Democracy Vouchers Act
With Parliamentary OfficeExecutive Summary
The Problem with Current Public Funding
Australia's public election funding is automatic: parties/candidates who reach a vote threshold get reimbursed a fixed amount per vote after each election.
Issues:
- Public money spent regardless of voter intent
- No transparency requirements attached
- Reinforces entrenched parties (those with existing name recognition)
- Rewards opacity and guarantees expenditure
The Democracy Voucher Solution
Each enrolled voter receives a small democracy voucher (e.g. $5) that they can voluntarily allocate to candidates who meet strict transparency standards.
Key Mechanisms:
- Vouchers only redeemable by "Qualified Transparency Candidates"
- Real-time public disclosure of all donations required
- Prohibition on donations from registered lobbyists
- Unallocated vouchers = no public expenditure
- Estimated 50-80% cost reduction vs current system
This Is Fiscally Conservative
Unlike current system (which guarantees spending), Democracy Vouchers establish a maximum funding pool, not guaranteed spend.
Public funds only disbursed when voters actively allocate AND candidates meet transparency requirements.
Result: Substantially lower public expenditure in all participation scenarios.
Key Provisions
1. Voter Allocation System
Each enrolled voter allocated a small, equal-value democracy voucher per federal election cycle.
- Vouchers may be voluntarily allocated to one or more candidates
- Vouchers expire unused if not allocated
- Only "Qualified Transparency Candidates" can redeem vouchers
2. Qualified Transparency Candidate Status
To receive voucher allocations, candidates must agree to statutory conditions:
- Real-time public disclosure of all donations
- Prohibition on donations from registered lobbyists or affiliated entities
- Mandatory audit consent
- Enforceable penalties for non-compliance, including forfeiture of voucher funds
Note: Participation is voluntary. Candidates who decline can still campaign and self-fund.
3. Fiscal Impact & Cost Modeling
Public funds only disbursed when:
- A voter actively allocates a voucher
- The candidate meets transparency requirements
Modeling demonstrates public savings of 50-80% compared to existing system across high, moderate, and low uptake scenarios.
4. Democratic Benefits
- Voter Empowerment: Funding becomes civic choice, not automatic
- Fair Competition: Candidates without wealth gain viable funding floor
- Incentivized Transparency: Public money conditional on ethical conduct
- Low Uptake as Signal: Non-allocation = legitimate withholding of consent
Constitutional Defensibility
No Burden on Political Communication
Does not limit speech, association, campaigning, or private expenditure. Merely conditions access to public funding.
Incentive-Based, Not Coercive
Voluntary for both voters and candidates. Access to vouchers is a public benefit, not an entitlement.
Equal Opportunity Principle
Every enrolled voter receives identical voucher. No discrimination based on political belief or affiliation.
Proportionate & Legitimate Purpose
Pursues legitimate objectives: reducing corruption risk, improving transparency, protecting public finances.
Join the Discussion
Read Full White Paper
For complete legislative text, fiscal analysis, and constitutional arguments, see the full Democracy Vouchers white paper.