Follow the money: the organisations that spent the most on social media during the election
Political parties, candidates and third-party groups - such as trade unions, industry bodies and interest groups - all spend big to push their message high into the algorithms of potential voters.
In the 2025 Australian federal election, this spend has been estimated at around A$40 million across the Meta- and Google-owned digital media platforms.
Based on our analysis of data from the Meta Ad Library - part of a broader research project on third sector groups (not political parties or candidates) during the election - third party groups spent more than $7.5 million advertising on Meta platforms Facebook and Instagram from March 28 to May 3 - the date the election was called to polling day.
Understanding which of these groups spent what, and on what, offers insights into the election results and modern political campaigning generally.
During the election campaign, much media commentary focused on right-wing organisation Advance Australia's digital campaigning.
However, our analysis shows pro-Liberal/National Party groups were outspent on Meta (which owns Facebook) almost 3:1 by anti-Liberal groups.
Much of this was focused on workers' rights, or in opposition to the Coalition's nuclear energy policy.
The top 25 spending groups on Meta spent just more than $6 million between them, at a rate of around $6500 a day. The rate of spending increased steadily during the campaign, with the bulk of the spend (more than $4 million) occurring in the final two weeks.
On May 2, the day before the election, these 25 big spenders paid on average $16,622 to push their message on Meta social media platforms.
Conservative campaign group Advance Australia spent just less than $50,000 on Meta on the final day of the campaign (social media advertising is exempt from the two-day ad-blackout laws affecting traditional media operators).
Advance was the biggest third-party campaigning group on Meta during the election, spending more than $1 million during the campaign's 37 days.
Advance's left-wing competitor during the campaign was the Australian Council of Trade Unions (ACTU), which spent around $475,000 on Meta advertising across the campaign, including more than $52,000 on May 2.
While the ACTU spent less than half of Advance's spend across Meta during the campaign, it spent three times as much on YouTube/Google advertising. Data from the Google Ad Transparency Center reveals the ACTU spent $928,000 on the platform between March 28 and May 3, whereas Advance spent $296,000 during the same period.
The other two big Meta spenders the day before polling day highlight the key policy contest among third party organisations - the Coalition's proposal to introduce nuclear powered energy to Australia.
Nuclear for Australia was the biggest spender on Meta on May 2, spending more than $65,000 in one day. Its direct counterpoint, Liberals Against Nuclear, spent a touch more than $32,000 on the same day.
However, during the whole campaign, Liberals Against Nuclear spent more ($246,000 compared to Nuclear for Australia's $236,000).
An anti-nuclear message was particularly prominent across the top 25 spending groups on Meta. Of the 15 organisations we identified as being explicitly anti-Liberal, nine were climate organisations with an anti-nuclear message.
These nine organisations spent a total of $2.5 million across Meta during the course of the campaign.
The most significant of these was Climate 200, which spent almost $900,000 on Meta during the election campaign.
Another key anti-nuclear nuclear campaigner on Meta was Climate Action Network Australia (CANA), which spent almost $400,000 between March 28 and May 3 across two different Facebook pages, and Hothouse Magazine, which spent almost $300,000 on pro-renewables advertising.
Together, the 15 explicitly anti-Liberal groups spent more than $3.6 million during the election, far eclipsing the two clear pro-Liberal groups, Advance Australia and Nuclear for Australia, which spent around $1.3 million between them.
So, what insights might these findings offer into the election results?
There certainly appears to be a correlation between the historic low Coalition vote and the outspending of pro-Liberal entities on Meta.
Outside of Advance and Nuclear for Australia's Meta campaigning, big-spending right-wing groups such as Australians for Prosperity, Better Australia and Australian Taxpayer's Alliance seemed more singularly focused on tearing down the Greens and Climate 200-backed independents than on helping the Coalition win government.
In contrast, the anti-Dutton and anti-nuclear focus of the anti-Liberal third party spending has a degree of collective discipline about it, which is probably indicative of the strength of the workers' rights and climate movements in Australia.
Additionally, the climate movement's strong anti-nuclear campaign may have presented a message which glossed over Labor's climate failures during the previous term.
This may have sent some pro-climate voters to Labor rather than to the Greens or Climate 200 independents. For their part, these organisations appeared to campaign more around the opportunities of a possible minority government than on environmental issues.
