Additional detail on how this model of interpretation has been constructed and how results are generated. Intended to improve transparency and help users understand the interpretive choices involved.
The values included in this survey — such as freedom, equality, fairness, respect, and social cohesion — are drawn from commonly referenced principles in Australian public discourse, including civic education materials and public policy discussions.
The selection of these values is not exhaustive and involves subjective judgment. Other values could reasonably be included, excluded, or defined differently.
Each of the 20 statements is designed to represent a broad expression of a particular value. The statements are intentionally concise and broadly framed.
As a result, they do not capture the full complexity of real-world issues, where values often come into tension — for example, freedom vs safety, or equality of opportunity vs equality of outcome. Responses may therefore reflect agreement with the general wording rather than agreement with any specific interpretation or application.
Each statement is associated with one or more underlying values based on interpretive judgment. These mappings are not unique and may reasonably be contested.
Different users may reasonably interpret the same statement as reflecting different values.
Responses are aggregated using a simple additive model, where each statement contributes equally to the overall result. No external weighting or statistical modelling has been applied.
This approach is intended to keep the scoring transparent and easy to understand. However, it also means that results are sensitive to the specific wording and selection of statements.
The scoring system has not been validated against external benchmarks and should be interpreted as indicative only.
Results reflect how a user's responses align with this particular approach to organising these values.
Similar scores between individuals do not necessarily indicate similar reasoning or policy preferences. Different interpretations of the same statements may lead to similar responses, and similar values may be expressed in different ways.
The survey does not attempt to determine whether one set of responses is more correct or more aligned with "Australian values" than another.
Where results are compared to political parties or groups, these comparisons are based on generalised and interpretive assessments of publicly available positions.
They are inherently contestable, may omit nuance, and do not represent official positions of any party. Users are encouraged to consult primary sources and form their own conclusions.
This survey has several important limitations:
These limitations are inherent to the design of the tool and should be considered when interpreting results.
The purpose of this survey is not to provide a definitive classification, but to illustrate how responses relate to this particular structure for organising these values.
It is best used as a starting point for reflection and discussion, rather than as a conclusive assessment.
Every party score on every statement, with the policy reasoning behind it. Use the filters to focus on a single party.
| # Statement | ALP | Greens | Liberal | Nationals | One Nation |
|---|