The short answer

a fact-check can and cannot prove

A fact-check is a structured assessment of a specific factual claim against the best available evidence at the time of publication. It can determine whether a claim is supported by the evidence cited, whether a number is accurate according to official sources, or whether a quotation is correctly attributed. However a fact-check cannot settle value judgments, because calling a policy good or bad is an opinion, not a fact. It cannot predict every future outcome, because forecasts are inherently uncertain and a fact-check can only assess whether a forecast was reasonable based on the information available when it was made. It cannot validate claims that fall outside its stated scope or that are too vague to test. And it cannot claim to be the final word when new evidence may later emerge that changes the assessment. A well-designed fact-check is transparent about its methodology, its sources and its limitations, and it distinguishes between claims it can verify, claims it can partially verify, and claims it cannot assess.

This guide helps verify public political material. It does not infer a person’s motive from one post and does not treat disagreement as proof of deception.

The useful question is not only “what is the rule?” but also “who administers it, which document controls it, and when might it change?” That distinction prevents an accurate general explanation from becoming wrong advice in a particular election, chamber or policy setting.

Evidence review

What a fact-check is designed to do

A fact-check is a methodical process for testing a definable factual proposition against evidence. Its primary function is to tell a reader whether a claim is supported, contradicted or unverifiable by the available evidence. A typical fact-check begins by isolating the claim from surrounding rhetoric, identifying its testable components and discarding those that are matters of opinion or value. It then searches for the most authoritative evidence, giving priority to primary sources such as official data, legislation, court records, transcripts and original documents over secondary sources such as media reports and commentary. It applies standard reasoning to determine whether the evidence supports the claim, contradicts it, partially supports it or is insufficient to reach a conclusion. Finally, it presents its findings with a rating and an explanation, so the reader can understand not just the conclusion but also how the conclusion was reached. Transparency is a hallmark of credible fact-checking: the reader should be able to trace every step from the claim to the evidence to the finding.

Evidence review

Factual claims versus value judgments

The boundary between a factual claim and a value judgment is fundamental to fact-checking. A claim that unemployment is 4.0 per cent is a factual claim that can be tested against ABS data. A claim that the unemployment rate is too high is a value judgment that cannot be fact-checked because it depends on the speaker's priorities and values. Some claims straddle this boundary: 'this policy will create 50,000 jobs' is a prediction containing a testable number, but whether 50,000 jobs is enough or too few is a value judgment. Professional fact-checkers are trained to extract testable claims from value-laden statements and to make clear which elements are being tested and which are not. The AEC's Stop and Consider campaign, which encourages voters to think critically about electoral information they encounter, reflects a related principle: not every statement that sounds factual can be definitively tested, and part of media literacy is knowing the difference.

Evidence review

Predictions and future-oriented claims

Predictions pose a special challenge for fact-checking because the claim cannot be tested against evidence that does not yet exist. A fact-check can assess whether a prediction is consistent with current evidence and trends, whether it relies on reasonable assumptions, and whether it is presented with appropriate caveats about uncertainty. However it cannot definitively say that a prediction is true or false until the future event occurs. Claims about the effects of a policy that has not yet been implemented are similarly difficult to verify. A fact-check may note that similar policies in the past had particular effects, but it should be cautious about drawing strong conclusions from historical analogies. The value of a fact-check in this area is not in providing a definitive answer but in helping the reader understand the basis of the prediction and the degree of confidence that is warranted. Predictions that are presented as certainties, or that rely on implausible assumptions, can be identified as unsupported even if they cannot be proven false.

Evidence review

Limitations: what a fact-check cannot do

A fact-check has several inherent limitations. It cannot assess claims that are too vague to test: 'the government has failed on health' makes an assertion that lacks a defined metric, timeframe and comparator, making it impossible to test meaningfully. It cannot settle claims for which reliable evidence does not exist or is not publicly available. It cannot adjudicate between competing methodologies for measuring a phenomenon unless one methodology is clearly flawed. It cannot prevent the spread of misinformation; a fact-check may correct a false claim but the correction may reach a smaller audience than the original claim, a phenomenon known as the continued influence effect. It cannot compel belief or change minds: people may reject fact-checks that conflict with their political or ideological commitments, a well-documented cognitive bias. And a fact-check is only as good as its sources, its reasoning and its transparency: a poorly conducted fact-check that misrepresents evidence or applies inconsistent standards can itself be misleading.

