此 cǐ 指控 zhǐ kòng 涉及 shè jí 2019 2019 年 nián 9 9 月 yuè 的 de Angus Angus Taylor Taylor 文件 wén jiàn 丑闻 chǒu wén 。 。
This claim refers to the Angus Taylor document scandal from September 2019.
能源部长 néng yuán bù zhǎng Angus Angus Taylor Taylor 使用 shǐ yòng 一份 yī fèn 据称 jù chēng 被 bèi 篡改 cuàn gǎi 的 de 悉尼市 xī ní shì 年度报告 nián dù bào gào 来 lái 公开批评 gōng kāi pī píng 悉尼 xī ní 市长 shì zhǎng Clover Clover Moore Moore 在 zài 议会 yì huì 差旅 chà lǚ 支出 zhī chū 方面 fāng miàn 的 de 问题 wèn tí [ [ 1 1 ] ] 。 。
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].
Metadata analysis found no evidence that Taylor's office downloaded the document from the council website [3].
新南威尔士州 xīn nán wēi ěr shì zhōu 警察局长 jǐng chá jú zhǎng Mick Mick Fuller Fuller 确认 què rèn , , 调查 diào chá 人员 rén yuán 无法 wú fǎ 核实 hé shí Taylor Taylor 的 de 办公室 bàn gōng shì 何时 hé shí 或 huò 是否 shì fǒu 从 cóng 悉尼市 xī ní shì 网站 wǎng zhàn 下载 xià zài 了 le 该 gāi 文件 wén jiàn [ [ 3 3 ] ] 。 。
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].
新南威尔士州 xīn nán wēi ěr shì zhōu 警方 jǐng fāng 确认 què rèn 该 gāi 文件 wén jiàn 确实 què shí 被 bèi 篡改 cuàn gǎi , , 但 dàn 无法 wú fǎ 确定 què dìng 是 shì 谁 shuí 篡改 cuàn gǎi 了 le 它 tā [ [ 4 4 ] ] 。 。
The document in question was confirmed by NSW Police to have been altered, but police could not establish who altered it [4].
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].
1 1 . . * * * * 没有 méi yǒu Taylor Taylor 直接参与 zhí jiē cān yù 的 de 证据 zhèng jù * * * * : : 虽然 suī rán 文件 wén jiàn 确实 què shí 被 bèi 篡改 cuàn gǎi , , 但 dàn 警方 jǐng fāng 没有 méi yǒu 发现 fā xiàn Taylor Taylor 或 huò 其 qí 办公室 bàn gōng shì 制作 zhì zuò 了 le 伪造 wěi zào 文件 wén jiàn 的 de 证据 zhèng jù [ [ 3 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.
* * * * 发生 fā shēng 了 le 什么 shén me : : * * * * Taylor Taylor 发送 fā sòng 了 le 一封信 yī fēng xìn , , 使用 shǐ yòng 他 tā 声称 shēng chēng 来自 lái zì 议会 yì huì 年度报告 nián dù bào gào 的 de 数据 shù jù 批评 pī píng 悉尼市 xī ní shì 议会 yì huì 的 de 差旅 chà lǚ 支出 zhī chū 。 。
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.
- - 谁 shuí 篡改 cuàn gǎi 了 le 文件 wén jiàn ? ?
The controversy itself demonstrates political norms expect ministers to verify documents before using them publicly.
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.