Civil society actors such as trade unions and industry groups have a long history of involvement in Australian politics.
The increasing non-major party vote, now around a third of all voters, means there are now more voices in our democratic processes.
This in turn creates more opportunities for third party organisations to influence policy debate and election outcomes.
Mark Riboldi is a lecturer in social impact and social change at the University of Technology Sydney.
Social media advertising is an increasingly important frontier in election campaigns.
Political parties, candidates and third-party groups - such as trade unions, industry bodies and interest groups - all spend big to push their message high into the algorithms of potential voters.
In the 2025 Australian federal election, this spend has been estimated at around A$40 million across the Meta- and Google-owned digital media platforms.
Based on our analysis of data from the Meta Ad Library - part of a broader research project on third sector groups (not political parties or candidates) during the election - third party groups spent more than $7.5 million advertising on Meta platforms Facebook and Instagram from March 28 to May 3 - the date the election was called to polling day.
Understanding which of these groups spent what, and on what, offers insights into the election results and modern political campaigning generally.
During the election campaign, much media commentary focused on right-wing organisation Advance Australia's digital campaigning.
However, our analysis shows pro-Liberal/National Party groups were outspent on Meta (which owns Facebook) almost 3:1 by anti-Liberal groups.
Much of this was focused on workers' rights, or in opposition to the Coalition's nuclear energy policy.
The top 25 spending groups on Meta spent just more than $6 million between them, at a rate of around $6500 a day. The rate of spending increased steadily during the campaign, with the bulk of the spend (more than $4 million) occurring in the final two weeks.
On May 2, the day before the election, these 25 big spenders paid on average $16,622 to push their message on Meta social media platforms.
Conservative campaign group Advance Australia spent just less than $50,000 on Meta on the final day of the campaign (social media advertising is exempt from the two-day ad-blackout laws affecting traditional media operators).
Advance was the biggest third-party campaigning group on Meta during the election, spending more than $1 million during the campaign's 37 days.
Advance's left-wing competitor during the campaign was the Australian Council of Trade Unions (ACTU), which spent around $475,000 on Meta advertising across the campaign, including more than $52,000 on May 2.
While the ACTU spent less than half of Advance's spend across Meta during the campaign, it spent three times as much on YouTube/Google advertising. Data from the Google Ad Transparency Center reveals the ACTU spent $928,000 on the platform between March 28 and May 3, whereas Advance spent $296,000 during the same period.
The other two big Meta spenders the day before polling day highlight the key policy contest among third party organisations - the Coalition's proposal to introduce nuclear powered energy to Australia.
Nuclear for Australia was the biggest spender on Meta on May 2, spending more than $65,000 in one day. Its direct counterpoint, Liberals Against Nuclear, spent a touch more than $32,000 on the same day.
However, during the whole campaign, Liberals Against Nuclear spent more ($246,000 compared to Nuclear for Australia's $236,000).
An anti-nuclear message was particularly prominent across the top 25 spending groups on Meta. Of the 15 organisations we identified as being explicitly anti-Liberal, nine were climate organisations with an anti-nuclear message.
These nine organisations spent a total of $2.5 million across Meta during the course of the campaign.
The most significant of these was Climate 200, which spent almost $900,000 on Meta during the election campaign.
Another key anti-nuclear nuclear campaigner on Meta was Climate Action Network Australia (CANA), which spent almost $400,000 between March 28 and May 3 across two different Facebook pages, and Hothouse Magazine, which spent almost $300,000 on pro-renewables advertising.
Together, the 15 explicitly anti-Liberal groups spent more than $3.6 million during the election, far eclipsing the two clear pro-Liberal groups, Advance Australia and Nuclear for Australia, which spent around $1.3 million between them.
So, what insights might these findings offer into the election results?
There certainly appears to be a correlation between the historic low Coalition vote and the outspending of pro-Liberal entities on Meta.
Outside of Advance and Nuclear for Australia's Meta campaigning, big-spending right-wing groups such as Australians for Prosperity, Better Australia and Australian Taxpayer's Alliance seemed more singularly focused on tearing down the Greens and Climate 200-backed independents than on helping the Coalition win government.
