The Claim
“Chose not to publish a 5-yearly report about the official state of the environment for over 3 months, so that voters in the 2022 election won't know what the reports' findings are.”
Original Sources Provided
✅ FACTUAL VERIFICATION
The core facts of this claim are accurate [1]. The Australian State of the Environment 2021 report (the five-yearly assessment mandated under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999) was handed to Environment Minister Sussan Ley in December 2021 [1]. The report was not released before the 21 May 2022 federal election, meaning voters were indeed unaware of its contents during the campaign [1][2]. When the Labor government took office after winning the election, Environment Minister Tanya Plibersek released the report on 18-19 July 2022, approximately 7-8 months after receiving it [2].
The Guardian article (published 6 April 2022) documented the delay at that time, noting the report had been "sitting on" government shelves for "more than three months" since December [1]. The article confirmed that multiple political figures across the spectrum—Labor, the Greens, and independent MP Zali Steggall—called for its release before the election [1].
Missing Context
However, the claim contains important omissions about the legal framework and political timing context:
Legal obligations: The EPBC Act 1999 requires the Minister to table the report in Parliament within 15 sitting days of receiving it [1]. However, the Coalition government was not legally required to release it before the election because Parliament was not sitting during the pre-election caretaker period [1]. A spokesperson for Ley stated: "the report will be released within the statutory time frame set out under the act" [1]. When an election is called, caretaker conventions restrict government activities, and Parliament suspends sitting—meaning the 15-day clock effectively pauses [1].
Timing context: The government received the report in December 2021, just before the summer parliamentary recess and during the lead-up to an election that political observers expected would be called by April-May 2022 [1]. The election was called on 10 April 2022, meaning the government had received the report during a period when Parliament was not sitting frequently and was approaching a constitutional deadline for the election [1].
Not unprecedented practice: The 2016 State of the Environment report was released in March 2017—approximately 3-4 months after the federal election held in July 2016 [3]. This suggests that delaying publication of the five-yearly report until after an election is not unprecedented in Australian practice [3]. The previous Coalition government under Turnbull also did not prioritize immediate release of environmental reports during election periods.
Coalition's legal position: The Coalition argued there was "no legal requirement for former environment minister Sussan Ley to release the report before the election" [2]. This technical point is accurate—the statutory obligation only applies once Parliament is sitting and able to receive tabled documents [1].
Source Credibility Assessment
The Guardian article is from a mainstream reputable news organization (UK-based but with dedicated Australian coverage) and cites multiple credible sources: Labor spokesperson Terri Butler, Greens spokesperson Sarah Hanson-Young, independent MP Zali Steggall, ecology professor Euan Ritchie, and conservation organizations [1]. The article does not misquote or fabricate claims; all quoted accusations are accurately attributed to identifiable sources [1].
However, the framing is clearly critical of the Coalition, using language like "sitting on," "more bad news," and emphasizing the timing relative to the election [1]. This is legitimate criticism but reflects a partisan framing—the article emphasizes the perception of deliberate delay rather than the legal framework that permitted it [1].
Labor Comparison
Did Labor do something similar?
Labor released the report on 18-19 July 2022, approximately 7-8 months after receiving it in December 2021 [2]. While Labor released it promptly after taking office, they also did not release it during the election campaign when they were in opposition—they had to wait until they won the election and took government [2].
More importantly, the 2016 State of the Environment report was published in March 2017, approximately 8-9 months after the July 2016 election under a Coalition government [3]. There is no evidence that Labor governments have released environmental reports more promptly during election cycles.
The precedent of waiting until after an election is established practice across Australian governments [3]. The difference is that the Coalition controlled the timing (they had the report first) and chose to enforce the caretaker conventions strictly, while Labor later released it without that constraint [2].
Balanced Perspective
Criticisms of the Coalition's actions:
Critics argue the timing was politically motivated—withholding a report showing environmental deterioration until after voters had cast their votes prevents voters from making a fully informed decision [1]. If the government received negative findings about environmental management during their tenure, releasing them would reflect poorly on their record [1]. The report later published found the environment in "poor and deteriorating state" with "every category except urban environments" having deteriorated since the last 2016 report [2]. This suggests the Coalition's concerns about "bad news" in the report were valid [1][2].
The principle that voters should make decisions on full information is legitimate, and there's an argument that a government withholding unfavorable findings during an election undermines democratic accountability [1].
