Media Resources
Statements, soundbites, and answers for journalists covering direct democracy.
Core 30-Second Statement
“Direct Democracy Australia believes Australians should have the right to vote directly on major national decisions. This isn't about replacing Parliament—it's about complementing representative democracy with public participation.
We're not campaigning for specific outcomes. We're advocating for the process: that people should be asked.
Public consent up front is cheaper than public resistance afterwards.”
Key Soundbites
Public consent up front is cheaper than public resistance afterwards.
On the cost of direct democracy
This is about being asked, not about what to decide.
On political neutrality
We defend the right to participate, not which way people should vote.
On process over outcomes
If we can do tax returns online, we can do public votes online.
On digital feasibility
Switzerland has been doing this for 170 years. It's not radical—it's proven.
On international precedent
Even if people disagree on outcomes, they should be asked about decisions that affect their lives.
On the fundamental principle
Responding to Common Criticisms
Isn't this just mob rule?
No. Direct democracy is a structured process with safeguards: ballot design standards, debate periods, independent oversight, and judicial review. It complements Parliament rather than replacing it. Switzerland has used this system successfully for over 170 years without descending into chaos.
Won't this be too expensive?
Australia already runs secure digital systems at scale—tax returns, Medicare, banking. The technology exists. The real cost is fixing decisions the public never agreed to: Royal Commissions, policy reversals, and social division. Public consent up front is cheaper than public resistance afterwards.
What about low-information voters?
This assumes representative democracy only works because MPs are better informed. But MPs often vote along party lines regardless of evidence. Direct democracy requires public education, debate periods, and accessible information—which strengthens civic engagement. We trust people to elect MPs; we can trust them on policy.
Isn't this just populism?
Populism uses emotional appeals to consolidate power. Direct democracy distributes power by giving citizens a direct say. It's the opposite. This is about process reform, not charismatic leaders or us-vs-them rhetoric.
What if the majority oppresses the minority?
Constitutional safeguards—like the High Court and human rights protections—remain in place. Direct votes can't override constitutional rights any more than Parliament can. This adds a check on government power, not a free pass to tyranny.
Hasn't Brexit shown this doesn't work?
Brexit was one referendum in a country with no direct democracy tradition. Switzerland holds multiple referendums per year with high public trust. The problem wasn't the vote—it was poor ballot design, inadequate debate, and unrealistic promises. We can learn from those mistakes.
Won't special interests manipulate the outcome?
Special interests already lobby Parliament extensively. Direct democracy adds transparency: campaigns are public, spending is disclosed, and voters decide. In Switzerland, expensive campaigns often lose because voters see through manipulation.
Isn't this just a left/right political agenda?
No. People across the political spectrum support being consulted, even if they disagree on outcomes. This is a process reform, not a policy campaign. We don't advocate for specific results—we advocate for the public's right to participate.
Download Media Resources
Media Contact
For interviews, background information, or clarification on any aspect of direct democracy in Australia:
Media Enquiries
[email protected]