October 1- 31, 2025: Issue 647

 

Financial disclosure return information for the 2025 federal election published: Political Party Spends Not available until February 2026

Monday October 20, 2025
Financial disclosure return information for the 2025 federal election, held on 3 May 2025, is now available for public inspection.
This includes returns from:
  • Candidates
  • Senate groups
  • Election donors.
The return information is available on the AEC’s Transparency Register at https://transparency.aec.gov.au/.

The returns cover donations, electoral expenditure, and discretionary benefits by candidates and unendorsed (or jointly endorsed) Senate groups that contested the 2025 federal election. Of the 1,456 candidates who contested the federal election, a total of 1,425 have lodged returns. Of these, 1,042 candidates lodged nil returns.

In addition, 9 Senate group returns were lodged, 8 of which were nil returns.
A further 74 donor returns were also lodged.

Note: 
Candidates endorsed by a registered political party may submit a ‘nil return’ and roll their reporting into the annual return for their party if those financial transactions were the responsibility of a party committee. Political party return information for the 2024-25 financial year will not be available for public inspection until Monday, 2 February 2026.

However, media reports have disclosed already the Liberal Party and its cohort of fundraising entities is the biggest donor to a right wing lobby group 'Advance', which was behind a campaign against Welcome to Country ceremonies, and ramped this focus up during the final days of the federal election campaign.

The Cormack Foundation - a multimillion dollar investment company for the Liberal Party - donated $500,000 in the past financial year to online group Advance.

Early in April 2025, during the 2025 Election campaign, Advance sent an email to subscribers containing disinformation about Welcome to Country ceremonies, describing them incorrectly as telling Australians that "this isn't your country anymore" and complaining that they cost "big sums of money". In fact, Welcome to Country ceremonies cost approximately $150,000 annually.

Advance was formed in 2018 (then known as 'Advance Australia'), in the wake of the successful marriage equality plebiscite and was front and centre in the 'no' campaign during the referendum on the First Nations Voice to Parliament.

The lobby group frequently rails against the "woke" agenda of "elites",  and has previously been outed as 'astroturfing' - a deceptive practice of misrepresenting a marketing campaign as being from grassroots.

The Australian Electoral Commission has previously reported that Advance declared $15,676,823 over the 2023-24 financial year.

The 2025 federal election published on October 20 2025 figures for the nine Mackellar 2025 Candidates who have recorded a 'nil' due to being run by a political party, and will be disclosed in February 2026, are Ethan Hrnjak (Greens), Jeffrey Quinn (Labor), James Brown (Liberal), Brad Hayman (Pauline Hanson's One Nation), Justin Addison (Libertarian) and Amber Robertson (Trumpet of Patriots).

Those that did disclose their numbers, at this stage, and in full or part, are:

Independent Dr. Sophie Scamps 
Total gifts or donations received: $1,729,956
Total number of donors: 1673
Total Electoral Expenditure: $1,643,292

Brad Hayman  Pauline Hanson's One Nation 
Total Electoral Expenditure: $1,600

Mandeep Singh  Independent 
Total gifts or donations received: $0
Total number of donors: 0
Total Discretionary Benefits Received: $0
Total Electoral Expenditure: $2,024

Anita Lisa Cotton  Independent 
Total gifts or donations received: $0
Total number of donors: 0
Total Discretionary Benefits Received: $0
Total Electoral Expenditure: $5,125

Amber Robertson  Trumpet of Patriots 
Total gifts or donations received: $528
Total number of donors: 1
Total Discretionary Benefits Received: $0
Total Electoral Expenditure: $0

Dr Scamps was the successful candidate in Mackellar 2025, increasing her margin over closest contender, the Liberal Party, at this year's May 3rd election. 

Successful Warringah MP Candidate, Independent Zali Steggall, who does not receive any funding from Climate 200, has been listed by the AEC as:

Total gifts or donations received: $789,736
Total number of donors: 1421
Total Discretionary Benefits Received: $0
Total Electoral Expenditure: $726,737

Successful Bradfield Candidate, Independent Nicolette Boele:
Total gifts or donations received: $0
Total number of donors: 0
Total Discretionary Benefits Received: $0
Total Electoral Expenditure: $0

On Thursday February 13 2025 the Electoral Legislation Amendment (Electoral Reform) Bill 2024 was passed by both Houses.

This will be in place at the next federal election and has been described as a 'stitch up' between the major political parties in an effort to block Australia's growing shift towards electing Independents or Green candidates by providing a financial advantage to the two major parties - Labor and the Liberal-National Coalition. 