Coalition's justifications and legitimate explanations:
The legal framework genuinely did not require release before the election [1][2]. The EPBC Act's 15-day tabling requirement only applies when Parliament is sitting, which it was not during the caretaker period [1]. Caretaker conventions restrict government activities during election periods, which is why the Coalition could argue they were following standard practice [1].
The timing was also driven by legitimate procedural factors: Parliament was not sitting frequently in late 2021-early 2022 due to normal parliamentary recess, and the election timing was constitutionally constrained (must be held within three years of previous election) [1]. The government was not required to recall Parliament to table the report during caretaker [1].
The Coalition later pointed out they had invested in environmental initiatives: "$1 billion invested in the Great Barrier Reef" and "the first-ever national koala recovery plan" [2]. Whether these initiatives were sufficient response to environmental decline is debatable, but they show the Coalition was taking some environmental action during this period [2].
Critical distinction: This case differs from suppressing a report or preventing its publication entirely. The report was always going to be tabled in Parliament once it sat—the question was only of timing before versus after an election. The Coalition did not attempt to rewrite, redact, or destroy the report; they simply used the legal framework to delay its public release [1][2].
Is this unique to the Coalition?
The 2016 precedent shows that delaying environmental report publication to after elections is established Australian practice across governments [3]. Labor could not release the report in opposition because they didn't have authority over it, so the comparison is imperfect, but there is no evidence Labor would have released it differently if they had been in government during this period [3].
PARTIALLY TRUE
6.0
out of 10
The Coalition did delay publishing the State of the Environment 2021 report, which was received in December 2021 and not publicly released until July 2022 (7-8 months), ensuring voters did not have this information during the May 2022 election [1][2]. This factual claim is accurate.
However, the characterization that they "chose not to publish" for political advantage requires unpacking. The Coalition legally complied with statutory obligations—the EPBC Act only requires tabling within 15 sitting days of receiving it, and Parliament was not sitting during the election caretaker period [1]. The legal obligation was satisfied, not violated [1][2].
More significantly, the claim that the delay was deliberate to prevent voters from knowing findings is an inference rather than established fact. While the timing did coincidentally prevent voters from seeing the report before voting, and while cynicism about political timing is warranted, the Coalition did not explicitly admit to or provide evidence of deliberately suppressing information [1]. They maintained they were following statutory obligations [1][2].
The claim is strongest on the factual timeline (report delayed, voters uninformed) and weakest on proving deliberate suppression versus following legal procedures [1][2].
Final Score
6.0
OUT OF 10
PARTIALLY TRUE
The Coalition did delay publishing the State of the Environment 2021 report, which was received in December 2021 and not publicly released until July 2022 (7-8 months), ensuring voters did not have this information during the May 2022 election [1][2]. This factual claim is accurate.
However, the characterization that they "chose not to publish" for political advantage requires unpacking. The Coalition legally complied with statutory obligations—the EPBC Act only requires tabling within 15 sitting days of receiving it, and Parliament was not sitting during the election caretaker period [1]. The legal obligation was satisfied, not violated [1][2].
More significantly, the claim that the delay was deliberate to prevent voters from knowing findings is an inference rather than established fact. While the timing did coincidentally prevent voters from seeing the report before voting, and while cynicism about political timing is warranted, the Coalition did not explicitly admit to or provide evidence of deliberately suppressing information [1]. They maintained they were following statutory obligations [1][2].
The claim is strongest on the factual timeline (report delayed, voters uninformed) and weakest on proving deliberate suppression versus following legal procedures [1][2].
📚 SOURCES & CITATIONS (4)
-
1
theguardian.com
Calls for report to be released before election so voters know ‘official state’ of environment under Morrison government
the Guardian -
2
abc.net.au
Climate change, mining, pollution, invasive species and habitat loss are outlined in the five-yearly report that has been released, with Environment Minister Tanya Plibersek laying the blame squarely at the feet of the previous government.
Abc Net -
3PDF
soe2016 overview launch version328feb17
Soe Dcceew Gov • PDF Document -
4
legislation.gov.au
Federal Register of Legislation
Rating Scale Methodology
1-3: FALSE
Factually incorrect or malicious fabrication.
4-6: PARTIAL
Some truth but context is missing or skewed.
7-9: MOSTLY TRUE
Minor technicalities or phrasing issues.
10: ACCURATE
Perfectly verified and contextually fair.
Methodology: Ratings are determined through cross-referencing official government records, independent fact-checking organizations, and primary source documents.