In contrast, the anti-Dutton and anti-nuclear focus of the anti-Liberal third party spending has a degree of collective discipline about it, which is probably indicative of the strength of the workers' rights and climate movements in Australia.
Additionally, the climate movement's strong anti-nuclear campaign may have presented a message which glossed over Labor's climate failures during the previous term.
This may have sent some pro-climate voters to Labor rather than to the Greens or Climate 200 independents. For their part, these organisations appeared to campaign more around the opportunities of a possible minority government than on environmental issues.
Civil society actors such as trade unions and industry groups have a long history of involvement in Australian politics.
The increasing non-major party vote, now around a third of all voters, means there are now more voices in our democratic processes.
This in turn creates more opportunities for third party organisations to influence policy debate and election outcomes.
Mark Riboldi is a lecturer in social impact and social change at the University of Technology Sydney.
Social media advertising is an increasingly important frontier in election campaigns.
Political parties, candidates and third-party groups - such as trade unions, industry bodies and interest groups - all spend big to push their message high into the algorithms of potential voters.
In the 2025 Australian federal election, this spend has been estimated at around A$40 million across the Meta- and Google-owned digital media platforms.
Based on our analysis of data from the Meta Ad Library - part of a broader research project on third sector groups (not political parties or candidates) during the election - third party groups spent more than $7.5 million advertising on Meta platforms Facebook and Instagram from March 28 to May 3 - the date the election was called to polling day.
Understanding which of these groups spent what, and on what, offers insights into the election results and modern political campaigning generally.
During the election campaign, much media commentary focused on right-wing organisation Advance Australia's digital campaigning.
However, our analysis shows pro-Liberal/National Party groups were outspent on Meta (which owns Facebook) almost 3:1 by anti-Liberal groups.
Much of this was focused on workers' rights, or in opposition to the Coalition's nuclear energy policy.
The top 25 spending groups on Meta spent just more than $6 million between them, at a rate of around $6500 a day. The rate of spending increased steadily during the campaign, with the bulk of the spend (more than $4 million) occurring in the final two weeks.
On May 2, the day before the election, these 25 big spenders paid on average $16,622 to push their message on Meta social media platforms.
Conservative campaign group Advance Australia spent just less than $50,000 on Meta on the final day of the campaign (social media advertising is exempt from the two-day ad-blackout laws affecting traditional media operators).
Advance was the biggest third-party campaigning group on Meta during the election, spending more than $1 million during the campaign's 37 days.
Advance's left-wing competitor during the campaign was the Australian Council of Trade Unions (ACTU), which spent around $475,000 on Meta advertising across the campaign, including more than $52,000 on May 2.
While the ACTU spent less than half of Advance's spend across Meta during the campaign, it spent three times as much on YouTube/Google advertising. Data from the Google Ad Transparency Center reveals the ACTU spent $928,000 on the platform between March 28 and May 3, whereas Advance spent $296,000 during the same period.
The other two big Meta spenders the day before polling day highlight the key policy contest among third party organisations - the Coalition's proposal to introduce nuclear powered energy to Australia.
Nuclear for Australia was the biggest spender on Meta on May 2, spending more than $65,000 in one day. Its direct counterpoint, Liberals Against Nuclear, spent a touch more than $32,000 on the same day.
However, during the whole campaign, Liberals Against Nuclear spent more ($246,000 compared to Nuclear for Australia's $236,000).
An anti-nuclear message was particularly prominent across the top 25 spending groups on Meta. Of the 15 organisations we identified as being explicitly anti-Liberal, nine were climate organisations with an anti-nuclear message.
These nine organisations spent a total of $2.5 million across Meta during the course of the campaign.
The most significant of these was Climate 200, which spent almost $900,000 on Meta during the election campaign.
Another key anti-nuclear nuclear campaigner on Meta was Climate Action Network Australia (CANA), which spent almost $400,000 between March 28 and May 3 across two different Facebook pages, and Hothouse Magazine, which spent almost $300,000 on pro-renewables advertising.
Together, the 15 explicitly anti-Liberal groups spent more than $3.6 million during the election, far eclipsing the two clear pro-Liberal groups, Advance Australia and Nuclear for Australia, which spent around $1.3 million between them.
