Fair Go Examples: Three Hypothetical Scenarios and How to Read the Official Wording

What the Australian Values Statement means by ‘a fair go for all’, illustrated with three hypothetical everyday scenarios, plus how to study the official wording and test sources.

The short answer

The Australian Values Statement on the Department of Home Affairs website includes the phrase ‘a fair go for all’. The official wording describes a fair go as embracing four elements: mutual respect, tolerance, compassion for those in need, and equality of opportunity for all.

The fair go elements are easier to understand when you see them in ordinary situations. The examples below are invented to show what each element can look like in daily life. They are not descriptions of real people or real cases, and they do not predict how any official body would decide a similar matter.

What the official wording says

The statement is a list of values that the Department says Australian society holds. Its visible structure has seven top-level bullet groups. The four fair go elements sit beneath one of those groups, which is why they read as a sub-list rather than as separate headline values.

The seven groups cover respect for the freedom and dignity of the individual; freedom of religion (including freedom not to follow a particular religion), freedom of speech and freedom of association; commitment to the rule of law; parliamentary democracy; equality of opportunity regardless of gender, sexual orientation, age, disability, race, or national or ethnic origin; the fair go; and English as the national language and an important unifying element of Australian society.

The structure describes how the page is laid out. It does not mean that Australian values are limited to seven ideas.

Example one: mutual respect and tolerance in a shared space

Imagine a residents’ group in an apartment building that is deciding on a shared laundry schedule. One member proposes a rule that suits people who work day shifts but makes evening use hard for everyone else. Another member says the proposal is unfair to shift workers, and the discussion becomes tense.

In this invented case, mutual respect looks like hearing the reason behind each view before replying. Tolerance looks like accepting that neighbours run their households in different ways while the group agrees a schedule that works for most people. The example shows two fair go elements working together. It does not say what any landlord, body corporate or court would decide about a similar dispute.

Example two: compassion for people in need

Imagine a volunteer at a suburban community pantry who notices a regular visitor who seems to have lost work hours recently. The volunteer does not ask for an explanation before offering help. Instead, the volunteer mentions a local support service that handles the kinds of problems the visitor may be facing and leaves the decision to the visitor.

In this hypothetical, compassion for those in need is shown through a practical, respectful offer. This is an invented case, and it only illustrates what the phrase can mean in an everyday setting.

Example three: equality of opportunity

Imagine a junior sports club that selects players for a team based on skill and attendance criteria published before the season starts. A parent asks whether a child with a disability can take part. The coach and committee look at what reasonable adjustments would let the child train and play safely, and they explain the decision to the family in writing.

Here, equality of opportunity regardless of disability, one of the groups named in the statement, is the value being illustrated. The example shows a process that treats the child as someone who can participate, with clear criteria applied to everyone. It is not a legal conclusion about the club’s obligations, and a different club with different facts could reach a different practical answer.

Where these examples stop

The three scenarios are invented to help you connect words to situations. They are not legal advice, and they do not guarantee any outcome. A question about rights, obligations or a specific dispute needs an appropriate legal or professional source.

The examples also do not describe any group of people as having particular traits. Each one turns on a person’s conduct, a published process, or a practical choice, not on who they are.

How to study the official wording

Open the Australian Values Statement on the Home Affairs website.

Read the full list once from start to finish.

Mark the four fair go elements and note that they sit under one bullet group.

Write one sentence in your own words for each element.

Open the official Our Common Bond booklet.

Use the booklet as the basis for the citizenship test, since all test questions are based on it.

Check the official preparation page for the four study areas: Australia and its people; Australia’s democratic beliefs, rights and liberties; government and the law; and understanding and commitment to Australian values based on freedom, respect and equality.

Try the official practice test on the Home Affairs practice site.

Remember that the official practice test is a sample, and actual questions are different.

Note the format: 20 multiple-choice questions in 45 minutes.

Note that candidates may answer in any order, skip a question, and return to it later.

Note the pass requirement: all five Australian-values questions correct and at least 15 of 20 questions overall.

Note that the Department does not endorse or recommend external test-preparation courses.

Site themes and official sources

Australian Values is an independent editorial site. It is not a government or political-party voice, and it does not claim to be an official citizenship test bank.

The site groups its learning material into five editorial themes. These themes are learning groups the site uses to organise study. They are not the complete list of official values, and they are not the five Australian-values questions on the official test.

All practice questions on this site are original. They are not official test questions, and the site does not reproduce or predict the official question bank.

When the site’s explanations and an official source differ, the site treats the official wording as the reference. That is the site’s editorial policy. It is not a statement by the Department of Home Affairs.

Non-English explanations on the site are independent translations and writing produced by the site. They are not government-endorsed translations. Traditional written Chinese on this site is offered for reading access, not as a Cantonese translation.