Identify the claim
We start with a specific, verifiable claim — a promise made before an election, a ministerial statement, a policy target. Vague aspirations are noted but not rated.
About Truth in Policy
We read the fine print so you don't have to.
Truth in Policy is an independent Australian political transparency project. We track promises, audit policies, and publish what the record actually shows — without fear or favour.
Why this exists
Australian political journalism is fast. Policy analysis is slow. The gap between what politicians say and what the evidence shows is rarely closed in the daily news cycle. Truth in Policy exists to close that gap — methodically, publicly, and with every source cited.
We are not affiliated with any political party, lobby group, or media organisation. We accept no advertising. We have no commercial relationships with the subjects of our analysis. Our only obligation is to the evidence.
How we reach our verdicts
Every analysis follows a documented process. Here is how it works.
Locate primary sources
We use primary sources only: Hansard, budget documents, ABS data, departmental reports, and official government publications. Media reports are used only to identify claims, not to verify them.
Apply the verdict framework
We apply a consistent verdict framework: Delivered, Partially Delivered, Broken, Misleading, Contradicted, Systemic Failure, or Ideologically Driven. Each verdict has a documented definition.
Cite every source
Every factual claim in our analyses is cited. Sources are listed at the end of each piece. We do not publish claims we cannot source.
Publish corrections
When we get something wrong, we correct it publicly and note the correction in the original piece. We do not delete or silently amend published analyses.
Verdict definitions
The policy or promise was implemented substantially as stated.
The policy was implemented but in a significantly reduced or altered form.
An explicit commitment was made and not honoured, with no credible explanation.
Statements were technically accurate but designed to create a false impression.
Ministerial statements were directly contradicted by official data available at the time.
A policy failure that was institutional in nature, involving multiple actors and deliberate concealment.
A policy position maintained despite evidence to the contrary, where ideology is the primary driver.
The Ghost of Governance
Truth in Policy publishes under the Ghost of Governance byline. We are anonymous by design. Our identity is irrelevant. Our sources are not.
Anonymity protects our ability to publish without professional or personal consequence. It does not protect us from being wrong — which is why every claim is sourced and every correction is published.
If you have a tip, a correction, or a document you think we should see, use the contact form below.
- We do not accept payment from political parties, lobby groups, or government agencies.
- We do not publish anonymous tips without independent corroboration.
- We apply the same scrutiny to all parties. No party is exempt.
- We correct errors publicly and promptly.
Get in touch
Tips, corrections, and document submissions welcome. We read everything. We cannot respond to everything.
Prefer email? [email protected]