部分属实

评分： 4.0/10

报告问题
Coalition
C0036

声明内容

“如果参议院质询提交的内容不便公开，则审查多份有效的提交材料，删除收到这些材料的所有记录，并指示公民不要自行公布他们的提交内容。甚至连参议员也看不到这些提交材料。”
腐败
原始来源： Matthew Davis
分析时间： 29 Jan 2026

原始来源

✅ 事实核查

核心hé xīn hé xīn 主张zhǔ zhāng zhǔ zhāng 可以kě yǐ kě yǐ 分为fēn wéi fēn wéi 不同bù tóng bù tóng 的de de 断言duàn yán duàn yán ：： ：
The core claims can be separated into distinct assertions:
 ###### ### 11 1 .. . "" " 视为shì wèi shì wèi 机密jī mì jī mì "" " 提交tí jiāo tí jiāo 做法zuò fǎ zuò fǎ —— — —— — 经jīng jīng 核实hé shí hé shí 但dàn dàn 需xū xū 说明shuō míng shuō míng
### 1. "Deemed Confidential" Submissions Practice - VERIFIED WITH CAVEATS
 在zài zài 澳大利亚ào dà lì yà ào dà lì yà 参议院cān yì yuàn cān yì yuàn 质询zhì xún zhì xún 程序chéng xù chéng xù 中zhōng zhōng ，， ， 将jiāng jiāng 提交tí jiāo tí jiāo 材料cái liào cái liào 标记biāo jì biāo jì 为wèi wèi "" " 视为shì wèi shì wèi 机密jī mì jī mì "" " 的de de 做法zuò fǎ zuò fǎ 确实què shí què shí 存在cún zài cún zài [[ [ 11 1 ]] ] 。。 。
The practice of marking submissions as "deemed confidential" does exist in Australian Senate inquiry processes [1].
 这zhè zhè 已yǐ yǐ 通过tōng guò tōng guò 信息xìn xī xìn xī 自由zì yóu zì yóu 请求qǐng qiú qǐng qiú 记录在案jì lù zài àn jì lù zài àn ，， ， 至少zhì shǎo zhì shǎo 有yǒu yǒu 一份yī fèn yī fèn FOIFOI FOI 请求qǐng qiú qǐng qiú 明确要求míng què yāo qiú míng què yāo qiú 提供tí gōng tí gōng "" " 参议院cān yì yuàn cān yì yuàn 质询zhì xún zhì xún 或huò huò 委员会wěi yuán huì wěi yuán huì 收到shōu dào shōu dào 的de de 、、 、 已yǐ yǐ 从cóng cóng 官方guān fāng guān fāng 提交tí jiāo tí jiāo 材料cái liào cái liào 清单qīng dān qīng dān 中zhōng zhōng 移除yí chú yí chú 的de de 所有suǒ yǒu suǒ yǒu 提交tí jiāo tí jiāo 材料cái liào cái liào 清单qīng dān qīng dān "" " [[ [ 22 2 ]] ] 。。 。
This is documented in Freedom of Information requests, with at least one FOI request specifically asking for "the list of all submissions received to senate inquiries or committees which have been removed from the official list of submissions" [2].
 ###### ### 22 2 .. . 提交tí jiāo tí jiāo 材料cái liào cái liào 未公开wèi gōng kāi wèi gōng kāi // / 记录jì lù jì lù 删除shān chú shān chú —— — —— — 部分bù fèn bù fèn 核实hé shí hé shí
### 2. Submissions Not Published / Deletion of Records - PARTIALLY VERIFIED
 ChrisChris Chris DrakeDrake Drake 的de de GitHubGitHub GitHub 问题wèn tí wèn tí 记录jì lù jì lù 显示xiǎn shì xiǎn shì ，， ， 他tā tā 向xiàng xiàng 多份duō fèn duō fèn 参议院cān yì yuàn cān yì yuàn 质询zhì xún zhì xún 提交tí jiāo tí jiāo 的de de 提交tí jiāo tí jiāo 材料cái liào cái liào 未wèi wèi 在zài zài 公开gōng kāi gōng kāi 质询zhì xún zhì xún 网站wǎng zhàn wǎng zhàn 上shàng shàng 发布fā bù fā bù ，， ， 尽管jǐn guǎn jǐn guǎn 他tā tā 明确要求míng què yāo qiú míng què yāo qiú 将jiāng jiāng 其qí qí 公开gōng kāi gōng kāi [[ [ 11 1 ]] ] 。。 。
Chris Drake's GitHub issue documents that his submissions to multiple Senate inquiries were not published on the public inquiry websites, despite his explicit requests that they be made public [1].
 他tā tā 表示biǎo shì biǎo shì 这种zhè zhǒng zhè zhǒng 情况qíng kuàng qíng kuàng 发生fā shēng fā shēng 在zài zài 以下yǐ xià yǐ xià 质询zhì xún zhì xún 的de de 提交tí jiāo tí jiāo 材料cái liào cái liào 中zhōng zhōng ：： ：
He states this occurred for submissions to: - Census Senate Inquiry - Digital Delivery of Government Services Inquiry (2017) - Medicare Breach Inquiry [1] However, the claim that "all records of receiving them" are "deleted" requires clarification.
 -- - 人口普查rén kǒu pǔ chá rén kǒu pǔ chá 参议院cān yì yuàn cān yì yuàn 质询zhì xún zhì xún
Drake's evidence shows submissions were marked "deemed confidential" and therefore not listed on the public submission websites [1].
 -- - 政府zhèng fǔ zhèng fǔ 服务fú wù fú wù 数字化shù zì huà shù zì huà 交付jiāo fù jiāo fù 质询zhì xún zhì xún （（ （ 20172017 2017 年nián nián ）） ）
This is different from complete deletion from government records - they were withheld from publication but government departments retain them for internal use.
 -- - 医疗保险yī liáo bǎo xiǎn yī liáo bǎo xiǎn 数据shù jù shù jù 泄露xiè lòu xiè lòu 质询zhì xún zhì xún [[ [ 11 1 ]] ]
### 3. Citizens Instructed Not to Publish - VERIFIED
 然而rán ér rán ér ，， ， "" " 删除shān chú shān chú 收到shōu dào shōu dào 这些zhè xiē zhè xiē 材料cái liào cái liào 的de de 所有suǒ yǒu suǒ yǒu 记录jì lù jì lù "" " 的de de 说法shuō fǎ shuō fǎ 需要xū yào xū yào 澄清chéng qīng chéng qīng 。。 。