So, what insights might these findings offer into the election results?
There certainly appears to be a correlation between the historic low Coalition vote and the outspending of pro-Liberal entities on Meta.
Outside of Advance and Nuclear for Australia's Meta campaigning, big-spending right-wing groups such as Australians for Prosperity, Better Australia and Australian Taxpayer's Alliance seemed more singularly focused on tearing down the Greens and Climate 200-backed independents than on helping the Coalition win government.
In contrast, the anti-Dutton and anti-nuclear focus of the anti-Liberal third party spending has a degree of collective discipline about it, which is probably indicative of the strength of the workers' rights and climate movements in Australia.
Additionally, the climate movement's strong anti-nuclear campaign may have presented a message which glossed over Labor's climate failures during the previous term.
This may have sent some pro-climate voters to Labor rather than to the Greens or Climate 200 independents. For their part, these organisations appeared to campaign more around the opportunities of a possible minority government than on environmental issues.
Civil society actors such as trade unions and industry groups have a long history of involvement in Australian politics.
The increasing non-major party vote, now around a third of all voters, means there are now more voices in our democratic processes.
This in turn creates more opportunities for third party organisations to influence policy debate and election outcomes.
Mark Riboldi is a lecturer in social impact and social change at the University of Technology Sydney.
Social media advertising is an increasingly important frontier in election campaigns.
Political parties, candidates and third-party groups - such as trade unions, industry bodies and interest groups - all spend big to push their message high into the algorithms of potential voters.
In the 2025 Australian federal election, this spend has been estimated at around A$40 million across the Meta- and Google-owned digital media platforms.
Based on our analysis of data from the Meta Ad Library - part of a broader research project on third sector groups (not political parties or candidates) during the election - third party groups spent more than $7.5 million advertising on Meta platforms Facebook and Instagram from March 28 to May 3 - the date the election was called to polling day.
Understanding which of these groups spent what, and on what, offers insights into the election results and modern political campaigning generally.
During the election campaign, much media commentary focused on right-wing organisation Advance Australia's digital campaigning.
However, our analysis shows pro-Liberal/National Party groups were outspent on Meta (which owns Facebook) almost 3:1 by anti-Liberal groups.
Much of this was focused on workers' rights, or in opposition to the Coalition's nuclear energy policy.
The top 25 spending groups on Meta spent just more than $6 million between them, at a rate of around $6500 a day. The rate of spending increased steadily during the campaign, with the bulk of the spend (more than $4 million) occurring in the final two weeks.
On May 2, the day before the election, these 25 big spenders paid on average $16,622 to push their message on Meta social media platforms.
Conservative campaign group Advance Australia spent just less than $50,000 on Meta on the final day of the campaign (social media advertising is exempt from the two-day ad-blackout laws affecting traditional media operators).
Advance was the biggest third-party campaigning group on Meta during the election, spending more than $1 million during the campaign's 37 days.
Advance's left-wing competitor during the campaign was the Australian Council of Trade Unions (ACTU), which spent around $475,000 on Meta advertising across the campaign, including more than $52,000 on May 2.
While the ACTU spent less than half of Advance's spend across Meta during the campaign, it spent three times as much on YouTube/Google advertising. Data from the Google Ad Transparency Center reveals the ACTU spent $928,000 on the platform between March 28 and May 3, whereas Advance spent $296,000 during the same period.
The other two big Meta spenders the day before polling day highlight the key policy contest among third party organisations - the Coalition's proposal to introduce nuclear powered energy to Australia.
Nuclear for Australia was the biggest spender on Meta on May 2, spending more than $65,000 in one day. Its direct counterpoint, Liberals Against Nuclear, spent a touch more than $32,000 on the same day.
However, during the whole campaign, Liberals Against Nuclear spent more ($246,000 compared to Nuclear for Australia's $236,000).
An anti-nuclear message was particularly prominent across the top 25 spending groups on Meta. Of the 15 organisations we identified as being explicitly anti-Liberal, nine were climate organisations with an anti-nuclear message.
These nine organisations spent a total of $2.5 million across Meta during the course of the campaign.
The most significant of these was Climate 200, which spent almost $900,000 on Meta during the election campaign.
