Frameworks - Citizen tools for holding power to account.

What these frameworks are

Established research, adapted for civic use

Both frameworks are grounded in peer-reviewed academic research — Albert Bandura’s moral disengagement theory and Democracy Watch AU’s parliamentary accountability research. They are not rating systems or scorecards that deliver verdicts. They are structured investigative tools that help you look at specific evidence — a speech, a voting record, a budget decision — and understand what you are seeing. Apply them to specifics, not generalities. The conclusions are yours.

Framework 1 — Democracy Watch AU

Moral Disengagement and Moral Engagement

Albert Bandura identified eight psychological mechanisms people use to separate their actions from their moral standards — to do harm without experiencing themselves as doing harm. Politicians and institutions use these same mechanisms in public language. Learning to recognise them is a civic skill. Equally important is recognising the language of moral engagement — when someone takes genuine responsibility, names real harm, and speaks with specificity rather than deflection.

How to use this framework

Apply it to a specific speech, statement, press release, or media interview. Not to a politician’s whole career — to a specific piece of communication.

1

Find the original source — Hansard transcript, official press release, or direct video. Not a summary or news report.
2

Read or watch it once for overall impression. Then read it again, looking for the specific language patterns below.
3

For each mechanism you identify, note the exact words used — not a paraphrase.
4

Ask: what real-world harm or benefit does this language obscure or name? Who is affected? What would they say?
5

Note which mechanisms of engagement — if any — also appear. Most political communication contains both.

Eight mechanisms of moral disengagement — what to look for

Mechanism 1

Moral justification

Harmful actions are reframed as serving a worthy purpose — national interest, economic necessity, security, progress.

Signal language:

“It’s a difficult but necessary decision.” · “We have a responsibility to future generations.” · “The national interest requires…” · “Ultimately this will create jobs.”

Mechanism 2

Euphemistic labelling

Harmful actions are given sanitised language that obscures what is actually happening to real people.

Signal language:

“Efficiency measures” (service cuts). · “Restructuring” (job losses). · “Border protection” (detention). · “Unlawful non-citizens” (people). · “Revenue adjustments” (tax increases for low earners).

Mechanism 3

Advantageous comparison

The action is minimised by comparing it to something worse — real or imagined — rather than to the standard it should be held to.

Signal language:

“At least we’re not as bad as…” · “Under the previous government this was far worse.” · “Other countries do far less.” · “Compared to [other crisis], this is manageable.”

Mechanism 4

Displacement of responsibility

Responsibility is transferred to authority — rules, mandates, superior orders — rather than accepted by the person speaking.

Signal language:

“We were following established processes.” · “Cabinet made the decision.” · “The law requires…” · “The department advised…” · “I was acting on legal advice.”

Mechanism 5

Diffusion of responsibility

Responsibility is spread across so many actors that no individual or group can be held to account.

Signal language:

“The whole system needs reform.” · “Everyone agreed to this.” · “These are systemic issues that go beyond any individual.” · “This is a whole-of-government matter.”

Mechanism 6

Dehumanisation

Affected people are described in ways that strip them of individual humanity — as categories, statistics, threats, or abstractions.

Signal language:

“Illegals.” · “Queue jumpers.” · “Dole bludgers.” · “The homeless problem.” · Statistical references that replace human experience with numbers without names.

Mechanism 7

Attribution of blame

Those harmed are held responsible for their own harm — their circumstances are reframed as their own choices or failures.

Signal language:

“If they’d followed the rules they’d be fine.” · “People need to take personal responsibility.” · “The system is there for those who genuinely need it.” · “There are always choices.”

Mechanism 8

Distortion of consequences

The real impact on real people is minimised, denied, or pushed into the unknowable future. Evidence of harm is disputed or ignored.

Signal language:

“The evidence is mixed.” · “We can’t know what would have happened otherwise.” · “A small number of cases…” · “There is no causal link…” · “In the long run this will benefit…”

Eight mechanisms of moral engagement — also look for these

Engagement 1

Naming specific harm

The speaker names exactly what happened to exactly whom, without softening language or statistical abstraction.

What it sounds like:

“750,000 Australians received debt notices calculated using a method we knew was flawed.” Not: “Some recipients had issues with the process.”

Engagement 2

Taking direct responsibility

The speaker accepts personal or institutional accountability without deflecting to process, advice, or colleagues.

What it sounds like:

“I made this decision. I was responsible. I should have done differently.” Not: “Mistakes were made.” Not: “The system failed people.”

Engagement 3

Humanising those affected

Affected people are named, quoted, and described as individuals with dignity — not as categories or statistics.

What it sounds like:

A specific name, a specific story, told with permission. Or the speaker describing being in the room with affected people and listening to them.

Engagement 4

Acknowledging real consequences

The actual documented impact is named directly — the numbers, the outcomes, the suffering — without minimisation or future-tense deflection.

What it sounds like:

“People died. People went into debt. People lost their homes. This is what the evidence shows.” Followed by what will change.

Engagement 5

Moral clarity

The speaker names what was wrong as wrong — not as complex, regrettable, or understandable given the circumstances.

What it sounds like:

“This was wrong. It should not have happened. The standard we failed to meet is clear.” Not: “It’s complicated.” Not: “In retrospect, perhaps…”

Engagement 6

Structural thinking

The speaker identifies the system or structure that enabled harm — not just the individual incident — and proposes structural change.