Drake provides evidence (referenced via screenshot) of official correspondence instructing him not to disclose the contents of his submission to others, including a "veiled prosecution threat" for unauthorized disclosure [1].
 DrakeDrake Drake 的de de 证据zhèng jù zhèng jù 显示xiǎn shì xiǎn shì ，， ， 提交tí jiāo tí jiāo 材料cái liào cái liào 被bèi bèi 标记biāo jì biāo jì 为wèi wèi "" " 视为shì wèi shì wèi 机密jī mì jī mì "" " ，， ， 因此yīn cǐ yīn cǐ 未wèi wèi 在zài zài 公开gōng kāi gōng kāi 提交tí jiāo tí jiāo 材料cái liào cái liào 网站wǎng zhàn wǎng zhàn 上shàng shàng 列出liè chū liè chū [[ [ 11 1 ]] ] 。。 。
The Digital Delivery of Government Services Inquiry report (2018) makes no mention of such threats, but Drake's submission itself (dated September 2017) was submitted to this inquiry [3].
 这zhè zhè 与yǔ yǔ 从cóng cóng 政府zhèng fǔ zhèng fǔ 记录jì lù jì lù 中zhōng zhōng 完全wán quán wán quán 删除shān chú shān chú 不同bù tóng bù tóng —— — —— — 它们tā men tā men 被bèi bèi 禁止jìn zhǐ jìn zhǐ 公开gōng kāi gōng kāi 发布fā bù fā bù ，， ， 但dàn dàn 政府部门zhèng fǔ bù mén zhèng fǔ bù mén 为wèi wèi 内部nèi bù nèi bù 使用shǐ yòng shǐ yòng 而ér ér 保留bǎo liú bǎo liú 。。 。
### 4. "Even Senators Don't Have Visibility" - UNVERIFIED / SPECULATIVE
 ###### ### 33 3 .. . 指示zhǐ shì zhǐ shì 公民gōng mín gōng mín 不要bú yào bú yào 公开gōng kāi gōng kāi —— — —— — 已yǐ yǐ 核实hé shí hé shí
Drake claims that senators don't have visibility of submissions marked "deemed confidential" based on his attempts to contact senators who told him they were unaware of receiving his submission [1].
 DrakeDrake Drake 提供tí gōng tí gōng 证据zhèng jù zhèng jù （（ （ 通过tōng guò tōng guò 截图jié tú jié tú 引用yǐn yòng yǐn yòng ）） ） 显示xiǎn shì xiǎn shì 官方guān fāng guān fāng 通信tōng xìn tōng xìn 指示zhǐ shì zhǐ shì 他tā tā 不要bú yào bú yào 向xiàng xiàng 他人tā rén tā rén 披露pī lù pī lù 其qí qí 提交tí jiāo tí jiāo 材料cái liào cái liào 的de de 内容nèi róng nèi róng ，， ， 包括bāo kuò bāo kuò "" " 含蓄hán xù hán xù 的de de 起诉qǐ sù qǐ sù 威胁wēi xié wēi xié "" " 以yǐ yǐ 阻止zǔ zhǐ zǔ zhǐ 未经wèi jīng wèi jīng 授权shòu quán shòu quán 的de de 披露pī lù pī lù [[ [ 11 1 ]] ] 。。 。
However, this is anecdotal evidence from his specific case.
 政府zhèng fǔ zhèng fǔ 服务fú wù fú wù 数字化shù zì huà shù zì huà 交付jiāo fù jiāo fù 质询zhì xún zhì xún 报告bào gào bào gào （（ （ 20182018 2018 年nián nián ）） ） 未wèi wèi 提及tí jí tí jí 此类cǐ lèi cǐ lèi 威胁wēi xié wēi xié ，， ， 但dàn dàn DrakeDrake Drake 的de de 提交tí jiāo tí jiāo 材料cái liào cái liào 本身běn shēn běn shēn （（ （ 日期rì qī rì qī 为wèi wèi 20172017 2017 年nián nián 99 9 月yuè yuè ）） ） 已yǐ yǐ 提交tí jiāo tí jiāo 给gěi gěi 此cǐ cǐ 质询zhì xún zhì xún [[ [ 33 3 ]] ] 。。 。
The 2018 Senate Inquiry report on Digital Delivery of Government Services (which examined this inquiry period) contains no specific discussion of whether senators have access to withheld submissions, suggesting this may be an internal procedural detail not subject to public scrutiny [3].
 ###### ### 44 4 .. . "" " 甚至shèn zhì shèn zhì 连lián lián 参议员cān yì yuán cān yì yuán 也yě yě 看不到kàn bú dào kàn bú dào "" " —— — —— — 未wèi wèi 核实hé shí hé shí // / 推测tuī cè tuī cè
DrakeDrake Drake 声称shēng chēng shēng chēng ，， ， 根据gēn jù gēn jù 他tā tā 联系lián xì lián xì 参议员cān yì yuán cān yì yuán 试图shì tú shì tú 确认què rèn què rèn 是否shì fǒu shì fǒu 收到shōu dào shōu dào 其qí qí 提交tí jiāo tí jiāo 材料cái liào cái liào 时shí shí ，， ， 参议员cān yì yuán cān yì yuán 表示biǎo shì biǎo shì 未wèi wèi 收到shōu dào shōu dào ，， ， 因此yīn cǐ yīn cǐ 他tā tā 认为rèn wéi rèn wéi 参议员cān yì yuán cān yì yuán 看不到kàn bú dào kàn bú dào 标记biāo jì biāo jì 为wèi wèi "" " 视为shì wèi shì wèi 机密jī mì jī mì "" " 的de de 提交tí jiāo tí jiāo 材料cái liào cái liào [[ [ 11 1 ]] ] 。。 。
然而rán ér rán ér ，， ， 这zhè zhè 只是zhǐ shì zhǐ shì 他tā tā 具体jù tǐ jù tǐ 案例àn lì àn lì 的de de 轶事yì shì yì shì 证据zhèng jù zhèng jù 。。 。
20182018 2018 年nián nián 参议院cān yì yuàn cān yì yuàn 政府zhèng fǔ zhèng fǔ 服务fú wù fú wù 数字化shù zì huà shù zì huà 交付jiāo fù jiāo fù 质询zhì xún zhì xún 报告bào gào bào gào （（ （ 审查shěn chá shěn chá 了le le 此cǐ cǐ 质询zhì xún zhì xún 期间qī jiān qī jiān ）） ） 未wèi wèi 具体jù tǐ jù tǐ 讨论tǎo lùn tǎo lùn 参议员cān yì yuán cān yì yuán 是否shì fǒu shì fǒu 有权yǒu quán yǒu quán 访问fǎng wèn fǎng wèn 被bèi bèi 扣留kòu liú kòu liú 的de de 提交tí jiāo tí jiāo 材料cái liào cái liào ，， ， 这zhè zhè 表明biǎo míng biǎo míng 这zhè zhè 可能kě néng kě néng 是shì shì 未wèi wèi 受shòu shòu 公众gōng zhòng gōng zhòng 审查shěn chá shěn chá 的de de 内部nèi bù nèi bù 程序chéng xù chéng xù 细节xì jié xì jié [[ [ 33 3 ]] ] 。。 。

