Could big spending explain the success of the independents at the ACT election? New data from the ACT Electoral Commission shows this isn't the case.
Wed 30 Sep 2026 14.48 AEST
Photo: AAP Image/Mick Tsikas
‘AI hallucinations’ contained in a document used by Tasmania’s parole board have helped overturn a media ban on Sue Neill-Fraser, the woman found guilty of killing her partner onboard a yacht.
We now often struggle to understand why the far-right is advancing fast – in Australia with One Nation, in Germany with the AfD, in the US with Trump, in Brazil with Bolsonaro and his likes - but if we think about it, neoliberalism has always had an authoritarian face, often masked by the embrace of diversity or cultural “progressiveness”.
At the 2024 territory election, the Barr Labor Government was re-elected with little change in seat count or vote share. The Greens lost two seats but held onto the balance of power, and two independents – Thomas Emerson of Independents for Canberra and Fiona Carrick – won seats.
There has been a prevailing narrative from both Labor and Liberal politicians that community independents (the so-called “teals”) can attribute their success to big spending campaigns.
The Australia Institute has already shown that this is not true for the federal election.
But could big spending explain the success of the independents at the ACT election?
New data from the ACT Electoral Commission shows the opposite. At last year’s election, the successful independents spent between $2.47 per vote (Fiona Carrick’s group) and $6.18 per vote (Thomas Emerson’s Independents for Canberra group).
By contrast, the major parties were the biggest spenders: $12.78 per vote for Labor and $10.56 for Liberal, followed by Family First and the Greens.
Established political parties can afford to spend big because they receive generous public funding, $10.16 per vote. That works out to $951,000 for Labor, $931,000 for Liberal, $339,000 for Greens, $237,000 for Independents for Canberra and $74,000 for Fiona Carrick.
Quality research, analysis, explainers and factchecks from experts you can trust.
Perversely, this money is only paid after the election. New independent candidates were wholly dependent on private funding, while party candidates could spend public funding from previous elections.
The ACT Electoral Commission has proposed a major change to public funding in the ACT: moving to a “reimbursement” model.
Instead of receiving $10.16 per vote, a party or candidate would receive less money if they spent less money to win that vote. Because Labor and Liberal spent a lot, they would get the full $10.16 per vote. But because Independents for Canberra only spent $6.18 per vote, that’s how much they would get “from” each voter. And spare a thought for Fiona Carrick voters, whose votes would only be worth $2.47 each.
As The Australia Institute explained in its parliamentary submission, this is deeply unfair. It will hurt a party or candidate in three circumstances:
Why should these parties and candidates receive less public funding than a wealthy party or candidate who spends a lot of money per vote received?
The reimbursement model has not attracted widespread support from ACT parliamentarians to date. A parliamentary committee looking into the 2024 ACT election recommended only that the ACT Government “give further consideration” to the proposal.
A reimbursement model would hinder a breakout success from consolidating at subsequent elections and stop a growing party from raising funds at one election to spend against the next. The ACT Government has a lot of other business to get through; this is one proposal that can be safely dismissed.