Another key anti-nuclear nuclear campaigner on Meta was Climate Action Network Australia (CANA), which spent almost $400,000 between March 28 and May 3 across two different Facebook pages, and Hothouse Magazine, which spent almost $300,000 on pro-renewables advertising.
Together, the 15 explicitly anti-Liberal groups spent more than $3.6 million during the election, far eclipsing the two clear pro-Liberal groups, Advance Australia and Nuclear for Australia, which spent around $1.3 million between them.
So, what insights might these findings offer into the election results?
There certainly appears to be a correlation between the historic low Coalition vote and the outspending of pro-Liberal entities on Meta.
Outside of Advance and Nuclear for Australia's Meta campaigning, big-spending right-wing groups such as Australians for Prosperity, Better Australia and Australian Taxpayer's Alliance seemed more singularly focused on tearing down the Greens and Climate 200-backed independents than on helping the Coalition win government.
In contrast, the anti-Dutton and anti-nuclear focus of the anti-Liberal third party spending has a degree of collective discipline about it, which is probably indicative of the strength of the workers' rights and climate movements in Australia.
Additionally, the climate movement's strong anti-nuclear campaign may have presented a message which glossed over Labor's climate failures during the previous term.
This may have sent some pro-climate voters to Labor rather than to the Greens or Climate 200 independents. For their part, these organisations appeared to campaign more around the opportunities of a possible minority government than on environmental issues.
Civil society actors such as trade unions and industry groups have a long history of involvement in Australian politics.
The increasing non-major party vote, now around a third of all voters, means there are now more voices in our democratic processes.
This in turn creates more opportunities for third party organisations to influence policy debate and election outcomes.
Mark Riboldi is a lecturer in social impact and social change at the University of Technology Sydney.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Perth Now
23 minutes ago
- Perth Now
2026 Lexus NX450h+ Luxury: Cheaper PHEV priced for Australia
Lexus Australia has confirmed the NX450h+ AWD Luxury plug-in hybrid (PHEV) for Australian showrooms, scheduled to arrive in September 2025. The NX450h+ AWD Luxury will be the cheapest PHEV from the brand, starting from $84,500 before on-road costs and therefore undercutting the base Volvo XC60 Plus PHEV ($92,990) and BMW X3 xDrive30e ($104,800). It'll sit below the only other NX PHEV offered here, the NX450h+ AWD F Sport flagship that's priced at $96,000 before on-road costs. The Japanese luxury brand has also confirmed it's axing the petrol-powered NX250 Luxury that opens the mid-size SUV lineup. No more examples will be imported once existing stock is sold. The axing of the NX250 Luxury – which uses a naturally aspirated 2.5-litre petrol four-cylinder engine – is due to what Lexus says is a 'reduction in demand'. This makes the NX350 AWD F Sport (from $79,450 plus on-road costs) the sole petrol-only NX offered in Australia. Hundreds of new car deals are available through CarExpert right now. Get the experts on your side and score a great deal. Browse now. Supplied Credit: CarExpert The NX450h+ was introduced in Australia in 2022 as the brand's first PHEV, available only in F Sport trim (pictured below) with Enhancement Pack 2 equipped. The new Luxury grade will be equipped with Enhancement Pack 1. While Lexus hasn't published a full list of standard equipment, it has confirmed the new entry-level PHEV SUV will include: Proximity entry and push-button start Leather upholstery Heated and ventilated front seats Heated outboard rear seats Heated steering wheel Wireless Apple CarPlay and Android Auto Wireless phone charger Power tailgate Surround-view camera The F Sport builds on this with features like adaptive suspension and F Sport-exclusive styling tweaks. The Luxury uses the same 2.5-litre plug-in hybrid four-cylinder powertrain as the F Sport, featuring two electric motors, an 18.7kWh lithium-ion battery pack and all-wheel drive. Total system output is 227kW, while claimed electric-only driving range is 87km (NEDC) as part of a total 1167km range. Supplied Credit: CarExpert Further announcements on standard equipment and features will be made ahead of the Lexus NX450h+ Luxury's planned arrival in September 2025. The launch of the more affordable Luxury trim comes after shipments of the NX450h+ were paused for more than 18 months until order books reopened in November 2024. Lexus Australia said the decision to suspend orders came after customers faced waiting lists of almost two years after it first went on sale in 2022. Deliveries of the NX increased 6.0 per cent in the first half of 2025 compared with the same period last year, with 3080 examples reaching Australian customers. That made it the brand's best-selling model, accounting for almost half its total 7338 sales to the end of June. MORE: Explore the Lexus NX showroom
