Public submission processes are a regular feature of the policy development cycle in Australia. Government departments, parliamentary committees, and independent review bodies routinely invite written submissions on proposed legislation, policy reform, and program design. For evaluators and researchers working in policy and program evaluation, social research, or market research, these processes can represent a useful and legitimate source of data. They can also, on occasion, form the primary method through which views and evidence are gathered.
The question we are often asked, both by evaluators and researchers planning to use this method and by ethics committees reviewing such projects, is this: where do public submission processes sit in the ethical review landscape, and what obligations flow from using them?
What is a public submission process?
A public submission process invites interested parties to respond, usually in writing, to a defined set of questions or issues. Submissions may come from organisations, advocacy bodies, professional associations, businesses, or individuals. The process is open, meaning the submitter chooses to participate and typically does so without any direct interaction with the body receiving the submissions.
Many submission processes are lower risk in and of themselves. A planning authority inviting comment on a proposed rezoning, or a government department seeking industry feedback on a new licensing framework, will usually attract responses from organised stakeholders with relevant expertise. In these cases, the ethical considerations are straightforward.
However, some submission processes involve policy areas that are genuinely sensitive. Inquiries into child safety, family violence, mental health services, or disability support can attract submissions from individuals with direct lived experience of the issue under review. These are people who may have experienced trauma, who may be disclosing information about themselves or others, and whose participation carries real personal risk. The open nature of the process means that these individuals have made their own choice to participate, often without any gatekeeping or structured support.
This is where the ethical considerations become important.
Does a public submission process require ethics review?
This depends on what you are doing with the material and how the project is structured overall. Evaluators and researchers who are analysing submissions that are already on the public record may find that their project falls within the scope of research using publicly available data, which does not, as an independent activity, require ethics review under the National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research 2025 (the National Statement). However, in many real-world evaluation and research projects, analysis of submissions is one component of a broader methodology that does involve human participants in other ways. Where that is the case, the project as a whole will generally require review.
Evaluators and researchers who are themselves running a submission process as a data collection method are in a different position. This is active engagement with participants, and it should be held to the same ethical standards as any other form of data collection.
Our position is not that every use of public submissions demands full HREC review. It is that the ethical principles that govern research and evaluation apply regardless of the review pathway, and that the particular features of a submission process create risks that warrant active management.
Why submission processes deserve careful ethical attention
The core challenge with public submission processes is that they are, by their nature, less controllable than most other research and evaluation methods. When you conduct an interview or run a focus group, you control the environment, manage the consent process in real time, and can respond to participant distress as it arises. When you open a public submission process, for the most part you cannot do any of these things.
Consider a government-commissioned evaluation of a family violence support program that includes a public call for submissions. The evaluation team can set the questions, design the submission form, and write clear guidance notes. What they cannot control is who responds, what those people disclose, or how prepared those individuals are for the emotional weight of putting their experience in writing. A submission that begins as a comment on program design may become a personal account of trauma, abuse, or loss.
This dynamic is not unique to family violence. An inquiry into mental health services may attract submissions from people in acute distress. A review of child protection policy may receive accounts that involve disclosable information about harm to children. A disability policy review may receive submissions that reveal identifying information about third parties, including family members, who have not consented to their information being shared.
The open nature of the process also affects what evaluators and researchers can realistically do about these risks once they emerge. This is why the ethical work needs to happen at the design stage, before submissions are received.
Our position: autonomy, informed participation, and risk management
The National Statement is grounded in respect for the autonomy of individuals. It recognises that people are entitled to make decisions about their own participation in research and evaluation, including decisions that may carry some personal risk, provided they have been given sufficient information to make that choice on an informed basis (paragraph 2.2.1).
We consider this principle directly applicable to public submission processes. A person who chooses to make a submission to a sensitive policy inquiry has exercised a form of autonomous decision-making. The fact that participation may be emotionally difficult, or that disclosure carries some risk, does not in itself make that participation ethically impermissible. What it does require is that the person has been given the information they need to understand what they are agreeing to.
