Follow the money. New disclosure data reveals that Australia's 2025 election campaign was bankrolled by $131 million in declared donations, with mining interests and billionaire Clive Palmer's United Australia Party leading the donor list.
The Guardian's analysis of Australian Electoral Commission data shows who's really funding the parties that make decisions on climate policy, tax reform, and industry regulation. And mate, the numbers tell a clear story about whose interests get heard in Canberra.
Mining companies and associated interests dominate the disclosure returns, pouring millions into campaigns on both sides of politics. That's not surprising—mining is Australia's largest export industry—but it raises obvious questions when the same companies funding election campaigns are also lobbying against carbon pricing, opposing environmental regulations, and seeking tax concessions.
Then there's Clive Palmer. The mining magnate's United Australia Party has become a major player in Australian elections not through grassroots support, but through sheer advertising spend funded by Palmer's personal fortune. The disclosure data shows UAP outspent both major parties in some categories, flooding airwaves and social media with messaging that—critics note—often seems designed to preference conservative parties over progressive ones.
Property developers also feature prominently in the donor list, continuing a long tradition of the development industry backing candidates friendly to planning approvals and infrastructure spending. Climate advocacy groups and unions appear too, though their contributions are dwarfed by corporate donations.
The disclosure system itself has significant gaps. Donations under $16,900 don't need to be declared. Donations made to party branches in different states can stay below disclosure thresholds even if they total much more nationally. And there's a significant time lag—donations made during the 2025 campaign are only being disclosed now in early 2026, well after voters cast ballots.
Some observers on Reddit expressed resignation rather than surprise. Many noted that both major parties take mining money, making genuine climate action difficult regardless of who wins. Others pointed to Palmer's spending as evidence that Australia needs stricter campaign finance laws to prevent wealthy individuals from distorting democratic processes.
Fair concerns. When a single billionaire can outspend major political parties, and when industries directly affected by regulation can donate millions to the parties that regulate them, democratic accountability gets murky.
Australia lags behind comparable democracies on campaign finance transparency and restrictions. Canada, the UK, and several European nations have stricter caps on donations and shorter disclosure timeframes. There's talk of reform in Canberra, but both major parties benefit from the current system, so meaningful change faces obvious obstacles.
Meanwhile, voters are left wondering whose interests their elected representatives actually serve. When mining companies donate millions, when Palmer floods the zone with advertising, when property developers back friendly candidates, the policy outcomes tend to reflect those investments.
This isn't a conspiracy theory. It's how political funding works in Australia under current laws. Donors give money because they expect access and influence. Parties take the money because campaigns are expensive. And the public gets policies shaped by whoever's writing the biggest cheques.
The $131 million disclosed is likely just the visible portion. Dark money—donations funneled through associated entities, third-party campaigns, and below-threshold contributions—remains hidden from public view. The true cost of buying influence in Australian politics is almost certainly higher.
Voters deserve to know who's funding the parties they vote for and what those funders expect in return. Right now, they're getting partial answers months after elections are over. That's not transparency. That's disclosure designed to minimize accountability while maintaining the appearance of openness.
Mate, there's $131 million in declared donations shaping Australian politics. The real number is higher. And the industries doing the donating have very specific policy preferences they expect to see reflected in Canberra.
