapshot_built_at": "2026-05-14T02:12:04+00:00", "strategy_brief_meta": { "model": "nova-micro", "folder": "Administrative-Review-Council", "annual_report": { "file": null, "url": "", "year": null }, "corporate_plan": { "file": "reviews\\Government-response-to-the-Comprehensive-Review-of-the-Legal-Framework-of-the-Na.txt", "url": "https://www.ag.gov.au/system/files/2020-12/Government-response-to-the-Comprehensive-Review-of-the-Legal-Framework-of-the-National-Intelligence-Community_1.PDF", "year": null }, "usage": { "input_tokens": 10794, "output_tokens": 405, "total_tokens": 11199, "model": "nova-micro" }, "cost_usd": 0.00043449000000000005, "elapsed_seconds": 4, "generated_at": "2026-05-13T05:15:27+00:00" }, "ideas_manifest": { "entity_id": "B-002197", "entity_name": "Administrative Review Council", "folder_name": "Administrative-Review-Council", "generated_at": "2026-05-09T23:05:24.759072+00:00", "idea_count": 12, "markdown": "ideas/Administrative-Review-Council_ideas.md", "jsonl": "ideas/ideas.jsonl", "inputs": [ "Administrative-Review-Council_strategy-overview.md", "strategy-evidence.json", "global-intelligence/source-manifest.json" ] }, "global_intel_meta": null } }