缺失背景

###### ### 标准biāo zhǔn biāo zhǔn 保密bǎo mì bǎo mì 程序chéng xù chéng xù
### Standard Confidentiality Procedures
 该gāi gāi 主张zhǔ zhāng zhǔ zhāng 忽略hū lüè hū lüè 了le le 关于guān yú guān yú 参议院cān yì yuàn cān yì yuàn 质询zhì xún zhì xún 程序chéng xù chéng xù 的de de 重要zhòng yào zhòng yào 背景bèi jǐng bèi jǐng [[ [ 22 2 ]] ] ：： ：
The claim omits important context about Senate inquiry procedures [2]: - Submission processes typically include options for submitters to request confidentiality - Government officials and agencies regularly submit confidential advice to inquiries - Some submissions are legitimately confidential (trade secrets, personal information, security matters) However, Drake's specific complaint is that **he did not request confidentiality** - the Senate marked his submissions confidential despite his explicit requests for publication [1].
 -- - 提交tí jiāo tí jiāo 过程guò chéng guò chéng 通常tōng cháng tōng cháng 包括bāo kuò bāo kuò 提交者tí jiāo zhě tí jiāo zhě 要求yāo qiú yāo qiú 保密bǎo mì bǎo mì 的de de 选项xuǎn xiàng xuǎn xiàng
### The Suppression vs. Legitimate Withholding Question
 -- - 政府zhèng fǔ zhèng fǔ 官员guān yuán guān yuán 和hé hé 机构jī gòu jī gòu 定期dìng qī dìng qī 向xiàng xiàng 质询zhì xún zhì xún 提交tí jiāo tí jiāo 机密jī mì jī mì 建议jiàn yì jiàn yì
There is a critical distinction between: 1. **Legitimate withholding**: Protecting genuinely sensitive information (security, privacy, commercial) 2. **Suppression for political convenience**: Hiding information because it's embarrassing or contradicts government positions Drake's evidence suggests case 2 - that his technical security criticisms were withheld not for legitimate reasons but because they were "inconvenient" to government [1].
 -- - 某些mǒu xiē mǒu xiē 提交tí jiāo tí jiāo 材料cái liào cái liào 确实què shí què shí 具有jù yǒu jù yǒu 保密bǎo mì bǎo mì 性质xìng zhì xìng zhì （（ （ 商业秘密shāng yè mì mì shāng yè mì mì 、、 、 个人信息gè rén xìn xī gè rén xìn xī 、、 、 安全ān quán ān quán 事务shì wù shì wù ）） ）
The 2018 Senate report itself contains extensive criticism of government digital projects, suggesting contrary views are not automatically suppressed [3].
 然而rán ér rán ér ，， ， DrakeDrake Drake 的de de 具体jù tǐ jù tǐ 投诉tóu sù tóu sù 是shì shì ，， ， ** * ** * 他tā tā 并未bìng wèi bìng wèi 要求yāo qiú yāo qiú 保密bǎo mì bǎo mì ** * ** * —— — —— — 参议院cān yì yuàn cān yì yuàn 在zài zài 他tā tā 明确要求míng què yāo qiú míng què yāo qiú 公开gōng kāi gōng kāi 发布fā bù fā bù 的de de 情况qíng kuàng qíng kuàng 下xià xià 仍réng réng 将jiāng jiāng 其qí qí 提交tí jiāo tí jiāo 材料cái liào cái liào 标记biāo jì biāo jì 为wèi wèi 机密jī mì jī mì [[ [ 11 1 ]] ] 。。 。
### "Deletion of Records" Clarification
 ###### ### 压制yā zhì yā zhì 与yǔ yǔ 合法hé fǎ hé fǎ 扣留kòu liú kòu liú 的de de 问题wèn tí wèn tí
The phrase "deleting all records of receiving them" needs clarification.
 存在cún zài cún zài 关键guān jiàn guān jiàn 区别qū bié qū bié ：： ：
Submissions appear to be: - Withheld from **public publication** on the inquiry website - Retained by government in **internal records** (as evidenced by the FOI request process) - Not indexed or listed in public submission databases This is suppression of public visibility, not complete destruction of records - though government appears to take steps to avoid creating searchable indices of withheld submissions [2].
 11 1 .. . ** * ** * 合法hé fǎ hé fǎ 扣留kòu liú kòu liú ** * ** * ：： ： 保护bǎo hù bǎo hù 真正zhēn zhèng zhēn zhèng 敏感mǐn gǎn mǐn gǎn 的de de 信息xìn xī xìn xī （（ （ 安全ān quán ān quán 、、 、 隐私yǐn sī yǐn sī 、、 、 商业shāng yè shāng yè ）） ）
22 2 .. . ** * ** * 出于chū yú chū yú 政治zhèng zhì zhèng zhì 便利biàn lì biàn lì 的de de 压制yā zhì yā zhì ** * ** * ：： ： 隐藏yǐn cáng yǐn cáng 信息xìn xī xìn xī ，， ， 因为yīn wèi yīn wèi 令人lìng rén lìng rén 尴尬gān gà gān gà 或huò huò 与yǔ yǔ 政府zhèng fǔ zhèng fǔ 立场lì chǎng lì chǎng 相xiāng xiāng 矛盾máo dùn máo dùn
DrakeDrake Drake 的de de 证据zhèng jù zhèng jù 表明biǎo míng biǎo míng 属于shǔ yú shǔ yú 第dì dì 22 2 种zhǒng zhǒng 情况qíng kuàng qíng kuàng —— — —— — 他tā tā 的de de 技术jì shù jì shù 安全ān quán ān quán 批评pī píng pī píng 被bèi bèi 扣留kòu liú kòu liú 并非bìng fēi bìng fēi 出于chū yú chū yú 合法hé fǎ hé fǎ 原因yuán yīn yuán yīn ，， ， 而是ér shì ér shì 因为yīn wèi yīn wèi 对duì duì 政府zhèng fǔ zhèng fǔ "" " 不便bù biàn bù biàn "" " [[ [ 11 1 ]] ] 。。 。
20182018 2018 年nián nián 参议院cān yì yuàn cān yì yuàn 报告bào gào bào gào 本身běn shēn běn shēn 包含bāo hán bāo hán 对duì duì 政府zhèng fǔ zhèng fǔ 数字shù zì shù zì 项目xiàng mù xiàng mù 的de de 广泛guǎng fàn guǎng fàn 批评pī píng pī píng ，， ， 表明biǎo míng biǎo míng 相反xiāng fǎn xiāng fǎn 观点guān diǎn guān diǎn 并未bìng wèi bìng wèi 被bèi bèi 自动zì dòng zì dòng 压制yā zhì yā zhì [[ [ 33 3 ]] ] 。。 。
###### ### "" " 删除shān chú shān chú 记录jì lù jì lù "" " 澄清chéng qīng chéng qīng
"" " 删除shān chú shān chú 收到shōu dào shōu dào 这些zhè xiē zhè xiē 材料cái liào cái liào 的de de 所有suǒ yǒu suǒ yǒu 记录jì lù jì lù "" " 这一zhè yī zhè yī 表述biǎo shù biǎo shù 需要xū yào xū yào 澄清chéng qīng chéng qīng 。。 。
提交tí jiāo tí jiāo 材料cái liào cái liào 似乎sì hū sì hū ：： ：
-- - 在zài zài 质询zhì xún zhì xún 网站wǎng zhàn wǎng zhàn 上shàng shàng 被bèi bèi 禁止jìn zhǐ jìn zhǐ ** * ** * 公开gōng kāi gōng kāi 发布fā bù fā bù ** * ** *
-- - 被bèi bèi 政府zhèng fǔ zhèng fǔ 在zài zài ** * ** * 内部nèi bù nèi bù 记录jì lù jì lù ** * ** * 中zhōng zhōng 保留bǎo liú bǎo liú （（ （ 通过tōng guò tōng guò FOIFOI FOI 请求qǐng qiú qǐng qiú 程序chéng xù chéng xù 证明zhèng míng zhèng míng ）） ）
-- - 未wèi wèi 在zài zài 公开gōng kāi gōng kāi 提交tí jiāo tí jiāo 材料cái liào cái liào 数据库shù jù kù shù jù kù 中zhōng zhōng 编入索引biān rù suǒ yǐn biān rù suǒ yǐn 或huò huò 列出liè chū liè chū
这zhè zhè 是shì shì 对duì duì 公众gōng zhòng gōng zhòng 可见kě jiàn kě jiàn 性xìng xìng 的de de 压制yā zhì yā zhì ，， ， 而ér ér 非fēi fēi 对duì duì 记录jì lù jì lù 的de de 完全wán quán wán quán 销毁xiāo huǐ xiāo huǐ —— — —— — 尽管jǐn guǎn jǐn guǎn 政府zhèng fǔ zhèng fǔ 似乎sì hū sì hū 采取措施cǎi qǔ cuò shī cǎi qǔ cuò shī 避免bì miǎn bì miǎn 创建chuàng jiàn chuàng jiàn 被bèi bèi 扣留kòu liú kòu liú 提交tí jiāo tí jiāo 材料cái liào cái liào 的de de 可kě kě 搜索sōu suǒ sōu suǒ 索引suǒ yǐn suǒ yǐn [[ [ 22 2 ]] ] 。。 。

