Australian Government response to IAEG-SDG consultation: cover note
General comments on the proposed indicators – this is the coordinated response of the
Australian Government.

Topic 16 or 22: Australia notes that the proposed indicators for Goal 16 focus either on criminal law issues or on non-discrimination. While these aspects are crucial components of the rule of law, indicators should also reflect some of the more fundamental characteristics of maintaining the rule of law, such as ensuring public access to the law and legal assistance and enabling public access to government-held information. We recognise that some of these components are difficult to measure, and note in this regard the ongoing work of the Praia Group on Governance Statistics and by the OECD on Trust Guidelines which may assist in improving indicators for this Goal.
Specific suggestions on indicators have been included in our comment on target 16.10.

Topic 22: Australia notes with particular reference to Targets 1.a, 10.b, 15.a, and 17.3 that the proposed indicators do not adequately cover all sources of finance. For targets
10.b and 15.a in particular, it is inadequate to only measure ODA. Australia advocates for efforts across the international development system to improve the monitoring of all sources of finance for sustainable development in order to provide an accurate picture of progress and means of implementation.

Topic 22: The proposed indicators do not adequately consider the unique role that
Earth observations and geospatial information can play. o Data from satellite Earth observations allows measurement of many different parameters, across long periods, from global to local scales, in a manner that has a low dependence on in-situ infrastructure and human involvement – which is particularly important in developing nations. o Furthermore, as satellite Earth observation data is typically available globally on a free and open data policy, there is significant potential to efficiently establish systems to support long-term monitoring of relevant SDGs. o Australia considers that these points should be considered in particular with regards to targets related to agricultural productivity, land management, erosion, drought, flood, water storage, ecosystem services, disaster risk reduction, and forest cover

Topic 20: Wherever possible, data should be disaggregated by sex and age to allow for detailed gender analysis. Data should also be disaggregated by geographic location (eg urban/rural). The Australian Government has questioned the specified age range for proposed indicators pertaining to targets [5.2, 5.3, and 8.7].

Topic 20: The Australian Government supports the development of statistics on disability status and disaggregation by disability status where possible in monitoring the
SDGs.

Topic 18: A number of the proposed indicators relate to the work of the Open-Ended
Intergovernmental Working Group (OIWG) established by the UNISDR to develop indicators against the targets of the Sendai Framework. To ensure efficiencies in reporting on both the Sendai Framework and the Sustainable Development Goals, the

OIWG and IAEG-SDGs should coordinate efforts [Targets 1.5, 1.b, 2.4, 9.1, 11.5, 11.b,
13.1, 13.2, 17.9].

Topic 22: With regards to the universality of the SDGs, the Australian Government has identified indicators pertaining to targets [1.1, 5.a, 7.2, 8.3, 9.1, 9.2, 9.3, 11.1, 12.a, 14.1 and 14.7] as being less relevant for Australia. Recognising that these may nonetheless be the best option for global monitoring, and that Australia will be able to identify complementary national indicators as necessary, we have merely noted these instances in the event that many other countries identify similar issues, which could warrant reconsideration of the proposed indicator. In some cases an alternative national indicator has been identified.
Technical comments

Topic 22: Some current proposals are binary indicators [targets 5.1, 5.c, 10.5, 11.a, 12.8,
13.b, 15.6, 15.9]. While these may be acceptable starting points, binary indicators do not allow for any evaluation of quality or progressive realisation, and may thus be of limited use in monitoring progress.

Topic 22: In a similar vein, indicators that measure inputs rather than outcomes [targets
9.5, 11.4] are not supported by Australia.

Topic 22: In some cases [Targets 2.5, 2.a, 10.7] existing global indices will be most
useful in assessing progress against global targets, but using the component parts of these indices to assess individual countries may not be feasible due to data constraints and the nature of the data required. There may be justification for using the global index as an overall trend measure and not disaggregating by country for some targets.

Topic 18: Noting our detailed comments on indicators for Goals 14 and 15, Australia has experience in implementing the System of Environmental-Economic Accounting (SEEA), energy and waste accounts, and a range of environmental indicators. This practical expertise may assist in developing indicator specification.

Topic 22: Some proposed indicators measure degree of change, such as the proportion of total spending or change in spending [for example, see indicators for targets 1.a, 8.b,
9.5] The addition of absolute measures as well as proportional change measures, would allow additional insights.

Topic 22: Some proposed indicators are of limited utility without building in some
measure of quality [targets 1.4 indicator 1, 4.3, 9.1 indicator 2, 9.a, 12.6].