Highlights for Australia

Across Australia, the Labor Party is perceived as the more ethically credible federal party, with a POLIS score of 3.10 compared to just 2.21 for the Coalition. This suggests that Australians overall associate Labor more closely with values such as fairness, transparency, and procedural accountability. The Coalition’s lower score indicates skepticism regarding its alignment with core ethical values, particularly in areas like benevolence and legitimacy.

This perception is mirrored—if not deepened—when Australians evaluate the leaders of each party. Anthony Albanese receives a POLIS score of 3.17, surpassing his party’s already strong rating, while Peter Dutton trails far behind at 2.03, even lower than the Coalition’s party score. These results imply that Albanese is seen not only as a trustworthy representative of his party’s values, but as a leader who amplifies the ethical standing of Labor in the eyes of voters.

The gap between party and leader is especially stark for the Coalition. While the party itself is viewed with moderate skepticism, Peter Dutton’s score indicates an even greater deficit in perceived ethical credibility. Australians appear to judge him more harshly than the institution he represents—suggesting that concerns about ethical leadership are magnified at the individual level.

In contrast, Albanese’s score exceeding that of his party suggests personal strengths in how he is perceived—likely stemming from perceived integrity, competence, and accountability. The alignment between Labor’s and Albanese’s scores indicates a cohesive values-based image, whereas the dissonance between Dutton and the Coalition suggests that ethical concerns may center more on his personal leadership than party ideology alone.

Overall, the Australian POLIS Index reveals that while party perceptions matter, leadership matters even more. Labor is seen as more ethically aligned than the Coalition, and Albanese as more trustworthy than Dutton. These findings highlight the importance of both institutional reputation and personal leadership in shaping how citizens evaluate political ethics—and how gaps between party and leader can either reinforce or undercut public trust.