来源可信度评估

###### ### 原始yuán shǐ yuán shǐ 主张zhǔ zhāng zhǔ zhāng 来源lái yuán lái yuán
### Original Claim Sources
 ** * ** * ChrisChris Chris DrakeDrake Drake （（ （ 所有suǒ yǒu suǒ yǒu 证据zhèng jù zhèng jù 的de de 作者zuò zhě zuò zhě ）） ） ** * ** *
**Chris Drake (author of all evidence)** - Independent security researcher and software developer - Provided original evidence via chrisdrake.com personal website - GitHub issue author is mdavis (Matthew Davis), who operates mdavis.xyz - a Labor-critical data project - Drake's claims are personal testimony regarding his own submissions, supported by documentary evidence (screenshots, PDF submissions) - No independent verification of Drake's interpretation that submissions were withheld "for political convenience" vs. legitimate reasons **Source Credibility Issues:** - The framing as "routine corruption" is Drake's interpretation, not established fact [1] - Drake provides no systematic evidence this is widespread - only his 3-5 personal submissions [1] - The mdavis.xyz project explicitly curates critical claims about Coalition government, creating inherent selection bias [4] **What the evidence actually shows:** - Drake's submissions were marked "deemed confidential" - Drake claims he did not request this status - Drake was instructed not to publish his submission contents - Senate officials told Drake they had not received/read his submissions
 -- - 独立dú lì dú lì 安全ān quán ān quán 研究员yán jiū yuán yán jiū yuán 和hé hé 软件ruǎn jiàn ruǎn jiàn 开发者kāi fā zhě kāi fā zhě
### Second-Party Assessment (mdavis.xyz)
 -- - 通过tōng guò tōng guò chrisdrakechrisdrake chrisdrake .. . comcom com 个人gè rén gè rén 网站wǎng zhàn wǎng zhàn 提供tí gōng tí gōng 原始yuán shǐ yuán shǐ 证据zhèng jù zhèng jù
Matthew Davis (mdavis.xyz) accepted Drake's claim as "routine corruption" and added it to his claims database.
 -- - GitHubGitHub GitHub 问题wèn tí wèn tí 作者zuò zhě zuò zhě 是shì shì mdavismdavis mdavis （（ （ MatthewMatthew Matthew DavisDavis Davis ）） ） ，， ， 运营yùn yíng yùn yíng mdavismdavis mdavis .. . xyzxyz xyz —— — —— — 一个yí gè yí gè 批评pī píng pī píng 工党gōng dǎng gōng dǎng 的de de 数据shù jù shù jù 项目xiàng mù xiàng mù
Davis is the author of the Labor-critical research project mdavis.xyz and operates it under the description of exposing "Coalition Government wrongdoing." This represents confirmation bias - accepting submitted claims from contributors without independent verification [4].
 -- - DrakeDrake Drake 的de de 主张zhǔ zhāng zhǔ zhāng 是shì shì 他tā tā 自己zì jǐ zì jǐ 提交tí jiāo tí jiāo 材料cái liào cái liào 的de de 个人gè rén gè rén 证词zhèng cí zhèng cí ，， ， 得到dé dào dé dào 文献wén xiàn wén xiàn 证据zhèng jù zhèng jù （（ （ 截图jié tú jié tú 、、 、 PDFPDF PDF 提交tí jiāo tí jiāo 材料cái liào cái liào ）） ） 的de de 支持zhī chí zhī chí
-- - 没有méi yǒu méi yǒu 独立dú lì dú lì 核实hé shí hé shí DrakeDrake Drake 关于guān yú guān yú 提交tí jiāo tí jiāo 材料cái liào cái liào "" " 出于chū yú chū yú 政治zhèng zhì zhèng zhì 便利biàn lì biàn lì "" " 而ér ér 被bèi bèi 扣留kòu liú kòu liú 的de de 解释jiě shì jiě shì ，， ， 而ér ér 非fēi fēi 出于chū yú chū yú 合法hé fǎ hé fǎ 原因yuán yīn yuán yīn
** * ** * 来源lái yuán lái yuán 可信度kě xìn dù kě xìn dù 问题wèn tí wèn tí ：： ： ** * ** *
-- - "" " 例行lì xíng lì xíng 腐败fǔ bài fǔ bài "" " 的de de 定性dìng xìng dìng xìng 是shì shì DrakeDrake Drake 的de de 解释jiě shì jiě shì ，， ， 而ér ér 非fēi fēi 既定jì dìng jì dìng 事实shì shí shì shí [[ [ 11 1 ]] ]
-- - DrakeDrake Drake 未wèi wèi 提供tí gōng tí gōng 系统性xì tǒng xìng xì tǒng xìng 证据zhèng jù zhèng jù 表明biǎo míng biǎo míng 这种zhè zhǒng zhè zhǒng 情况qíng kuàng qíng kuàng 普遍存在pǔ biàn cún zài pǔ biàn cún zài —— — —— — 仅jǐn jǐn 涉及shè jí shè jí 他tā tā 的de de 33 3 -- - 55 5 份fèn fèn 个人gè rén gè rén 提交tí jiāo tí jiāo 材料cái liào cái liào [[ [ 11 1 ]] ]
-- - mdavismdavis mdavis .. . xyzxyz xyz 项目xiàng mù xiàng mù 明确míng què míng què 策划cè huà cè huà 关于guān yú guān yú 联盟党lián méng dǎng lián méng dǎng 政府zhèng fǔ zhèng fǔ 的de de 批评性pī píng xìng pī píng xìng 主张zhǔ zhāng zhǔ zhāng ，， ， 造成zào chéng zào chéng 固有gù yǒu gù yǒu 的de de 选择xuǎn zé xuǎn zé 偏见piān jiàn piān jiàn [[ [ 44 4 ]] ]
** * ** * 证据zhèng jù zhèng jù 实际shí jì shí jì 显示xiǎn shì xiǎn shì 的de de 内容nèi róng nèi róng ：： ： ** * ** *
-- - DrakeDrake Drake 的de de 提交tí jiāo tí jiāo 材料cái liào cái liào 被bèi bèi 标记biāo jì biāo jì 为wèi wèi "" " 视为shì wèi shì wèi 机密jī mì jī mì "" "
-- - DrakeDrake Drake 声称shēng chēng shēng chēng 他tā tā 未wèi wèi 要求yāo qiú yāo qiú 这种zhè zhǒng zhè zhǒng 身份shēn fèn shēn fèn
-- - DrakeDrake Drake 被bèi bèi 指示zhǐ shì zhǐ shì 不要bú yào bú yào 公布gōng bù gōng bù 其qí qí 提交tí jiāo tí jiāo 材料cái liào cái liào 的de de 内容nèi róng nèi róng
-- - 参议院cān yì yuàn cān yì yuàn 官员guān yuán guān yuán 告诉gào sù gào sù DrakeDrake Drake ，， ， 他们tā men tā men 未wèi wèi 收到shōu dào shōu dào // / 阅读yuè dú yuè dú 他tā tā 的de de 提交tí jiāo tí jiāo 材料cái liào cái liào
###### ### 第三方dì sān fāng dì sān fāng 评估píng gū píng gū （（ （ mdavismdavis mdavis .. . xyzxyz xyz ）） ）
MatthewMatthew Matthew DavisDavis Davis （（ （ mdavismdavis mdavis .. . xyzxyz xyz ）） ） 接受jiē shòu jiē shòu DrakeDrake Drake 的de de 主张zhǔ zhāng zhǔ zhāng 为wèi wèi "" " 例行lì xíng lì xíng 腐败fǔ bài fǔ bài "" " ，， ， 并bìng bìng 将jiāng jiāng 其qí qí 添加tiān jiā tiān jiā 到dào dào 他tā tā 的de de 主张zhǔ zhāng zhǔ zhāng 数据库shù jù kù shù jù kù 中zhōng zhōng 。。 。
DavisDavis Davis 是shì shì 批评pī píng pī píng 工党gōng dǎng gōng dǎng 的de de 研究yán jiū yán jiū 项目xiàng mù xiàng mù mdavismdavis mdavis .. . xyzxyz xyz 的de de 作者zuò zhě zuò zhě ，， ， 并bìng bìng 在zài zài 其qí qí 描述miáo shù miáo shù 下xià xià 运营yùn yíng yùn yíng 该gāi gāi 项目xiàng mù xiàng mù ，， ， 即jí jí 揭露jiē lù jiē lù "" " 联盟党lián méng dǎng lián méng dǎng 政府zhèng fǔ zhèng fǔ 的de de 不当bù dàng bù dàng 行为xíng wéi xíng wéi "" " 。。 。
这zhè zhè 代表dài biǎo dài biǎo 了le le 确认què rèn què rèn 偏见piān jiàn piān jiàn —— — —— — 在zài zài 未wèi wèi 独立dú lì dú lì 核实hé shí hé shí 的de de 情况qíng kuàng qíng kuàng 下xià xià 接受jiē shòu jiē shòu 贡献者gòng xiàn zhě gòng xiàn zhě 提交tí jiāo tí jiāo 的de de 主张zhǔ zhāng zhǔ zhāng [[ [ 44 4 ]] ] 。。 。
⚖️

