Editorial standards

Aussie Outrage holds governments, politicians and public institutions to account for how they spend public money and exercise public power. That only works if what we publish is accurate and fair. These are the standards we hold ourselves to.

Our commitment

We publish in good faith, on matters of public interest. We never set out to make claims we can't support, and we don't publish to damage anyone's reputation for its own sake. When we get something wrong, we fix it promptly and openly. See our corrections and complaints policy.

Accuracy and sourcing

• Every factual claim has a source. We rely on primary sources wherever possible: Budget papers, audit office reports, parliamentary records, court judgments, royal commission and inquiry documents, official statistics, and expenses data published by the Independent Parliamentary Expenses Authority.
• We link to our sources in each story, so readers can check them.
• We attribute claims to the person or organisation making them ("the audit office found", "the minister said", "the report alleges"). We don't present allegations as established facts.
• We say when a figure is an estimate, who made it, and whether it is disputed.
• We keep records of our research and sources for every story.

Allegations of wrongdoing

• We report allegations of crime or misconduct only when they are on the public record (for example in court proceedings, a royal commission, a parliamentary inquiry or an official report) or are supported by reliable evidence.
• We make clear when allegations have not been tested in court, and when charges have not been proven.
• We don't say or imply that anyone has broken a law or a rule unless a court, regulator or official review has found that they did, and we say who found it.
• On our Spending Trail profiles, every item shows what the official review found, including when spending was found to be within the rules.

Fact and opinion

• News and analysis report facts. Where a story includes our analysis or calculations (for example "your share" of a cost), we explain how we worked it out.
• Opinion is labelled as opinion. Pages such as The pub test express our view about whether spending was good value for taxpayers. Those views are based on the facts set out alongside them, which we link to their sources. Expressing a view that spending fails the pub test is not a claim that anyone broke the rules.

Fairness and right of reply

• Before publishing a story that makes a serious criticism of a named person or organisation, we aim to give them a fair opportunity to respond, and we include their response.
• Where someone hasn't had that opportunity before publication, they can respond at any time afterwards, and we will add their response to the story.
• Politicians and public officials are written about in their public roles. We don't report on their private lives unless it is directly relevant to their public conduct or use of public money.

Independence

• We are not affiliated with any political party, union, company or lobby group.
• We criticise whoever is responsible, from any side of politics.
• We don't accept payment to publish, change or remove a story.

Updating stories

Facts change: costs rise, inquiries report, people respond. When we update a story with new information, we show the date it was updated. When we fix a mistake, we follow our corrections policy.