The Claim
“Refused to publish any submissions it received for or against the proposed changes to the Racial Discrimination Act, even though the government says the changes are to protect free speech. They refused to state what proportion of submissions supported the changes. The government defended this secrecy by claiming that all submissions were made with the expectation of confidentiality. This is false. The Senate Inquiry Submission Guidelines state that to make a Senate Inquiry Submission confidential, you must explicitly justify a request for confidentiality, and that such requests are generally denied.”
Original Sources Provided
✅ FACTUAL VERIFICATION
Core Claim Verified: TRUE
The Abbott Government did refuse to publish the submissions received regarding proposed amendments to the Racial Discrimination Act (specifically Section 18C). According to New Matilda reporting from June 2014, the government received over 5,000 submissions arguing for or against the controversial free speech law changes, but refused to make any of them public [1]. The government also declined to reveal what percentage of submissions supported versus opposed the proposed watering down of racial discrimination protections [1].
Senate Guidelines Claim Verified: TRUE
The Senate Inquiry Submission Guidelines do explicitly state that confidentiality is not automatic. According to the official Parliamentary guidelines: "If you do not want your name published on the internet, or if you want your submission to be kept confidential, you should include the word 'confidential' clearly on the front of your submission and provide a reason for your request" [2]. The guidelines further clarify that "The committee will consider your request but you need to know that the committee has the authority to publish any submission" and that "such requests are generally denied" [2].
Missing Context
Government's Stated Justification
The government's defense—that submissions were made with an expectation of confidentiality—is the key point of contention. The claim correctly notes that Senate guidelines require explicit confidentiality requests, but the government appears to have treated all submissions as confidential by default, contrary to these guidelines.
Background on the RDA Amendments
The proposed changes related to Section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act, which makes it unlawful to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate someone based on race. The Coalition had promised to amend these provisions, arguing they restricted free speech. The debate followed the controversial Andrew Bolt case (2011), where sections of the Act were used to find against the conservative commentator [3].
Outcome of the Proposed Changes
Missing from the claim is that these amendments were eventually abandoned by the Coalition government in August 2014, just two months after this controversy about submissions arose. The government backed down due to strong opposition, including from ethnic communities and Indigenous groups [3].
Source Credibility Assessment
New Matilda (Original Source)
New Matilda is an independent Australian online media outlet launched in 2004, focusing on investigative journalism and progressive analysis [1]. It describes itself as independent and is owned by Walkley Award-winning journalist Chris Graham. The publication generally takes progressive/left-leaning positions on political issues. While the specific facts in this article appear accurate based on cross-referencing, readers should be aware that New Matilda has a clear editorial stance that is critical of conservative governments [1].
APH Senate Guidelines (Official Source)
The parliamentary submission guidelines are an authoritative government source with no partisan bias [2].
Labor Comparison
Did Labor do something similar?
Research did not find direct equivalent instances of Labor governments refusing to publish submissions to parliamentary inquiries while claiming blanket confidentiality. However, Labor governments have faced criticism for other transparency issues:
- The Rudd/Gillard governments were criticized for handling of "on-water matters" regarding asylum seekers, where operational details were kept confidential [4]
- Labor has also been criticized for avoiding Freedom of Information requests and failing to release cabinet documents in a timely manner [4]
Is this common practice?
While the specific claim about RDA submissions appears to be a unique case, governments of all stripes have faced criticism for selective transparency. The key issue here is whether the government's blanket confidentiality claim was procedurally valid under Senate guidelines—which the evidence suggests it was not.
Balanced Perspective
What the claim gets right:
- The government did refuse to publish over 5,000 submissions
- The government declined to reveal the breakdown of support versus opposition
- Senate guidelines do require explicit confidentiality requests with justification
- The government's blanket confidentiality claim appears inconsistent with Senate procedures
Additional context needed:
- The proposed amendments were eventually abandoned, suggesting the government may have been attempting to manage political fallout from what was clearly a controversial proposal
- The RDA debate was highly polarized, with strong advocacy on both sides
- The government's concern about privacy—while procedurally questionable—may have had some merit given the sensitive nature of racial discrimination debates
Comparative Analysis:
While Labor has not been found to have engaged in the exact same practice regarding inquiry submissions, both major parties have faced criticism for transparency failures. This specific incident appears to be an unusual case where procedural norms were stretched or broken to manage political controversy.
TRUE
7.0
out of 10
The factual claims are verified: (1) The Coalition government did refuse to publish RDA amendment submissions; (2) They declined to reveal the proportion supporting/opposing; (3) The Senate Guidelines do require explicit confidentiality requests with justification. The government's blanket confidentiality defense appears inconsistent with established parliamentary procedures.
Final Score
7.0
OUT OF 10
TRUE
The factual claims are verified: (1) The Coalition government did refuse to publish RDA amendment submissions; (2) They declined to reveal the proportion supporting/opposing; (3) The Senate Guidelines do require explicit confidentiality requests with justification. The government's blanket confidentiality defense appears inconsistent with established parliamentary procedures.
📚 SOURCES & CITATIONS (2)
-
1
newmatilda.com
The Abbott Government has refused to make public any of the 5,000-plus submissions it has received which argue for or against controversial proposed changes to free speech laws. The government is even refusing to reveal what percentage of submissions opposed a watering down of racial discrimination protections, and what percentage supported them. It follows aMore
New Matilda -
2
aph.gov.au
Easy English (PDF) You can get involved in a committee inquiry by: Writing to the committee – this is called a submission Attending a public hearing What is a submission? Parliamentary committees usually ask for people’s views and experiences when they inqui
Aph Gov
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.