Skip to main content
Advanced search
The Point - home
DonateSubscribe
HomeWhat's NewOpinionOff the ChartsExplainersFactcheckAbout Us
The Point — home
DonateSubscribe
The Point — home
Advanced search
  • Home
  • What's New
  • Opinion
  • Off the Charts
  • Explainers
  • Factcheck
  • About Us
DonateSubscribe
Subscribe
  • Home
  • What's New
  • Opinion
  • Off the Charts
  • Explainers
  • Factcheck
  • About Us
The Point - home
Privacy PolicySitemapComplaints & CorrectionsNewsletter

The Point recognises the ancestral connections and custodianship of Traditional Owners throughout Australia. We pay respect to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander cultures and to Elders past and present.

©2025–2026 The Point, an initiative of The Australia Institute

OFF THE CHARTS

Revealed: The taxpayer funding behind Australia’s political parties

The Australian Electoral Commission publishes how much public funding was paid after each federal election. For the last election, that amounted to $91 million for political parties and $3 million for independents. Because of its larger vote share, Labor received more funding ($37 million) than the Liberal–National Coalition ($33 million).

By Bill Browne

Fri 20 Mar 2026 11.37 AEDT

Democracy & Accountability
Revealed: The taxpayer funding behind Australia’s political parties

Photo: AAP Image/Lukas Coch

Republish this article

This article is licensed under Creative Commons — Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International (CC BY-ND 4.0).

Republishing guidelines

  • You must credit the author(s) and The Point.
  • You must link back to the original article.
  • You may not edit or modify the article content.
  • Images may be subject to separate copyright and are not included in this licence.

The Australian Electoral Commission publishes how much public funding was paid after each federal election. For the last election, that amounted to $91 million for political parties and $3 million for independents. Because of its larger vote share, Labor received more funding ($37 million) than the Liberal–National Coalition ($33 million).  

At every federal election, a party or candidate that wins more than 4% of the vote gets about $3.50 in taxpayer funding per vote. Everyone casts two votes (one for a local member in the House of Representatives and one for the Senate), so each voter is worth about $7.  

The Labor Government and Liberal–National Coalition voted together to increase per-vote funding to $5 per vote ($10 per voter) – so at the next election (due 2028), the amount of taxpayer funding going to political parties and candidates will rise by tens of millions of dollars.  

This generous taxpayer funding (along with similar schemes in states and territories) means some parties are majority taxpayer funded. But political parties are not required to meet the same governance, transparency and reporting standards of other publicly funded entities like art galleries, museums and universities. 

And while public funding is not bad in principle, the way it works in Australia is perverse. A party or candidate only receives the money after the election is over. That’s fine for repeat players like the major parties, but it means public funding is next-to-useless for a new party or candidate running for the first time.  

Also unfair is the cap on public funding, to no more than a party or candidate spent at the election. A party that runs a shoestring campaign at one election is only funded to run a shoestring campaign at the next, while a party that starts with money and runs a big campaign can get much more funding – even if both parties are equally popular.  

There is a better way – the democracy voucher system used in the City of Seattle. That puts control over taxpayer funding in the hands of voters, and encourages campaigns and candidates to talk to voters instead of just advertising to them.  

With existing political finance laws subject to constitutional challenge, it is time for lawmakers to think about fairer and more effective ways to spend taxpayer money on politics.   

Advertisement

Related Articles

OPINION

Changes to Australian election laws have a major party skew

By Bill Browne

Recent and proposed changes to electoral laws at both the national and state levels risk perverse and unfair outcomes. Sometimes these are called “unintended consequences”, but that is too generous to politicians who are often fully aware of what they are doing.

Democracy & Accountability
Changes to Australian election laws have a major party skew

WHAT'S NEW

Minns Government to cap election poster sizes but stops short of six-sign limit

By Tegan George

The NSW Government has committed to restricting the size of election posters but stopped short of committing to a proposed six-sign limit within 100 metres of polling booths ahead of the March 2027 state election.

Democracy & Accountability
Minns Government to cap election poster sizes but stops short of six-sign limit

OPINION

‘Very, very stupid debate’: How we’re being played for mugs

By Amy Remeikis

It’s probably best for most people’s mental health that they are not forced to consider the hypocritical and ever-shifting grasping positions of Australian politics. For the most part, politics has the power to do good. Also for the most part, the way politics in Australia is played is very, very stupid.

Democracy & Accountability
‘Very, very stupid debate’: How we’re being played for mugs

WHAT'S NEW

‘Business as usual is not an option’: Phil Haines calls for kinder politics

By Tegan George

Phil Haines wants the alleged attack on his wife, independent MP Helen Haines, to mean something, urging Australia’s political leaders to turn tragedy into a catalyst for change.

Democracy & Accountability
‘Business as usual is not an option’: Phil Haines calls for kinder politics