How to compare candidate statements fairly

The short answer

compare candidate statements fairly

Comparing candidate statements fairly requires a consistent set of questions applied equally to every candidate and a clear distinction between verifiable claims and personal presentation. Begin by identifying the same set of office-relevant questions, topics within the responsibilities of the position being contested, and seek each candidate's position on those questions through their published statements, public appearances or direct enquiry. Then cross-check factual claims against official records: parliamentary voting records, Hansard transcripts, biographical data published by the Parliament and financial disclosure returns lodged with the Australian Electoral Commission. A candidate's statement may present a version of their record that is accurate but incomplete, omitting votes, positions or associations that a voter might consider relevant. Your goal is not to rank candidates but to build a comparable evidence base so your own assessment rests on documents, not impressions.

This guide uses public electoral and parliamentary records. A party or candidate statement establishes what that actor says; it does not independently establish that the statement is true.

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

Start with the role, not the candidate

A federal election candidate is standing for a specific office: a seat in the House of Representatives or one of the Senate vacancies for a state or territory. The starting point should be the powers and responsibilities of that office. A member of the House of Representatives can introduce and vote on legislation, participate in committee inquiries, represent the electorate in parliamentary debate and raise matters with ministers. A senator can do the same and additionally has a role in reviewing legislation from the House and questioning the executive through estimates hearings and committee work. By framing your comparison around what the office requires, you avoid comparing candidates on matters that have no bearing on the role. The AEC publishes information about the electoral process but does not evaluate candidates' suitability for office.

Evidence review

Create a consistent question set

Write down the same finite set of questions for every candidate before you look at their materials. The questions should be answerable from public sources or direct enquiry and should not assume a particular political worldview. You might ask what legislative priorities the candidate has named, what committee work they have been involved in if they are an incumbent, what local electorate issues they have addressed, and what experience they bring that is relevant to parliamentary work. Avoid questions that solicit promises beyond the office's power. A candidate who promises to build a hospital is making a promise that no individual member of parliament can deliver alone. The AEC's candidate information service publishes the list of nominated candidates for each electorate after nominations close, which is your definitive source for who is standing.

Evidence review

Separate the record from the rhetoric

For sitting members, the official parliamentary record is a verifiable source that exists independently of campaign statements. Divisions recorded in Parliament show which members voted aye or no and who was absent. Hansard records every speech in the chamber and every question asked in Question Time, searchable by member name and by topic. Committee membership and reports show what a member has worked on outside the chamber. For challengers who have not held office, look for public statements, policy documents published by their party, professional or community roles they have held, and media appearances. Always note that these lack the formal verification of a parliamentary record. The point is to separate the promotional content of a campaign from the documented evidence of what a candidate has done, said and supported.

Evidence review

Use official disclosure and registration data

The AEC's Transparency Register publishes financial disclosure returns from candidates, political parties, associated entities and significant third parties. These returns show who donated to a candidate's campaign and how much, which can be relevant to understanding a candidate's potential influences. The register of political parties, also maintained by the AEC, shows which parties are officially registered and what their constitutions require. A candidate's party registration matters because it determines how their name appears on the ballot paper and which party label appears beside it. For Senate group voting tickets, a party's registered preferences may be relevant if you are voting above the line. The ticket shows where your vote flows if your first-choice party does not secure a quota. All of this information is public and available on the AEC website.

Evidence review

Handle missing information explicitly

Not every candidate will have a detailed public record. A first-time candidate from outside the major parties may have no parliamentary voting record, minimal media coverage and no financial disclosure history. This does not mean they are a poor candidate, but it means your comparison grid will have gaps. Record these gaps explicitly rather than filling them with assumptions. You can note what information is available, what is not and what you would need to make a more complete comparison. If a candidate has declined to answer a question or has not published a policy position, record that fact. Withholding information is itself a piece of information for a voter. The goal is not a perfect dataset but a transparent one that acknowledges its limits.

Evidence review

Avoid ranking, persuasion and prediction

A fair comparison presents evidence so that a reader can form their own assessment. It does not rank candidates from best to worst, does not recommend a voting choice, and does not predict the electoral outcome. Avoid language that assigns moral weight to a candidate's positions or describes one as more worthy than another. Present the evidence and let the reader draw their own conclusions. This principle is especially important in a guide that purports to be neutral. Any ranking or endorsement, even implicit, undermines the comparison's credibility. OzPolitics does not endorse candidates or recommend voting decisions. The purpose of this guide is to show how to gather and organise information, not to reach a conclusion for you.

Common questions

Before you rely on the answer