The two major political parties will each receive roughly $700,000 in public money after the 2016 election, despite still benefiting from uncapped donations from individuals and corporations.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
The amount of public election funding was boosted considerably last year, jumping from $2 per vote to $8 per vote for any party or independent that received more than 4 per cent of the first preference vote in the electorate.
The intent of the change was to reduce the influence of private and corporate funding, and thereby "minimise any incentives for corruption and undue influence".
But at the same time, the government refused to reinstate a cap on the level of donations major parties could receive from corporations or private individuals.
By mid-Wednesday, Labor had a total of 90,832 first preferences across all electorates, which would give it $726,656. The count is still continuing and the number is likely to rise.
The Liberals had 86,833 first preference votes, making them eligible to receive $694,000, and the Greens had 24,161 first preferences, worth $193,000.
Independent Kim Huynh was the only independent as of Wednesday to make it past the 4 per cent vote threshold, entitling him to roughly $18,000. He has pledged to donate the money, half to Canberra Community Care, and the rest to his student campaign team.
The Sex Party will be eligible for money from Brindabella, where it has achieved more than 4 per cent of the vote, and possibly Yerrabi, where it had 3.9 per cent by mid-Monday.
The Greens are supportive of the public funding of election campaigns, but say it should serve to replace large political donations, not accompany them.
Greens leader Shane Rattenbury said the quadrupling of public election funding – from $2 to $8 per vote – took place after the cap on political donations was removed – a time when the major parties least needed the extra money.
"We now have a situation where the major parties have not only made back the entire cost of their campaign, but are now in a position to profit off any additional donations, potentially from vested interests," he said.
"The change to the election funding process in 2014 basically resulted in net gain for the big political parties, and cannot be described as anything other than an unjustifiable act of self-interest."
But Labor ACT branch secretary Matthew Byrne said the changes had allowed them to reduce their reliance on large donations and diversify their income streams.
Mr Byrne said the return of a cap would simply allow donors to find "creative ways" of breaking the rules, and said it was far better to have a transparent and immediate reporting system to allow public scrutiny of donations.
"We believe the system is better if there are more diverse income streams from political parties," he said.
Australian National University politics professor John Warhurst said it was important to have a balance of public and private funding for election campaigns.
"I just think it's healthy. Entirely publicly funded campaigns makes the parties lazy and it's an undue impost on citizens, and on the budget," he said.
"Entirely privately funded campaigns run the risk of parties take risks in their funding, and always being stretched, having to maybe hold their noses while they accept some funding."
He said the recent increase from $2 a vote to $8 a vote was "quite substantial".
"There's the whole question of what is legitimate, and all of this is driven by more and more expensive campaigns, more television ads, and more electronic campaigns."
