It’s no secret drug firms donate to political parties. But it’s still a secret exactly how much, and why

Drug companies gave at least A$7.7 million over ten years to Australia’s major political parties, our new study shows . But weaknesses in federal disclosure laws mean nobody knows the true figure.

We also show there are discrepancies in what drug companies say they’ve given and what parties say they’ve received, adding to the confusion.

Our findings matter because donations to political parties are a key strategy many companies and industries use to seek favourable decisions about policy and regulations.

Our findings, published in the Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health , come at a time when the federal government is facing considerable pressure from the Trump administration and international drug companies about drug pricing.

What we did

The pharmaceutical industry spends large amounts on election campaigns and lobbying in the United States. But no-one has analysed this industry’s donations to Australian political parties until now.

So we analysed data from the Australian Electoral Commission’s Transparency Register that covered donations to major Australian federal political parties from 2015 to 2024.

The register required both political parties and donors to disclose donations of $12,800 or more at the start of our study, but this increased gradually to $16,300 by 2024.

We looked at contributions from the industry group Medicines Australia and its 37 core pharmaceutical company members during the period we studied, mainly local subsidiaries of international pharmaceutical companies. We didn’t look at donations from all member groups or non-member pharmaceutical companies.

We downloaded both Donor Returns (what companies disclosed they’d donated) and Party Returns (what parties reported they’d received).

We then adjusted annual totals for inflation to the equivalent of 2024 values. Minor parties were excluded and Liberal and National Parties’ totals were combined as the Coalition.

What we found

Over the years we studied, Medicines Australia and its core members reported contributing almost $7.7 million dollars to Labor and the Coalition.

Company and political party reports differed. Companies reported giving the Coalition $3.89 million but the Coalition reported receiving $1.64 million. Companies reported giving Labor $3.81 million but Labor reported receiving $4.76 million. The two parties reported receiving contributions from 19 companies, but only 13 reported making contributions.

One explanation for these discrepancies is that it’s voluntary to disclose contributions below the threshold level.

Labor appeared to do this routinely, while the Coalition did not. Another complexity is that company reports include state and federal contributions, whereas the party reports only include federal ones.

Donations increased over time but were fairly steady overall, with the party in government generally receiving slightly more than the opposition, according to reports from donors.

We saw no funding surges during election years. The purpose of most contributions wasn’t clear as there was no requirement for this to be disclosed. But the regularity and consistency of the amounts given by many companies suggest they may be corporate party membership fees or fees to attend events.

Overall, pharmaceutical companies seem to donate about as much to Australian major political parties as some industries that make health-harming products.

For example, the alcohol industry made an estimated $14.3 million in political contributions over 22 years. But unlike these industries, pharmaceutical companies contribute steadily across major parties rather than strategically around political events. This may help secure ongoing political access and relationships.

What needs to change?

From January 2027, major changes to federal political funding and disclosure laws are due to come into effect following last year’s amendments to the Electoral Act 1918.

These changes include lowering the disclosure threshold to $5,000 and capping donations at $50,000 per calendar year from a specific donor to a specific recipient. Disclosures will need to be speedier, and there will be greater emphasis on compliance with reporting.

These changes are still flawed . For example, a disclosure threshold of $5,000 is high enough for substantial contributions to go unreported. But if implemented, these changes could go some way towards addressing issues we identified.

However, the future of these changes is uncertain due to a High Court challenge .

What’s the wider context?

The Australian government is currently facing significant pressure on drug pricing from the Trump administration, which says lower prices in other countries cause higher prices in the United States .

In response, companies are demanding higher prices from the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS).

Given the high price of many new medicines and ongoing pressures on the PBS, pharmaceutical industry political donations are of public interest as a potential source of influence. But problems with the federal disclosure and transparency rules make it hard to know what is happening.

So political activities of the pharmaceutical industry need closer scrutiny. The industry’s political contributions are modest compared to amounts these companies spend on funding of health consumer groups and health professionals . But even relatively small contributions, resulting in access to political decision-makers, can have strategic value and generate substantial influence.

Government expenditure on PBS medicines was $19.1 billion in 2024-25, with patients contributing $1.7 billion .

With this sort of money at stake, the public deserves to know more about potential sources of industry influence on decisions surrounding how much the Australian government pays for medicines.

The authors would like to acknowledge the contributions of our coauthors Daniel Moses and M. Mofizul Islam to the research on which this article is based.