What it sounds like:

Proposing specific legislative, regulatory, or institutional reform — not just an apology or an inquiry that takes two years to report.

Engagement 7

Proportional response

The proposed remedy matches the scale of harm — not a token gesture, not a review, not a working group. Proportionality is a moral signal.

What it sounds like:

Specific remedy, specific timeline, specific accountability mechanism, specific person responsible for delivery.

Engagement 8

Inviting scrutiny

The speaker actively welcomes accountability — publishes evidence, supports independent investigation, does not suppress findings.

What it sounds like:

Proactive disclosure. Publishing records before they are requested. Calling for an independent inquiry and cooperating fully with it.

Important limits of this framework

Identifying a mechanism of moral disengagement in a statement does not automatically make the statement false or the speaker corrupt. Politicians sometimes use these patterns because the situation is genuinely complex. The framework helps you ask better questions — it does not deliver verdicts. Always go to the original source. Always consider context. Always follow the evidence.

Framework 2 — Democracy Watch AU

The Parliamentary Scorecard — across all three levels of government

Seven categories. Applicable at federal, state, and local level. The evidence sources differ at each level — but the investigative questions are the same. This framework helps you investigate what an elected representative has actually done, not what they say they stand for. It requires specific evidence. It does not produce star ratings or verdicts.

Federal

House and Senate · AEC · Hansard · Centre for Public Integrity · ANU research

State and territory

State parliament · State Hansard · State electoral commission · IBAC/integrity body · Budget papers

Local council

Council minutes · VCAT/planning tribunal · Rate notices · Local government disclosure register · Community submissions

What have they introduced or initiated?

Federal

Bills tabled in House or Senate. Private member’s bills. Motions. Committee inquiries initiated. Check Hansard and APH bills database.

State

Bills introduced in state parliament. Private members’ bills. Petitions tabled. Committee motions. Check state Hansard.

Local

Notices of motion at council. Policy proposals. Budget amendments moved. Check council meeting minutes — public record.

What to look for: Did they use their role proactively? Did they table something specific, or only speak?

What have they actually changed?

Federal

Amendments passed. Division results. Named outcomes from crossbench negotiations. Check APH division records and Hansard.

State

Amendments to state bills. Committee recommendations adopted. Budget line items shifted. Check state parliament division records.

Local

Amendments to development applications. Motions carried. Budget items added or removed. Check council minutes and voted decisions.

What to look for: Is there a specific documented change that would not have happened without them?

Have they held power to account?

Federal

Senate estimates questions. Referrals to NACC or integrity body. Freedom of information requests. Public statements naming specific wrongdoing with evidence.

State

Budget estimates questions. Referrals to IBAC or state integrity body. FOI requests. Committee scrutiny of departments.

Local

Questions on notice at council. Scrutiny of planning decisions. Requesting independent audits. Check council minutes and question logs.

What to look for: Did they name specific wrongdoing with evidence, or only express general concern?

What is their electoral record and trajectory?

Federal

AEC results by election. Primary vote trend. Two-party preferred swing. Check AEC results database.

State

State electoral commission results. Swing in their seat across elections. Compare to state-wide swing.

Local

Council election results. Vote share across terms. Whether they ran unopposed. Check local government election results.

What to look for: Is their mandate growing, stable, or contracting? Do they represent a community or a machine?

Do they have documented conflicts of interest?

Federal

APH Register of Members’ Interests (public). ASIC director searches. AEC donor returns. Prior employment with regulated industries.

State

State parliament register of interests (public). State integrity body findings. Prior industry roles. Property holdings near planning decisions.

Local

Local government disclosure of interest register (public under Local Government Act). Development industry connections. Pecuniary interest declarations in minutes.

What to look for: Did they declare interests? Did they recuse themselves from decisions where they had a personal stake?

How transparent are their donors?

Federal

AEC Transparency Register. Voluntary disclosure above legal minimum. Proxy group funding sources searchable via ASIC.

State

State electoral commission donation returns. Third-party political expenditure disclosure. Note delays between donation and disclosure.

Local

Campaign donation disclosure required under state local government law (varies by state). Development industry donations particularly relevant to planning councillors.

What to look for: Did they disclose only what the law required, or more? Who paid for their campaign?

What specific benefit have they delivered to their community?

Federal

Named federal grants and funding for their electorate. Legislation benefiting their constituents. Check APH electorate infrastructure grants.

State

State budget allocations to their electorate. Infrastructure delivered. Compare across electorates in same government. Check budget papers and grants database.

Local

Council budget items for their ward. Planning outcomes for their community. Services maintained or improved. Check council budget papers and annual reports.

What to look for: Named, specific, dated, quantified outcomes. Not promises. Not future plans. What has already been delivered?

Apply this framework by —

Choosing one specific category and one specific representative. Finding the primary source documents for that category. Noting exactly what the evidence shows — with dates, amounts, and references. Asking the same questions of every candidate in your electorate, not just one.

Do not use it to —

Score or rank candidates without evidence. Apply federal findings to state or local representatives. Draw conclusions about unnamed candidates. Treat absence of evidence as evidence of absence. Use one category as a proxy for the whole record.

Sue Barrett

Founder — Democracy Watch AU · Before You Vote
These frameworks are developed through Democracy Watch AU’s ongoing civic accountability research. They are freely available for citizen use. If you use them in published work, please attribute Democracy Watch AU.