工党对比

** * ** * 搜索sōu suǒ sōu suǒ ：： ： ** * ** * "" " LaborLabor Labor governmentgovernment government SenateSenate Senate inquiryinquiry inquiry submissionssubmissions submissions confidentialconfidential confidential withheldwithheld withheld publishedpublished published "" "
**Search conducted:** "Labor government Senate inquiry submissions confidential withheld published" **Finding:** No specific evidence of Labor government handling of Senate inquiry submission censorship found.
 ** * ** * 发现fā xiàn fā xiàn ：： ： ** * ** * 未找到wèi zhǎo dào wèi zhǎo dào 工党gōng dǎng gōng dǎng 政府zhèng fǔ zhèng fǔ 处理chǔ lǐ chǔ lǐ 参议院cān yì yuàn cān yì yuàn 质询zhì xún zhì xún 提交tí jiāo tí jiāo 材料cái liào cái liào 审查shěn chá shěn chá 的de de 具体jù tǐ jù tǐ 证据zhèng jù zhèng jù 。。 。
However, this practice appears to be **standard parliamentary procedure across Australian governments**, not unique to Coalition [2].
 然而rán ér rán ér ，， ， 这种zhè zhǒng zhè zhǒng 做法zuò fǎ zuò fǎ 似乎sì hū sì hū 是shì shì ** * ** * 澳大利亚ào dà lì yà ào dà lì yà 各gè gè 政府zhèng fǔ zhèng fǔ 的de de 标准biāo zhǔn biāo zhǔn 议会yì huì yì huì 程序chéng xù chéng xù ** * ** * ，， ， 并非bìng fēi bìng fēi 联盟党lián méng dǎng lián méng dǎng 独有dú yǒu dú yǒu [[ [ 22 2 ]] ] 。。 。
### Broader Parliamentary Practice
 ###### ### 更gèng gèng 广泛guǎng fàn guǎng fàn 的de de 议会yì huì yì huì 实践shí jiàn shí jiàn
The practice of marking submissions "deemed confidential" and withholding them from public websites appears to be: - A standard feature of Australian Senate inquiry procedures - Applied to all governments' submissions and submitters' requests - Not unique to Coalition government handling of inquiries - Codified in parliamentary procedures that predate the Coalition government (2013-2022) The Senate Finance and Public Administration Committee 2018 inquiry report itself demonstrates that **critical submissions opposing government positions are published** - the report documents extensive criticism of government digital initiatives, suggesting the withholding is selective, not blanket [3].
 将jiāng jiāng 提交tí jiāo tí jiāo 材料cái liào cái liào 标记biāo jì biāo jì 为wèi wèi "" " 视为shì wèi shì wèi 机密jī mì jī mì "" " 并bìng bìng 禁止jìn zhǐ jìn zhǐ 其qí qí 在zài zài 公共gōng gòng gōng gòng 网站wǎng zhàn wǎng zhàn 上shàng shàng 发布fā bù fā bù 的de de 做法zuò fǎ zuò fǎ 似乎sì hū sì hū 是shì shì ：： ：
-- - 澳大利亚ào dà lì yà ào dà lì yà 参议院cān yì yuàn cān yì yuàn 质询zhì xún zhì xún 程序chéng xù chéng xù 的de de 标准biāo zhǔn biāo zhǔn 特征tè zhēng tè zhēng
-- - 适用shì yòng shì yòng 于yú yú 所有suǒ yǒu suǒ yǒu 政府zhèng fǔ zhèng fǔ 的de de 提交tí jiāo tí jiāo 材料cái liào cái liào 和hé hé 提交者tí jiāo zhě tí jiāo zhě 的de de 请求qǐng qiú qǐng qiú
-- - 并非bìng fēi bìng fēi 联盟党lián méng dǎng lián méng dǎng 政府zhèng fǔ zhèng fǔ 处理chǔ lǐ chǔ lǐ 质询zhì xún zhì xún 所suǒ suǒ 独有dú yǒu dú yǒu
-- - 编入biān rù biān rù 早zǎo zǎo 于yú yú 联盟党lián méng dǎng lián méng dǎng 政府zhèng fǔ zhèng fǔ （（ （ 20132013 2013 -- - 20222022 2022 年nián nián ）） ） 的de de 议会yì huì yì huì 程序chéng xù chéng xù 中zhōng zhōng
参议院cān yì yuàn cān yì yuàn 财政cái zhèng cái zhèng 和hé hé 公共行政gōng gòng xíng zhèng gōng gòng xíng zhèng 委员会wěi yuán huì wěi yuán huì 20182018 2018 年nián nián 质询zhì xún zhì xún 报告bào gào bào gào 本身běn shēn běn shēn 表明biǎo míng biǎo míng ，， ， ** * ** * 反对fǎn duì fǎn duì 政府zhèng fǔ zhèng fǔ 立场lì chǎng lì chǎng 的de de 批评性pī píng xìng pī píng xìng 提交tí jiāo tí jiāo 材料cái liào cái liào 会huì huì 被bèi bèi 公布gōng bù gōng bù ** * ** * —— — —— — 该gāi gāi 报告bào gào bào gào 记录jì lù jì lù 了le le 对duì duì 政府zhèng fǔ zhèng fǔ 数字shù zì shù zì 计划jì huà jì huà 的de de 广泛guǎng fàn guǎng fàn 批评pī píng pī píng ，， ， 表明biǎo míng biǎo míng 扣留kòu liú kòu liú 是shì shì 有yǒu yǒu 选择性xuǎn zé xìng xuǎn zé xìng 的de de ，， ， 而ér ér 非fēi fēi 全面quán miàn quán miàn 的de de [[ [ 33 3 ]] ] 。。 。
🌐