The Albanese government secured Liberal party support for the new regime covering political donations and spending, after making some concessions. The deal between Labor and the Coalition caps annual donations to $50,000 per candidate.

The draft bill aimed to cap at $20,000 the amount peak bodies such as the ACTU, Business Council and Minerals Council could take from their member organisations for their own national political campaigns, and would have constrained what is current practice. An amendment agreed as part of the Liberal-Labor alliance will instead let them collect $250,000 in affiliate fees from each member.

The national party spending cap of $90 million each for the Liberal and Labor parties will be unchanged, so too the $800,000 cap for each candidate to spend atop that.

Warringah MP Zali Steggall said the reforms gave an advantage to incumbents and major parties.

"For political parties, there are plenty of workarounds when it comes to donation caps … there will still be plenty of dark money and a lot of money in politics, unfortunately," she said.

"[But] the data that has come out today shows for independent candidates to be successful, remembering independent candidates often are being attacked by third-party organisations often funded by fossil fuels and interest lobby groups ... a number of MPs have had to spend significantly above that spending cap to get re-elected."

The Independent MP said she hoped the donation reforms would face a challenge in the High Court.

Ms Steggall did not receive any money from Climate 200 but said as a funding "aggregator", it played an important role in balancing the playing field for community candidates who do not have the capacity to fundraise for themselves.

Mackellar MP Dr. Sophie Scamps, a Climate 200 funding recipient, said political campaigns came with a price tag.

"There's a lot of misinformation that is targeted at you as a candidate, so I had to combat a lot of misinformation," she told the ABC.

"That does take money, because you need to be putting things out on social media, on digital platforms to try and counteract that misinformation."

Dr. Scamps said crowdfunding vehicles such as Climate 200 helped to fight groups targeting Independents.

"We saw at the last election there were multiple different groups that popped up that were very targeted at the teals and candidates personally — you had the Teals Revealed, you had Repeal the Teal, you had Australians for Prosperity, of course you had Advance. It really is [about] combating that attack," she said.

The same kind of attacks occurred in the 2022 Federal election for the seat of Mackellar, with fake corflutes about Dr. Scamps being installed by groups of men, according to witnesses, some under the cover of darkness, others in broad daylight. Despite this, Dr. Scamps made history in 2022 by being voted in as the first Independent MP for the seat of Mackellar.

"We don't have all these other vehicles behind us that have been raising money for decades, that have investments in property, or like the Labor Party owns clubs with poker machines, that type of thing." Dr. Scamps said

Mackellar MP Dr. Sophie Scamps. Photo: AJG/PON

Special Minister of State the Hon. Don Farrell maintains the government's reforms delivered 'needed transparency'.

"In the last term of parliament, we successfully passed landmark legislation to stop the billionaire arms race in federal elections by capping expenditure and donations," he said in a statement.

"That included significantly increasing transparency in our elections by lowering the threshold for public reporting of donations and increasing the frequency of reporting.

"Australians deserve to know who is funding their elections and our reforms deliver this."

Greens spokesperson on Democracy, Senator Larissa Waters said in February this year:

“What we have seen in the Senate tonight is an affront to democracy, debating a 400 page bill rushed through without an inquiry and with complex amendments only circulated moments before being voted upon. This is the worst process I’ve seen in my time in Parliament.

“Both Labor and Liberal saw their lowest votes ever at the last election. Instead of improving their policies, they’ve chosen to team up and cancel their competitors.

“I am outraged, but not shocked, to witness the two big parties team up on legislation that improves their election chances, and makes a mockery of our democracy.

“Labors' dirty deal with the Opposition has increased secrecy over donations and raised donation caps; an act of self-interest to lock out anyone else trying to represent their community.

“From the outset, the lack of genuine engagement with the Greens and crossbench indicated the government was seeking a stitch-up with the LNP on these consequential reforms.

“The bill was supposed to cap donations from peak bodies like the Business Council and Minerals Council at $20,000, but now big mining companies could donate $250,000 each in membership fees, allowing them to spend up to $11.5 million on electoral campaigning. That doesn’t get big money out of politics, it just gives big corporations a back door.

“This deal is a complete joke—lobbyists run this place, and Ministers jump straight into industry jobs without any accountability. This bill does nothing to address that revolving door.''

More in February 2025 and December 2025 reports:

The next Australian federal election will be held on or before 20 May 2028 (for the House and half the Senate) or on before 23 September 2028 (for just the House) or on or before 18 March 2028 (for a double dissolution election) to elect members of the House of Representatives and half of the Senate to the 49th Parliament of Australia.

