Our Values

Fusion's Values are organised into a Value Framework to support decision making and policy development:


The Framework

This framework works by having your first value as the most idealistic, and your final value as the most practical. This hierarchy is used to explain the value basis both for seeking benefit and minimising harm from the excesses of any value when pursued unrestricted to extremes.

So what does it look like?

Well, it means that our values (which are explained in detail below) are ordered in such a way that they can be applied to party policy and decision making efforts in a consistent and structured manner.


When creating new policy or looking for new solutions, we invariably start with ideas that contain idealistic elements from our values of Personal Liberty, Advancement, and Ecological Harmony. Then, those solutions are assessed against each value in turn. The solutions may be modified, constrained, or thrown out entirely in favour of alternatives, until they have passed through all of the value gates.

When it is necessary to consider a solution provided from an external source, or to choose from a limited set of options that we have no control over, then we start with the most practical values and work the other way. If given a hard choice of 3 options then; if one is fundamentally inequitable then it is thrown out, if one is unethical or unsupported by good evidence then it is thrown out, and so on. This method allows for the "most acceptable" option to be selected when choices are limited.

In all cases, nothing can pass the value gate that is Ethical Conduct without a strong basis of supporting evidence. Though, in the rare circumstance where there may be a complete lack of evidence for any option, then the line of reasoning most consistent with the other values would be accepted.


So what does it look like?

Well, with our set of values Fusion is firmly, socially progressive, but what about the economy?

Well, following the framework for creating new policy, it means that we are likely to start the process with ideas that sit somewhere on the liberal, market-oriented end of things. These policies will then be expanded and altered until they reach a stage where they pass through all value gates. This process is heavily driven by evidence-based assessments.

Some may be altered only a small amount, some may be altered a lot.

The result is that we end up with a mix of policies that are pretty widely spread across the traditional spectrum:

But at the end of it, we can be confident that we've produced responsible, well-justified policy solutions.


So how does our approach compare to others?

Well, the simple reality is that nobody else has a process quite like ours. So it can be hard to tell.

History suggests though that they look a little bit like this:

Fusion's value-based, structured approach is uniquely capable of managing policy development in a way that no one else does.


The Values


Personal Liberty

Fusion values Personal Liberty (sometimes referred to as simply ‘Liberty’) as a way of recognising that people are entitled to self-actualise as best they are able, to “live the best life they can”. This invokes a philosophy wherein actions are permissible unless restricted (i.e. not: “banned unless sanctioned”) which allows the largest possible number of actions for people to achieve their own self-determined purposes.

It is worth recognising that this is considered a “Positive Liberty” philosophy; where Positive Liberty prioritises the ability to fulfil one's purposes and Negative Liberty prioritises the freedom from interference by others. (For those wanting further reading.)

This can be considered to be a sort of “maximum net freedom” approach. For example; one person using their freedom to exploit many people is a lower net freedom outcome than if you were to require that one person to conduct themselves on fair terms with others who can choose whether or not to deal with the one.

The balance of how this distinction occurs is determined by our subsequent values.



Fusion takes a fundamentally progressive viewpoint in recognising that there is value to advancement, and that solutions to the problems of unrestrained advancement are not typically found in the course of either doing nothing or deliberately regressing. While we recognise the risks of unbridled progress. We reject the notion that the only alternatives are stagnation or regression. The goal of Advancement is to raise the minimum level of available access to the tools & resources for improving quality of life, and to make convenient the luxuries that facilitate people’s self-actualisation.

This is informed by Personal Liberty, in that; the more we advance and know, the better able we are to improve lives and provide alternative options to authoritarian or punitive solutions (which reduce liberty).


Ecological Harmony

In the area of environmental philosophy, there are (colloquially) as many variations on named philosophies as there are named philosophies. Fusion has selected “Ecological Harmony” as a value name for the explicit philosophy that demands we value nature for more than its usefulness to human beings, and that we recognise that nature has an inherent value of its own.

This value is informed by the Deep Ecology movement and its tenets but, as part of our overall value set, there are a number of implications that are uniquely ours:

  • The well-being of human and nonhuman life on earth is of intrinsic value irrespective of its value to humans.
  • The diversity of life-forms is part of this value.
  • We understand that humans are a member of our planet's web of life and recognise that the entire ecological qualities of our biosphere determine human and non-human survival and prosperity.
  • The co-flourishing of human and nonhuman life requires an ecomodernist approach which greatly reduces the very inefficient use of land typical to the current era.*
  • Humans have interfered with nature to a critical level already, and interference is worsening.
  • Policies must be changed, affecting current economic, technological and ideological structures.
  • This ideological change must require a reduction of impact to achieve increasingly high standards of living, and should focus on an appreciation of the quality of life where that cannot yet be achieved.**
  • All those who agree with the above tenets have an obligation to implement them.