平衡视角

###### ### 合法hé fǎ hé fǎ 解释jiě shì jiě shì
### The Legitimate Explanation
 参议院cān yì yuàn cān yì yuàn 质询zhì xún zhì xún 确实què shí què shí 收到shōu dào shōu dào 出于chū yú chū yú 合法hé fǎ hé fǎ 原因yuán yīn yuán yīn 的de de 机密jī mì jī mì 提交tí jiāo tí jiāo 材料cái liào cái liào ：： ：
Senate inquiries do receive confidential submissions for legitimate reasons: - Agencies submitting official advice (naturally confidential) - Individuals protecting their privacy - Businesses protecting commercial information - Security-sensitive information The existence of a "deemed confidential" category is standard parliamentary practice that applies across all governments [2].
 -- - 机构jī gòu jī gòu 提交tí jiāo tí jiāo 官方guān fāng guān fāng 建议jiàn yì jiàn yì （（ （ 自然zì rán zì rán 机密jī mì jī mì ）） ）
### Drake's Specific Complaint
 -- - 个人gè rén gè rén 保护bǎo hù bǎo hù 其qí qí 隐私yǐn sī yǐn sī
Drake's complaint goes further - that submissions were marked confidential **against his wishes** and he was threatened with prosecution if he disclosed them [1].
 -- - 企业qǐ yè qǐ yè 保护bǎo hù bǎo hù 商业信息shāng yè xìn xī shāng yè xìn xī
This raises questions about: 1. **Authority**: What process determines whether a submission is "deemed confidential"? 2. **Appeal**: Can submitters challenge this classification? 3. **Transparency**: Should the public know how many submissions are withheld?
 -- - 安全ān quán ān quán 敏感mǐn gǎn mǐn gǎn 信息xìn xī xìn xī
The 2018 Senate Inquiry report provides no discussion of appeal processes or submitter grievance procedures, suggesting the system may lack adequate oversight [3].
 "" " 视为shì wèi shì wèi 机密jī mì jī mì "" " 类别lèi bié lèi bié 的de de 存在cún zài cún zài 是shì shì 适用shì yòng shì yòng 于yú yú 所有suǒ yǒu suǒ yǒu 政府zhèng fǔ zhèng fǔ 的de de 标准biāo zhǔn biāo zhǔn 议会yì huì yì huì 实践shí jiàn shí jiàn [[ [ 22 2 ]] ] 。。 。
### Scope of the Problem
 ###### ### DrakeDrake Drake 的de de 具体jù tǐ jù tǐ 投诉tóu sù tóu sù
**What Drake provides:** Evidence that his 3-5 submissions across multiple inquiries were withheld **What Drake claims:** This happens "to all my submissions to every inquiry I've participated in" and constitutes "routine corruption" [1] **What exists:** One FOI request asking for information about systematically withheld submissions, suggesting others have made this complaint [2] **What's unknown:** - How widespread is this practice? - How many submissions per inquiry are typically withheld? - Are submitters systematically denied knowledge this occurred? - Does the threat of prosecution for disclosure (which Drake documents) apply broadly or only in specific cases?
 DrakeDrake Drake 的de de 投诉tóu sù tóu sù 更进一步gèng jìn yí bù gèng jìn yí bù —— — —— — 提交tí jiāo tí jiāo 材料cái liào cái liào 在zài zài 他tā tā ** * ** * 不bù bù 同意tóng yì tóng yì ** * ** * 的de de 情况qíng kuàng qíng kuàng 下xià xià 被bèi bèi 标记biāo jì biāo jì 为wèi wèi 机密jī mì jī mì ，， ， 并且bìng qiě bìng qiě 如果rú guǒ rú guǒ 他tā tā 披露pī lù pī lù 这些zhè xiē zhè xiē 材料cái liào cái liào ，， ， 将jiāng jiāng 受到shòu dào shòu dào 起诉qǐ sù qǐ sù 威胁wēi xié wēi xié [[ [ 11 1 ]] ] 。。 。
### Key Context from the Senate
 这zhè zhè 引发yǐn fā yǐn fā 了le le 以下yǐ xià yǐ xià 问题wèn tí wèn tí ：： ：
The 2018 Senate Digital Delivery Inquiry produced a comprehensive public report that includes: - Extensive criticism of government digital projects - Multiple damning case studies (robo-debt, eCensus failures, failed contracts) - Dozens of recommendations for government improvement [3] This suggests that **critical and inconvenient submissions are not systematically suppressed** - at least those from official bodies.
 11 1 .. . ** * ** * 权限quán xiàn quán xiàn ** * ** * ：： ： 什么shén me shén me 程序chéng xù chéng xù 决定jué dìng jué dìng 提交tí jiāo tí jiāo 材料cái liào cái liào 是否shì fǒu shì fǒu "" " 视为shì wèi shì wèi 机密jī mì jī mì "" " ？？ ？
The suppression may apply more to individual citizen submissions like Drake's.
 22 2 .. . ** * ** * 申诉shēn sù shēn sù ** * ** * ：： ： 提交者tí jiāo zhě tí jiāo zhě 能否néng fǒu néng fǒu 质疑zhì yí zhì yí 这种zhè zhǒng zhè zhǒng 分类fēn lèi fēn lèi ？？ ？
