Energy Minister Angus Taylor used an allegedly altered City of Sydney annual report to publicly criticise Sydney Lord Mayor Clover Moore over her council's travel spending [1].
Taylor claimed in a letter (dated September 30, 2019) that the City of Sydney had spent $15.9 million on domestic and international travel in 2017-18 [1].
NSW Police Commissioner Mick Fuller confirmed investigators could not verify when or if Taylor's office downloaded the document from the City of Sydney website [3].
The Australian Federal Police ultimately decided not to pursue an investigation into Taylor, stating "there is no evidence to indicate the Minister for Energy and Emissions Reduction was involved in falsifying information" [5].
However, the Commonwealth Ombudsman later stated that "it is possible that a criminal offence occurred in its creation and use, by a person or persons unknown" [6].
The claim omits several critical details that significantly change the narrative:
1. **No evidence of Taylor's direct involvement**: While the document was definitively altered, police found no evidence that Taylor or his office created the forgery [3].
Taylor consistently denied involvement and stated the document came from the council's website [2].
2. **Ambiguity over document origin**: NSW Police could not establish whether the altered document ever existed on the City of Sydney website or how Taylor's office obtained it [3].
Taylor's office claimed they printed it directly from the website rather than downloading it—a distinction that affects metadata analysis [3].
3. **Apology and low-level harm**: The AFP's decision not to pursue charges specifically cited "the apology made by the Minister for Energy and Emissions Reduction to the Lord Mayor of Sydney" and "the low level of harm" alongside the significant resources required to investigate [5].
4. **Ombudsman's caveat**: While the Ombudsman stated a criminal offence "is possible," this was a hypothetical assessment, not a finding [6].
The Ombudsman also noted the AFP should have conducted direct inquiries with Taylor before dropping the investigation [6].
5. **Political weaponisation**: Taylor characterised the referral as "a shameful abuse of their office and a waste of our policing agencies' time," arguing Labor was using police referrals as a political tool [5].
The ABC reporting, while accurate about what occurred, presents the incident in a way that emphasises corruption implications without noting the ultimate investigative findings.
**Did Labor do something similar?**
No direct equivalent allegation regarding forged documents was found in searches for Labor government equivalent scandals.
* * * *
However, Labor governments have faced political document controversies:
- The 2012 "Slush Fund" allegations involved documentation disputes but not forged documents [7]
- Various parliamentary disputes have involved contested document authenticity over the years, but no clear equivalent to deliberately using an altered document in a public political attack was identified
The forging of documents as a political attack tool is relatively uncommon in Australian federal politics, making direct comparison difficult.
While critics argue Taylor's use of an altered document represents a serious breach of ministerial standards—using falsified information to attack a political opponent is damaging to democratic integrity—the full story is more complex [1][2].
**What happened:** Taylor sent a letter criticising Sydney Council's travel spending using figures from what he claimed was the council's annual report.
The document was altered (not genuine), but the origin of the alteration could not be established by police [3][4].
**Key unanswered questions:**
- Who altered the document?
- How did Taylor's office obtain it?
- Was Taylor or his office aware the document was altered?
**Investigation findings:**
- NSW Police found no evidence Taylor's office downloaded the document [3]
- AFP found no evidence Taylor was involved in falsifying information [5]
- Police could not determine when the document was obtained or confirm it ever existed on the council website [3]
- The Commonwealth Ombudsman stated police should have questioned Taylor directly to clarify these points [6]
**Taylor's account:** He maintained he obtained the document from the council's publicly available website and did not alter it.
He apologised for the embarrassment caused [5].
**Democratic integrity concern:** Regardless of Taylor's intent, using an altered document in political attacks, even unknowingly, represents a failure of due diligence that undermines trust in parliamentary discourse.
The lack of clear accountability—the source of the altered document was never identified—is problematic [6].
**Comparative context:** This incident is notable precisely because forging documents to attack opponents is not standard government practice across Australian parties.
The precise origin and how the alteration occurred remains unexplained [6]
The claim's framing of "illegally forged" attributes intentional criminal conduct to Taylor without evidence of his involvement.
The precise origin and how the alteration occurred remains unexplained [6]
The claim's framing of "illegally forged" attributes intentional criminal conduct to Taylor without evidence of his involvement.