On the question of young people, this principle takes on additional nuance. Chapter 4.3 of the National Statement addresses the capacity of children and young people to make decisions about research participation, recognising that maturity and capacity develop over time and vary between individuals. In the context of a public submission process, a young person who has independently sought out an inquiry, understood its purpose, and prepared a considered submission has demonstrated, in a meaningful sense, the kind of maturity and decision-making capacity that underpins valid participation. We do not think this removes the need for careful thought about how those submissions are handled. But we do consider that the act of informed engagement is itself evidence of capacity, in a way that should inform how evaluators, researchers, and ethics committees approach this question.
The practical implication of our position is that ethical risk management in a submission process is achievable. The risks are real, but they are not unmanageable. The key is to build protective measures into the process design rather than treating them as something to be addressed after submissions arrive.
What good practice looks like
The following checklist draws on the consent and risk principles in the National Statement. These measures will not all be available in every context. Some submission processes are conducted by email or postal mail, or accept verbal submissions by phone, and the scope to build in structured consent steps is limited. That is precisely why the information provided to prospective submitters matters so much.
Be explicit about what should and should not be disclosed
Guidance materials for submitters should clearly state the kinds of information that are relevant to the inquiry and, where appropriate, flag that personal disclosures are not required and may not be necessary to make a useful contribution. This is not about discouraging participation. It is about ensuring people understand that they are not obligated to share their personal story in order to be heard.
Explain how submissions will be used, stored, and published
Many government submission processes publish submissions on a public register. Submitters may not appreciate that their name, organisational affiliation, and the full content of their submission could become permanently searchable public records. This information should be made explicit, along with any options for requesting confidentiality or anonymisation.
Offer anonymity and de-identification pathways where possible
If the process allows for confidential submissions or de-identified responses, this should be clearly signposted. Evaluators and researchers running their own submission processes should design these options in from the start, rather than handling requests for confidentiality on a case-by-case basis after the fact.
Remind submitters of their consent obligations in relation to third parties
Where a submission is likely to contain information about other people, including family members, service users, or community members, submitters should be prompted to consider whether they have the consent of those people to include that information. This is particularly important in program evaluations where community workers or service providers may submit case-based information about individuals they have worked with.
Build in an explicit acknowledgement step where the channel allows it
Online submission forms provide an opportunity to include a brief consent or acknowledgement step before the submitter lodges their response. This might be as simple as a checkbox confirming that the person has read the guidance notes and understands how their submission will be used. This is not a substitute for full informed consent, but it creates a deliberate pause that supports informed decision-making. It is not always possible where submissions are received by email, post, or phone, which is why the surrounding information needs to do more of the work in those contexts.
Have a plan for distressing disclosures
Evaluators and researchers running submission processes should decide, before they receive a single response, how they will handle submissions that contain accounts of trauma, disclosures of harm, or material that may trigger mandatory reporting obligations. This should be documented in the project design and, where relevant, disclosed to ethics reviewers.
Summary
Public submission processes are a legitimate and often valuable method in evaluation and social research. They also carry ethical risks that are distinctive to the form, arising primarily from the limited control that evaluators and researchers have over who participates and what is disclosed.
Our position is that the ethical principles in the National Statement apply fully to this method. The principle of informed autonomous participation is not negated by the open nature of the process. It is the reason that clear, honest, accessible information to prospective submitters is not optional: it is the primary mechanism through which ethical participation is supported.
Ethics committees reviewing projects that use this method should look for evidence that these risks have been actively considered and that proportionate safeguards are in place. Evaluators and researchers designing such processes should build those safeguards in from the start.
If you are designing a submission process as part of an evaluation or research project, or if your ethics committee is reviewing one, we are happy to discuss the ethical considerations involved. Reach out to the Iris Ethics team.
AI Disclosure: Initial drafts of the content for this article were prepared using Large Language Models (Claude Sonnet 4.6) with input from Iris Ethics staff who guided the scope and design. Subsequent revisions and final versions were developed and approved by Iris Ethics staff.