33 3 .. . ** * ** * 透明度tòu míng dù tòu míng dù ** * ** * ：： ： 公众gōng zhòng gōng zhòng 是否shì fǒu shì fǒu 应该yīng gāi yīng gāi 知道zhī dào zhī dào 有yǒu yǒu 多少duō shǎo duō shǎo 提交tí jiāo tí jiāo 材料cái liào cái liào 被bèi bèi 扣留kòu liú kòu liú ？？ ？
20182018 2018 年nián nián 参议院cān yì yuàn cān yì yuàn 质询zhì xún zhì xún 报告bào gào bào gào 未wèi wèi 讨论tǎo lùn tǎo lùn 申诉shēn sù shēn sù 程序chéng xù chéng xù 或huò huò 提交者tí jiāo zhě tí jiāo zhě 申诉shēn sù shēn sù 程序chéng xù chéng xù ，， ， 表明biǎo míng biǎo míng 该gāi gāi 系统xì tǒng xì tǒng 可能kě néng kě néng 缺乏quē fá quē fá 足够zú gòu zú gòu 的de de 监督jiān dū jiān dū [[ [ 33 3 ]] ] 。。 。
###### ### 问题wèn tí wèn tí 的de de 范围fàn wéi fàn wéi
** * ** * DrakeDrake Drake 提供tí gōng tí gōng 的de de 内容nèi róng nèi róng ：： ： ** * ** * 证据zhèng jù zhèng jù 显示xiǎn shì xiǎn shì 他tā tā 在zài zài 多份duō fèn duō fèn 质询zhì xún zhì xún 中zhōng zhōng 的de de 33 3 -- - 55 5 份fèn fèn 提交tí jiāo tí jiāo 材料cái liào cái liào 被bèi bèi 扣留kòu liú kòu liú
** * ** * DrakeDrake Drake 声称shēng chēng shēng chēng 的de de 内容nèi róng nèi róng ：： ： ** * ** * 这种zhè zhǒng zhè zhǒng 情况qíng kuàng qíng kuàng "" " 发生fā shēng fā shēng 在zài zài 我wǒ wǒ 参与cān yù cān yù 的de de 每份měi fèn měi fèn 质询zhì xún zhì xún 的de de 所有suǒ yǒu suǒ yǒu 提交tí jiāo tí jiāo 材料cái liào cái liào 中zhōng zhōng "" " ，， ， 构成gòu chéng gòu chéng "" " 例行lì xíng lì xíng 腐败fǔ bài fǔ bài "" " [[ [ 11 1 ]] ]
** * ** * 存在cún zài cún zài 的de de 内容nèi róng nèi róng ：： ： ** * ** * 一份yī fèn yī fèn FOIFOI FOI 请求qǐng qiú qǐng qiú 要求yāo qiú yāo qiú 提供tí gōng tí gōng 关于guān yú guān yú 系统性xì tǒng xìng xì tǒng xìng 扣留kòu liú kòu liú 提交tí jiāo tí jiāo 材料cái liào cái liào 的de de 信息xìn xī xìn xī ，， ， 表明biǎo míng biǎo míng 其他人qí tā rén qí tā rén 也yě yě 提出tí chū tí chū 了le le 这zhè zhè 一yī yī 投诉tóu sù tóu sù [[ [ 22 2 ]] ]
** * ** * 未知wèi zhī wèi zhī 的de de 内容nèi róng nèi róng ：： ： ** * ** *
-- - 这种zhè zhǒng zhè zhǒng 做法zuò fǎ zuò fǎ 有yǒu yǒu 多duō duō 普遍pǔ biàn pǔ biàn ？？ ？
-- - 每份měi fèn měi fèn 质询zhì xún zhì xún 通常tōng cháng tōng cháng 有yǒu yǒu 多少duō shǎo duō shǎo 提交tí jiāo tí jiāo 材料cái liào cái liào 被bèi bèi 扣留kòu liú kòu liú ？？ ？
-- - 提交者tí jiāo zhě tí jiāo zhě 是否shì fǒu shì fǒu 系统性xì tǒng xìng xì tǒng xìng 地被dì bèi dì bèi 拒绝jù jué jù jué 知道zhī dào zhī dào 这种zhè zhǒng zhè zhǒng 情况qíng kuàng qíng kuàng 发生fā shēng fā shēng ？？ ？
-- - DrakeDrake Drake 记录jì lù jì lù 的de de 披露pī lù pī lù 起诉qǐ sù qǐ sù 威胁wēi xié wēi xié 是否shì fǒu shì fǒu 广泛guǎng fàn guǎng fàn 适用shì yòng shì yòng 或仅huò jǐn huò jǐn 适用shì yòng shì yòng 于yú yú 特定tè dìng tè dìng 案例àn lì àn lì ？？ ？
###### ### 来自lái zì lái zì 参议院cān yì yuàn cān yì yuàn 的de de 关键guān jiàn guān jiàn 背景bèi jǐng bèi jǐng
20182018 2018 年nián nián 参议院cān yì yuàn cān yì yuàn 数字化shù zì huà shù zì huà 交付jiāo fù jiāo fù 质询zhì xún zhì xún 产生chǎn shēng chǎn shēng 了le le 一份yī fèn yī fèn 全面quán miàn quán miàn 的de de 公开gōng kāi gōng kāi 报告bào gào bào gào ，， ， 其中qí zhōng qí zhōng 包括bāo kuò bāo kuò ：： ：
-- - 对duì duì 政府zhèng fǔ zhèng fǔ 数字shù zì shù zì 项目xiàng mù xiàng mù 的de de 广泛guǎng fàn guǎng fàn 批评pī píng pī píng
-- - 多个duō gè duō gè 令人震惊lìng rén zhèn jīng lìng rén zhèn jīng 的de de 案例àn lì àn lì 研究yán jiū yán jiū （（ （ 机器人jī qì rén jī qì rén 债务zhài wù zhài wù 、、 、 eCensuseCensus eCensus 故障gù zhàng gù zhàng 、、 、 失败shī bài shī bài 的de de 合同hé tóng hé tóng ）） ）
-- - 数十项shù shí xiàng shù shí xiàng 政府zhèng fǔ zhèng fǔ 改进gǎi jìn gǎi jìn 建议jiàn yì jiàn yì [[ [ 33 3 ]] ]
这zhè zhè 表明biǎo míng biǎo míng ** * ** * 批评性pī píng xìng pī píng xìng 和hé hé 不便bù biàn bù biàn 的de de 提交tí jiāo tí jiāo 材料cái liào cái liào 并未bìng wèi bìng wèi 被bèi bèi 系统性xì tǒng xìng xì tǒng xìng 压制yā zhì yā zhì ** * ** * —— — —— — 至少zhì shǎo zhì shǎo 来自lái zì lái zì 官方guān fāng guān fāng 机构jī gòu jī gòu 的de de 材料cái liào cái liào 如此rú cǐ rú cǐ 。。 。
压制yā zhì yā zhì 可能kě néng kě néng 更gèng gèng 适用shì yòng shì yòng 于yú yú 像xiàng xiàng DrakeDrake Drake 这样zhè yàng zhè yàng 的de de 个人gè rén gè rén 公民gōng mín gōng mín 提交tí jiāo tí jiāo 材料cái liào cái liào 。。 。