*Traditionally, proponents of Deep Ecology-style philosophies believe in a reduction of human population or standards of living. However, these neglect to recognise just how inefficiently we use some of our land resources. In Australia, combinations of cost and sheer convenience have led to the development of farmland that produces as little as 50-100kg of wheat per hectare, when irrigated land can be cultivated to produce up to 8,000kg of wheat per hectare. With proper investment we could reduce large areas of agricultural land use by 160 times!

**Unlike the original philosophy which suggests a deliberate pursuit and acceptance of a different quality of life in place of pursuing increased living standards. Fusion recognises the value of appreciating a life quality as a healthy approach for wellbeing, but ascribes to the philosophy of still pursuing those increased standards responsibly. Learning to dwell with an appreciation of life quality in the process of learning to advance standards of living without creating additional impact on the environment. Life quality reflects the overall satisfaction, fulfilment, and well-being experienced by individuals within a society, which goes beyond the economic measures of standard of living.

This is informed by Personal Liberty, as improving our quality of life remains a focus, and by Advancement, in that we seek technological and administrative solutions to improving our ability to live with nature, without compromising on standard of living.



Fusion values the Safety of all people from both violence and deprivation. This implies both protection from explicit threats (both careless and malicious) like violence, exploitation, oppression, and abuse, as well as provision of necessary securities to support people suffering for lack of food, shelter, or medical care.

In the context of the previous value this implies certain strict limitations on absolute freedoms. This has previously been expressed quite simply as; “Freedom to throw your fist stops where my nose begins.” - Oliver Wendell Holmes

Equally it is informed by earlier values in that it does not suggest excessive action to remove all risk, nor forcing anyone to provide anyone else with the necessities of life — but rather that the government should be obliged to provide these where a person would otherwise be deprived.

In the interest of Safety we endorse responsible Advancement which informs our approach to social problems by pursuing harm minimisation options (improving safety) in favour of either restricting liberties, or preventing net positive advancements and developments with manageable short term impacts.


Ethical Conduct

Fusion espouses a commitment to not merely “integrity”, which can be viewed as simple consistency justified according to a given moral code — regardless of the quality of that code, but to the somewhat loftier goal of Ethical Conduct. This applies both to ourselves, and to the systematisation of government and its processes.

Conducting oneself ethically implicitly demands conducting oneself with integrity, according to an ethical code. To us this means; necessarily respecting the truth, however uncomfortable it may be - acting honestly, transparently, and in good faith. It also means that systems should reinforce the actions which align with societal needs, leaders should be incentivised to be ethical - acting in the interests of society itself [as a government] rather than in the interests of the politicians themselves.

Justice intersects with ethical conduct by requiring that individuals and institutions uphold ethical principles in their interactions and decision-making processes. Ethical considerations such as honesty, impartiality, and respect for human dignity are essential for ensuring fair treatment and due process under the law.

This is informed by previous values in that respect for and responsible management of our relationship with nature is an essential part of our ethical code; advancement should be done transparently, responsibly and safely, and rigorous consideration of our values must be applied and communicated, in our positions.



The final value is also the moderating value, the final filter to contextualise the others together. It is the most universally relevant. It also applies in the philosophical sense, not the financial sense.

At its most basic level; Fusion takes the position that any person, regardless of background or circumstance, should have equal access to opportunities which derive from the government.

Formally, this could be defined as: “The fair, just and equitable management of all institutions serving the public directly or by contract; and the fair and equitable distribution of public services, and implementation of public policy; and the commitment to promote fairness, justice and equity in the formation of public policy.” -NAPA

In the context of our other values though there are some specific nuances that arise. In the discussion of equity;

  • Implicit is the question of whether we would (as government) have a role of setting up minimum living standards?

To which our answer is yes; safety, and the positive liberty it supports, implicitly demands a degree of this. In concert with Ethical Conduct this is a two-way cooperative process, where people must be willing to give input to the process of determining their needs, and the government must both be willing to take input and weigh those inputs with respect to each other fairly and transparently.

Implicit in this is an objective to make the products of Advancement available to the lowest opportunity individuals for the objective of raising the minimum benefit experienced by society and maximise the opportunities to grow from there.

  • There is also a need to understand what are the approaches we would adopt as a party in dealing with such things as affirmative action?

Our answer to this is informed by our previous values. From Personal Liberty and Advancement we would assert solutions that are not blanket rules, and that as a minimum standard some degree of cleverness needs to be required/built-in to the chosen solutions. From Ethical Conduct we note that an expectation of transparency is critical for those with power and for enhancing Safety. As such we would begin an approach to affirmative action through a method like requiring transparency as a way to produce accountability to the court of public opinion - a comparatively efficient regulatory approach.

As the final and moderative value of our party, it could be concluded thusly: “Government has a responsibility to knowledge-share best practices and facilitate the upkeep of those practices, as well as being the funder of last resort for the preservation of those practices. To hold, maintain, and advance social capital to create and preserve equity across generations.”