Evidence review

How to read a fact-check critically

A fact-check should itself be read with critical attention. Check whether the fact-check clearly states the claim being tested, with attribution to the person or organisation that made it. Check whether it identifies its sources and whether those sources are authoritative and accessible to the reader. Consider whether the fact-check's conclusion follows logically from the evidence it presents. Look for an assessment of the strength of the evidence rather than a simple binary true or false judgment. Be alert to fact-checks that apply different standards to claims from different political sides without acknowledgment. Check whether the fact-check addresses counter-evidence or relies exclusively on sources that support its conclusion. A quality fact-check will be transparent about these matters and will invite the reader to examine the evidence independently. The best fact-checks educate readers about how to think about evidence, not just what to think about a particular claim.

Evidence review

The role of fact-checking in Australia's electoral landscape

In Australia, fact-checking operates alongside electoral institutions that provide authoritative information. The AEC administers federal elections and publishes official election results, enrolment data, party registration records and a disinformation register that addresses false electoral information. The ACMA regulates broadcasting and telecommunications, including content rules that apply to political advertising on broadcast media. These institutions, along with the parliamentary record in Hansard and the independent data published by the ABS, AIHW and other statutory agencies, provide the evidentiary infrastructure on which credible fact-checking depends. Fact-checking does not replace these institutions but interprets and contextualises their outputs for the public. It occupies a space between official electoral administration, which provides the data, and media commentary, which provides analysis, and its value depends on maintaining the trust of audiences by being accurate, transparent and fair.

Common questions

Before you rely on the answer

How is a fact-check different from a news article?

A news article reports what happened, often including statements from multiple sources without adjudicating their accuracy. A fact-check explicitly tests the accuracy of a specific claim against evidence and reaches a conclusion about whether the claim is supported. News articles may contain elements of fact-checking, but a dedicated fact-check is more systematic in its methodology and more explicit about its evidentiary standards.

What is the AEC's disinformation register?

The AEC maintains a disinformation register that records instances where the AEC has publicly corrected false or misleading information about the electoral process. It is not a general fact-checking service: it focuses specifically on electoral process information, such as claims about how to enrol, how to vote and the conduct of elections. The register is published on the AEC website.

Can a fact-check be wrong?

Yes. Fact-checks are produced by human organisations using the best available evidence at a point in time. Later evidence may show that a conclusion was incorrect, sources may be misinterpreted, and reasoning may contain errors. Reputable fact-checking organisations correct errors when they are identified and explain what was wrong and why. A fact-check that does not acknowledge the possibility of error is less credible than one that does.

Why do people disagree with fact-checks that seem obviously correct?

Research in cognitive psychology has identified several reasons. Confirmation bias leads people to accept information that supports their existing beliefs and reject information that contradicts them. Motivated reasoning causes people to scrutinise counter-attitudinal evidence more aggressively. The backfire effect, though its robustness is debated, suggests that corrections can sometimes reinforce false beliefs. And lack of trust in fact-checking institutions, sometimes fuelled by political rhetoric, can lead people to dismiss fact-checks without engaging with the evidence.

Source spine

Primary material used for this guide

Review trigger: Changes to ACMA regulatory framework affecting media content standards or fact-checking. Introduction of mandatory fact-checking or content verification requirements for digital platforms operating in Australia. Significant revision of AEC disinformation policies. New academic research substantially altering understanding of fact-check effectiveness or correction strategies.

Archive note: Written from the ACMA website (acma.gov.au) and the AEC Voting page (aec.gov.au/voting/). Both sources verified 17 July 2026. The AEC's Stop and Consider campaign and disinformation register provide electoral-specific context. The ACMA's regulatory role covers broadcasting and telecommunications content standards. This article does not assess the quality of any specific fact-checking organisation.

Primary links are provided without affiliate or tracking parameters. Confirm that the source still applies to the bill, sitting date, jurisdiction or reporting period before relying on it.