Published October 23, 2025:

Misinformation was rife during the 2025 election. New research shows many people were unable to identify it

Sora Park, University of Canberra; Jee Young Lee, University of Canberra, and Kieran McGuinness, University of Canberra

Misinformation has become a routine part of daily life, shaping public discourse and distorting perceptions. A new report reveals that in the two weeks prior to the 2025 federal election, almost two-thirds (60%) of adults reported coming across election misinformation. Only 19% didn’t come across it and 21% were unsure.

Many Australians are frustrated and overwhelmed by misinformation. They also lack the time and skills to fact-check, and feel governments and platforms should be doing more to combat it.

Only 41% of adults are confident they can check whether online information is true, and 40% say they can check whether a social media post can be trusted. Low confidence leads to higher concern. Almost three-quarters (73%) say they are concerned about the spread of false election information.

This low confidence and heightened anxiety can lead to disengagement from news and politics. When people see something they suspect is election misinformation, they are more likely to ignore it (44%) than check the facts (25%). The pervasive nature of election misinformation could be turning people away from democratic institutions and processes.

Many people don’t investigate dubious information because they experience political burnout. Even if someone does have the ability to verify misinformation, they may choose not to apply the skill or knowledge. Instead, audiences who are bothered by information uncertainty disengage altogether.

Our study

We asked people to identify misinformation by giving them five examples of false information on social media that were circulated during the election campaign. These examples were provided by a professional fact-checker. For political balance, two were misinformation about the Labor Party, two were misinformation about the Liberal-National coalition, and one was politically neutral.

Many participants were unsure or said “no”, these weren’t misinformation. This suggests ordinary people differ from fact-checkers in their perceptions of election misinformation. The proportion who correctly identified the misinformation ranged from 43% to 58% across the five examples. The misinformation targeting Labor had higher percentages of accurate responses (48% and 58%). The non-partisan example had the lowest score, with only 43% of respondents identifying it as misinformation.

It is important to note that 16–34% of respondents in this study replied “unsure”. This confirms the indifference and disengagement with politics among many Australian voters.

There are stark differences between left, centre and right-leaning respondents in their responses. Those who identify as left-wing were much more likely to identify misinformation in the two posts that were about Labor (67% and 80%) than the two posts about the coalition (30% and 51%) or the non-partisan example (53%).

Similarly, those who identified right-wing were more likely to identify the two posts that were about the coalition (61% and 55%) than when the content concerned Labor (39% and 45%) or was non-partisan (43%).

Perceptions of misinformation are strongly tied to one’s beliefs and identity. People can still believe false information even if it contradicts factual knowledge. This is because acceptance is a mentally easier process than rejection.

Rejection of information as false involves an additional cognitive process that requires motivation and resources. When information does not align with people’s beliefs, they tend to determine it to be false.

Quality news matters

We found an important link between having access to quality news and people’s ability to verify information. Those who regularly access news and are informed are much less likely to be vulnerable to misinformation. They also feel more empowered to participate in politics.

Those who have received media literacy education are also more likely to be able to discern misinformation and react responsibly to misinformation. The findings suggest that media literacy education, combined with improved access to quality news, can be an effective way to help people navigate the online environment and discern misinformation.

Misinformation will likely be a problem no matter how much we try to reduce or remove it from our information ecosystem. It is timely that the federal government is developing a National Media Literacy Strategy.

There are some steps that can be taken to combat misinformation.

First, the legal and regulatory environment must enable proactive measures to reduce misinformation. Digital platforms must be transparent about how they target particular groups of people.

Second, factual, quality information that can counteract misinformation should be amplified. People need to have trusted sources of news and information they can turn to.

Finally, we can improve people’s media literacy level so that they can discern misinformation and know how to respond with confidence. Our data show more than half of the respondents (51%) have never received media literacy education.

The Australian public expressed strong views and a clear desire for intervention regarding the regulation of the online environment, particularly concerning election misinformation.

The majority of respondents – 70% – support the view that the government should take steps to restrict false information on social media, even if it limits freedom to publish and access information.

Moreover, 83% support truth in advertising laws to be implemented at a national level.The Conversation

Sora Park, Professor of Communication, News & Media Research Centre, University of Canberra; Jee Young Lee, Lecturer, News & Media Research Centre, University of Canberra, and Kieran McGuinness, Postdoctoral Fellow, News & Media Research Centre, University of Canberra

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.