The role of a kingmaker in Australian politics is a subtle yet powerful force, often operating behind the scenes to steer policy, influence elections, and reshape political alliances. Unlike overt lobbying, kingmaking thrives on strategic alliances, financial backing, and the cultivation of trust with key decision-makers. In Australia, this dynamic has been most visible in state politics, where figures like Peter Costello and former Labor leaders have played pivotal roles in shaping governments. The practice isn’t just about winning elections—it’s about ensuring the right policies are implemented once a government is in power.

One of the most notable examples of kingmaking in recent years was the influence of the Australian Labor Party’s (ALP) internal factions during the 2019 federal election campaign. Figures like Bill Shorten and Andrew Leigh strategically positioned themselves to counter the Liberal Party’s dominance, leveraging their connections within the party hierarchy to secure key appointments and policy directions. This was particularly evident in the handling of the COVID-19 response, where Labor’s ability to mobilise support from progressive factions ensured a more unified front compared to previous crises. The kingmaker play here wasn’t about outright corruption but about ensuring the ALP’s vision prevailed through careful negotiation.

The financial underpinnings of kingmaking are often tied to corporate and philanthropic networks. For instance, the Australian Council of Social Service (ACOSS) and various think tanks have long played a role in shaping policy agendas by providing data and advocacy that align with certain political priorities. In Victoria, the state’s political elite has historically relied on business leaders like Andrew Forrest to fund political campaigns and influence legislation. These relationships aren’t always transparent, but their impact is undeniable—particularly in areas like healthcare reform, where funding from well-connected donors can sway debates before they reach the public stage.

The rise of social media and digital campaigning has also transformed how kingmakers operate. Unlike traditional lobbying, where influence is often tied to face-to-face meetings, modern kingmakers use targeted messaging to mobilise grassroots support. The 2022 NSW election saw the emergence of digital kingmakers, such as figures associated with the Greens and independent candidates, who used social platforms to rally voters against the Liberal-National coalition. This shift highlights how technology has democratised influence, allowing smaller groups to compete with larger parties on an equal footing.

However, the practice of kingmaking isn’t without controversy. Critics argue that it fosters a culture of secrecy, where political decisions are made behind closed doors rather than through open debate. In Queensland, the 2020 election saw allegations of financial irregularities linked to key political figures, raising questions about whether kingmaking has crossed into unethical territory. While legal frameworks like the Commonwealth Electoral Act and state electoral laws aim to regulate influence, enforcement remains inconsistent, leaving room for manipulation.

The future of kingmaking in Australia will likely see an increasing focus on sustainability and long-term strategy. As climate change becomes a dominant political issue, figures like former Greens leader Richard Di Natale have already begun shaping policies that align with progressive values. Meanwhile, corporate kingmakers may increasingly prioritise ESG (Environmental, Social, and Governance) criteria in their political backing, reflecting broader shifts in business ethics. The challenge for politicians will be balancing the need for influence with the public’s demand for transparency.

• The Australian Labor Party’s 2019 election campaign saw internal factions strategically position key leaders to counter Liberal dominance, particularly in policy areas like COVID-19 response.
• Victoria’s political elite has historically relied on corporate backers like Andrew Forrest to fund campaigns and influence legislation, particularly in healthcare and infrastructure.
• Digital kingmakers, such as those associated with the Greens, have leveraged social media to mobilise grassroots support in recent state elections, blurring the line between traditional and modern influence.
• Allegations of financial irregularities in Queensland’s 2020 election raised concerns about whether kingmaking has crossed into unethical territory without sufficient legal oversight.
• The rise of ESG-focused corporate backing suggests a shift towards sustainability-driven political influence in the coming years.

In conclusion, the kingmaker play in Australian politics remains a vital, if often overlooked, force that shapes the direction of government. Whether through financial backing, strategic alliances, or digital advocacy, these figures ensure that policy outcomes reflect their interests—sometimes at the expense of broader public debate. As the political landscape evolves, the balance between influence and accountability will continue to be a defining challenge for the nation’s democratic process.