Major questions remain unanswered in the minister’s office’s explanation of how it came to use false figures in an attack on Sydney’s lord mayor

Why Angus Taylor's statement on the council documents doesn't clear up anything

Angus Taylor’s office has left major questions unanswered in its latest attempt to explain allegations it relied on a forged document and false figures for a political attack on the Sydney lord mayor, Clover Moore.

Taylor has spent the week embroiled in allegations his office used a false document with grossly inflated figures about the City of Sydney’s travel expenses to attack the council for driving up emissions while claiming to take a stand on climate change.

Angus Taylor apologises to Clover Moore over document he used to attack her Read more

Taylor accused the council of spending “$1.7m on international travel and $14.2m on domestic travel” for councillors. The true figures were $1,727.77 on international travel and $4,206.32 on domestic travel.

The figures in question are contained in an annual report on the council’s website.

That annual report is available for download in PDF and Word form online.

What has Taylor’s response been until this point?

Taylor is claiming that his office got the false figures by downloading a version of the annual report from the council’s website last month.

This has been hotly disputed by the council, which says the documents have remained unchanged since they were uploaded in November last year with the accurate figures. It has provided metadata and screenshots of the system used to manage its website to corroborate this.

What did Taylor say on Friday?

Under significant pressure, Taylor issued a statement on Friday afternoon saying he had evidence that suggestions his office doctored the document were “outrageous” and without basis.

He said he had “clear evidence” that, contrary to the council’s claims, different versions of the report have existed at various times on its website.

To back this up, Taylor’s office produced comparisons between the PDF and Word versions of the annual report as they currently exist on the website.

He pointed to minor formatting differences – mainly different line spacing – between the Word and PDF versions.

Effectively, he is saying there must have been multiple versions of the document uploaded to the website by council because the PDF and Word versions currently online are slightly different.

If multiple versions have existed on the website, it leaves open the possibility that his office downloaded some past version of the document containing the false figures.

Taylor’s office has left it up to the council to explain what versions existed on its website and when.

“Clearly, given the document and its various drafts and versions, are on the servers of the City of Sydney, only they can prove which documents have existed, and may still currently exist.”

The council has already said the PDF and Word versions have been the same – completely unchanged – since November last year.

What are the problems with the latest response?

The evidence muddies the waters but is likely to do little to resolve the matter.

At its most basic, all it shows is there are minor formatting differences between the PDF version and the Word version of the annual report as they currently exist on the council’s website.

This doesn’t necessarily mean the council has uploaded multiple versions of the document to its website.

The formatting differences could be explained by the different versions of Word software used to access the documents. Accessing Word documents using Mac, compared to a PC, can create minor formatting differences. The City of Sydney also says this in its statement:

“Difference in formatting occur as a consequence of file export and operating system used to open the documents.”

The formatting differences also could have existed in November 2018, when the documents were first uploaded, which would negate the suggestion that the council has been uploading different versions of the report to its website.

What didn’t Taylor’s office say?

Taylor’s office has not produced direct evidence that he ever downloaded a document with the false figures in it from the council’s website.

He has asserted that his office accessed the website on 9 September. The Daily Telegraph says Taylor’s office previously told the paper that it accessed the site on 6 September.

But the office has provided neither metadata nor other records to show the document was downloaded on that date. Further, no evidence has been provided that the document ever existed on the council’s website in a form that contained the false figures.

Taylor’s office has still not provided evidence to show when and how the document was accessed on the council’s website.