The $15,300 was added to the pay of each ACT politician after the October election last year, but in a decision made at the end of June by ACT Labor's branch council, it will now be passed to the party in instalments each fortnight.

The ACT parliament has struggled to settle the funding in recent years, after a decision was made in 2014 to replace what was then an office, mail and mobile phone allowance for printing, postage, phone and computer equipment. In 2014, $15,000 was rolled into members' salaries for the purpose, with specific instructions that it was not to be used for party-political material.

But the decision ran into the laws requiring all spending on "electoral matter" to be reported to the ACT Electoral Commission, with a cap on how much can be spent in an election year.

As a result, the Remuneration Tribunal abolished the separate allowance and rolled the entire sum into politician's pay packets last year, with the aim, according to tribunal chairwoman Anne Cahill-Lambert, of dealing with the "unintended consequences" of the earlier decision. How the allowance was spent would now be between the politician and the tax department, without having to involve the Electoral Commission, and with politicians able to claim spending as a tax deduction, she said.

Now the money was part of their salary, it is entirely up to the parliamentarians how they spent it - including keeping it as salary, giving it to the party or donating it to St Vincent de Paul, she said.

"We want them to have the flexibility to keep in touch with their electorate in the smartest way they possibly can and that's for them to work out," she said. "They get an amount of money that includes enough for them to communicate with the electorate. How they choose to spend it is their business...

"No other people in the ACT have to report their salary to the Electoral Commissioner. The whole idea is this is between the MLA and the taxman."

But Labor's new rules now require the money must be handed to the party to manage. The new rules says the politician must authorise each use of the levy and will be given a summary of spending at the end of each year. The rule also says the money must be used for communicating with the electorate.

Labor secretary Matt Byrne said the money was designed for communication and should be used that way, not taken as salary.

"For us it's really clear that the Remuneration Tribunal has given MLAs taxpayers' money to communicate with their electorate," he said. "It's to do their jobs as public office holders and we take that really seriously, which is why we've done what we've done."

Ms Cahill-Lambert said rolling the allowance into parliamentarians' salary would solve the problem of having to account for it under electoral spending laws.

But the Electoral Commission said it makes no difference.

Acting commissioner Rohan Spence said members were required to declare each year any spending on "electoral matter" and that remained the case.

Electoral matter is defined as material "intended or likely to affect voting". In an election year, any material that fits the definition will count towards the cap on spending.

Mr Byrne also believes the money must still be accounted for as electoral spending, and he has made a submission to an Assembly inquiry into the 2016 election, calling for a review of the allowance.

The former office allowance had been unworkable because it did not apply to members of Cabinet, lacked clear criteria for deciding what material was allowed, was left to Assembly staff to manage, and had not kept up with changing ways of communicating.

But the new fund also had problems, he said. It could be used on electoral matter, which was not the tribunal's intent. And it could be retained by a member as income instead of being used to communicate with voters.