WCAG 2.x levels of conformance are not tiers and they are certainly not basic, medium, or strict. In fact, there has been a debate raging in the digital accessibility community since WCAG 2.0 was published in 2008 as to the almost totally opaque process for assigning a given success criterion to a level of conformance. Hint: it's nothing to do with basic, medium, or strict but rather, a mysterious cocktail of factors including impact on users, the technical difficulty of implementing a solution, the impact on visual design etc. Also, the word 'compliance' does not occur anywhere in WCAG 2.0 because it is a technical specification and not a standard or law to which web content conforms. Furthermore, success criteria are applied to a single URL regardless of what device on which that content is consumed so can only apply to entire websites if each and every unique URL is evaluated in that website. And automated testing evaluates against a finite set of blackboxed rules not WCAG success criteria, and should only ever be used as a quality control step in a process that concentrates on sound design principles and practices. The 56% figure cited in this article is also likely to be wildly optimistic and provided by a vendor of an automated testing tool - it's more like 3% to 8% of accessibility issues can be detected without human verification depending on the content being evaluated. Why is digital accessibility done so poorly in Australian government? Weak, brainwashed, self-serving, and indifferent leadership obsessed with delivery even though it may be unfit for purpose; a standing workforce without the necessary skills or experience that is shuffled through positions that demand years of experience; and, in ICT, a mainly macho, middle-aged, and money culture dominated by multinationals that views digital accessibility as little more than an irritating speed hump.