部分属实

4.0

/ 10

核心hé xīn hé xīn 事实shì shí shì shí 是shì shì 准确zhǔn què zhǔn què 的de de ：： ： DrakeDrake Drake 的de de 参议院cān yì yuàn cān yì yuàn 质询zhì xún zhì xún 提交tí jiāo tí jiāo 材料cái liào cái liào 被bèi bèi 标记biāo jì biāo jì 为wèi wèi "" " 视为shì wèi shì wèi 机密jī mì jī mì "" " ，， ， 禁止jìn zhǐ jìn zhǐ 公开gōng kāi gōng kāi 发布fā bù fā bù ，， ， 并且bìng qiě bìng qiě 他tā tā 被bèi bèi 指示zhǐ shì zhǐ shì 不要bú yào bú yào 披露pī lù pī lù 这些zhè xiē zhè xiē 材料cái liào cái liào 。。 。
The core facts are accurate: Drake's Senate inquiry submissions were marked "deemed confidential," withheld from public publication, and he was instructed not to disclose them.
 然而rán ér rán ér ，， ， 该gāi gāi 主张zhǔ zhāng zhǔ zhāng 严重yán zhòng yán zhòng 夸大kuā dà kuā dà 和hé hé 误述wù shù wù shù 了le le 这zhè zhè 一yī yī 问题wèn tí wèn tí ：： ：
However, the claim significantly overstates and mischaracterizes the issue: 1. **"Censored multiple valid Senate inquiry submissions if inconvenient"** - TRUE for Drake's submissions, but unverified as systematic or unique to "inconvenient" submissions [1] 2. **"Deleting all records of receiving them"** - MISLEADING.
 11 1 .. . ** * ** * "" " 如果rú guǒ rú guǒ 参议院cān yì yuàn cān yì yuàn 质询zhì xún zhì xún 提交tí jiāo tí jiāo 的de de 内容nèi róng nèi róng 不便bù biàn bù biàn 公开gōng kāi gōng kāi ，， ， 则zé zé 审查shěn chá shěn chá 多份duō fèn duō fèn 有效yǒu xiào yǒu xiào 的de de 提交tí jiāo tí jiāo 材料cái liào cái liào "" " ** * ** * —— — —— — DrakeDrake Drake 的de de 提交tí jiāo tí jiāo 材料cái liào cái liào 属实shǔ shí shǔ shí ，， ， 但dàn dàn 未wèi wèi 核实hé shí hé shí 是否shì fǒu shì fǒu 为wèi wèi 系统xì tǒng xì tǒng 性行为xìng xíng wèi xìng xíng wèi 或huò huò "" " 不便bù biàn bù biàn "" " 提交tí jiāo tí jiāo 材料cái liào cái liào 所suǒ suǒ 独有dú yǒu dú yǒu [[ [ 11 1 ]] ]
Submissions were withheld from public websites but retained in government records (as evidenced by FOI request processes) [2] 3. **"Instructed citizens to not publish their submissions"** - TRUE, Drake was explicitly instructed not to disclose [1] 4. **"Even senators don't have visibility"** - UNVERIFIED.
 22 2 .. . ** * ** * "" " 删除shān chú shān chú 收到shōu dào shōu dào 这些zhè xiē zhè xiē 材料cái liào cái liào 的de de 所有suǒ yǒu suǒ yǒu 记录jì lù jì lù "" " ** * ** * —— — —— — 误导wù dǎo wù dǎo 。。 。
Based only on Drake's anecdotal contact with senators who claimed unawareness, not systematic evidence [1] 5. **Overall framing as "routine corruption"** - MISLEADING.
 提交tí jiāo tí jiāo 材料cái liào cái liào 被bèi bèi 禁止jìn zhǐ jìn zhǐ 在zài zài 公共gōng gòng gōng gòng 网站wǎng zhàn wǎng zhàn 上shàng shàng 发布fā bù fā bù ，， ， 但dàn dàn 保留bǎo liú bǎo liú 在zài zài 政府zhèng fǔ zhèng fǔ 记录jì lù jì lù 中zhōng zhōng （（ （ 通过tōng guò tōng guò FOIFOI FOI 请求qǐng qiú qǐng qiú 程序chéng xù chéng xù 证明zhèng míng zhèng míng ）） ） [[ [ 22 2 ]] ]
The "deemed confidential" practice appears to be standard parliamentary procedure, not Coalition-specific corruption.
 33 3 .. . ** * ** * "" " 指示zhǐ shì zhǐ shì 公民gōng mín gōng mín 不要bú yào bú yào 公开gōng kāi gōng kāi 他们tā men tā men 的de de 提交tí jiāo tí jiāo 材料cái liào cái liào "" " ** * ** * —— — —— — 属实shǔ shí shǔ shí ，， ， DrakeDrake Drake 被bèi bèi 明确míng què míng què 指示zhǐ shì zhǐ shì 不要bú yào bú yào 披露pī lù pī lù [[ [ 11 1 ]] ]
Drake's complaint may be valid, but evidence shows it's a procedural issue affecting some submissions, not systematic suppression of all "inconvenient" submissions [2][3]
 44 4 .. . ** * ** * "" " 甚至shèn zhì shèn zhì 连lián lián 参议员cān yì yuán cān yì yuán 也yě yě 看不到kàn bú dào kàn bú dào "" " ** * ** * —— — —— — 未wèi wèi 核实hé shí hé shí 。。 。
仅jǐn jǐn 基于jī yú jī yú DrakeDrake Drake 与yǔ yǔ 声称shēng chēng shēng chēng 不知情bù zhī qíng bù zhī qíng 的de de 参议员cān yì yuán cān yì yuán 的de de 轶事yì shì yì shì 接触jiē chù jiē chù ，， ， 并非bìng fēi bìng fēi 系统性xì tǒng xìng xì tǒng xìng 证据zhèng jù zhèng jù [[ [ 11 1 ]] ]
55 5 .. . ** * ** * 整体zhěng tǐ zhěng tǐ 定性dìng xìng dìng xìng 为wèi wèi "" " 例行lì xíng lì xíng 腐败fǔ bài fǔ bài "" " ** * ** * —— — —— — 误导wù dǎo wù dǎo 。。 。
"" " 视为shì wèi shì wèi 机密jī mì jī mì "" " 的de de 做法zuò fǎ zuò fǎ 似乎sì hū sì hū 是shì shì 标准biāo zhǔn biāo zhǔn 议会yì huì yì huì 程序chéng xù chéng xù ，， ， 而ér ér 非fēi fēi 联盟党lián méng dǎng lián méng dǎng 独有dú yǒu dú yǒu 的de de 腐败fǔ bài fǔ bài 行为xíng wéi xíng wéi 。。 。
DrakeDrake Drake 的de de 投诉tóu sù tóu sù 可能kě néng kě néng 有效yǒu xiào yǒu xiào ，， ， 但dàn dàn 证据zhèng jù zhèng jù 表明biǎo míng biǎo míng 这zhè zhè 影响yǐng xiǎng yǐng xiǎng 某些mǒu xiē mǒu xiē 提交tí jiāo tí jiāo 材料cái liào cái liào 的de de 程序chéng xù chéng xù 问题wèn tí wèn tí ，， ， 而ér ér 非fēi fēi 对duì duì 所有suǒ yǒu suǒ yǒu "" " 不便bù biàn bù biàn "" " 提交tí jiāo tí jiāo 材料cái liào cái liào 的de de 系统性xì tǒng xìng xì tǒng xìng 压制yā zhì yā zhì [[ [ 22 2 ]] ] [[ [ 33 3 ]] ]

📚 来源与引用 (4)

  1. 1
    Routine corruption within the Senate Inquiry process

    Routine corruption within the Senate Inquiry process

    All submissions that could embarrass government are hidden ("Deemed confidential"), and (vastly more alarmingly) all records of such submissions are erased (to cover up how many submissions they co...

    GitHub
  2. 2
    Disclosure of inquiry and committee submission existence of "Deemed confidential" submissions

    Disclosure of inquiry and committee submission existence of "Deemed confidential" submissions

    The standing order "A person shall not willfully publish any false or misleading report of the proceedings of the Senate or of a committee." (see https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Chamber_documents/Senate_chamber_documents/standingorders/c00/c06 ) is being routinely violated by your department in the censored "records of submissions" reports that deliberately omit "Deemed Confidential" submissions, including those which the government finds "embarrassing". This misleads everyone as to the quantity and nature of submissions, thus constituting contempt as per the law. The order also states "attempts or conspiracies to do the prohibited acts, may be treated by the Senate as contempts." and "A person shall not improperly interfere with the free exercise by the Senate or a committee of its authority, or with the free performance by a senator of the senator's duties as a senator.". Having observed live inquiry proceedings, and made contact with inquiry senators, I have discovered that "Deemed Confidential" submissions are not being read, and no senator has yet confirmed with me ever having received one. I request, under FoI, the following documents: 1. The list of all submissions received to senate inquiries or committees which have been removed from the official list of submissions, dating back to the first occurrence of the practice of omitting "deemed confidential" submissions from the published lists of inquiry/committee submissions. 2. Documents proving that "Deemed Confidential" submissions have been provided to, and read by, all members of committees to which those submissions were made. 3. I further ask that you take steps to amend all submission list publications to restore the omitted submissions (thus making those those list publications legal and non-contemptuous) and I request a copy of the documentation you produce as a result of this request (including any orders made, and/or any legal advice received) *. Note that I am not providing my name, to prevent you from merely disclosing the documents you can find which relate to myself. I'm looking for all of them, and I don't want you to leave any out. Yours faithfully, Australian Citizen

    Right to Know
  3. 3
    PDF

    Digital delivery of government services - Background and context

    Aph Gov • PDF Document
  4. 4
    Routine corruption within the Senate Inquiry process - mdavis-xyz addition

    Routine corruption within the Senate Inquiry process - mdavis-xyz addition

    All submissions that could embarrass government are hidden ("Deemed confidential"), and (vastly more alarmingly) all records of such submissions are erased (to cover up how many submissions they co...

    GitHub

评分方法

1-3: 不实

事实错误或恶意捏造。

4-6: 部分属实

有一定真实性，但缺乏背景或有所偏颇。

7-9: 基本属实

仅有微小的技术性或措辞问题。

10: 准确

完全经过验证且客观公正。

方法论: 评分通过交叉参照政府官方记录、独立事实核查机构和原始文件确定。

Previous: C0035 Next: C0037