Canberra Times
25 minutes ago
- Canberra Times
RBA tipped to cut rates, but only one in ten are reducing repayments
Despite cost of living pressures Australian borrowers are opting to get ahead on their home loans, rather than taking the option to take a cut in their repayments. Australia's biggest lender, the Commonwealth Bank, has reported that only 10 per cent of eligible home loan customers chose to reduce their mortgage direct debit repayments. Pic: Shutterstock Australia's biggest lender, the Commonwealth Bank, has reported that only 10 per cent of eligible home loan customers chose to reduce their mortgage direct debit repayments following the May interest rate cut. The announcement comes just one day ahead of the next meeting of the Reserve Bank, to decide the cash rate. All of the big four banks and major economists are pointing to a rate cut bringing the cash rate down to 3.6 per cent. "One in ten eligible customers opted to lower their home loan repayments after the May rate cut, which is really similar to what we saw following February's cut," said Commbank Home Buying General Manager Tess Sutherland. "It shows only a small percentage of customers are freeing up their cash, while most are maintaining higher repayments to get ahead on their loans." Across the February and May rate cuts, the combined 0.50 per cent per annum rate reduction could have delivered savings of around $160 a month for those making principal and interest repayments on an average loan size of $500,000. Of those who chose to reduce their repayments, 39 per cent came from New South Wales according to Commbank. Pic: Shutterstock Of those who chose to reduce their repayments, 39 per cent came from New South Wales, the largest group, ahead of Victoria with 31 per cent. "In a state like NSW, where property prices are the highest in the country, it makes sense more customers are choosing to ease financial pressure by adjusting their repayments. It's a practical way to create breathing room in the budget." "We also found that those in their thirties and forties were the most likely age group to reduce their repayments - perhaps not surprising, given many in this cohort may be juggling school-aged kids and high household costs," said Ms Sutherland. Home loan tactics: take the cut or continue to pay top dollar With the RBA expected to bring down their third rate cut for this year tomorrow, savings can be made. If lenders pass it on in full, borrowers with a $600k mortgage could see their minimum monthly repayments fall by $90, while those on a $1 million mortgage could see their repayments drop by $150. However, deciding to forego the cut in cash now and retaining current payments can also pay off. According to modelling by comparison group Canstar, a borrower with a $600,000 debt and 25 years remaining who keeps their monthly repayments the same could potentially save almost $90,000 in interest over the life of their loan and pay it off four years early. This calculation also relies on a total of four standard cash rates in 2025, as forecast by CBA and that the cash rate remains at 3.35 per cent. Canstar data insights director, Sally Tindall, said while it's up to the banks to hand out the rate cuts, it's borrowers who decide what to do with them. "Keep your repayments the same and you could save tens of thousands of dollars in interest and kick your mortgage to the curb years early," Ms Tindall said. If you do decide to bring down your repayments after a rate cut, it is important to check whether your bank will make the cut automatically, or if you need to request it. Of the big four banks, only Westpac automatically lowers customers' direct debit if it's set to the minimum.
7NEWS
27 minutes ago
- 7NEWS
2026 Lexus NX450h+ Luxury: Cheaper PHEV priced for Australia
Lexus Australia has confirmed the NX450h+ AWD Luxury plug-in hybrid (PHEV) for Australian showrooms, scheduled to arrive in September 2025. The NX450h+ AWD Luxury will be the cheapest PHEV from the brand, starting from $84,500 before on-road costs and therefore undercutting the base Volvo XC60 Plus PHEV ($92,990) and BMW X3 xDrive30e ($104,800). It'll sit below the only other NX PHEV offered here, the NX450h+ AWD F Sport flagship that's priced at $96,000 before on-road costs. The Japanese luxury brand has also confirmed it's axing the petrol-powered NX250 Luxury that opens the mid-size SUV lineup. No more examples will be imported once existing stock is sold. The axing of the NX250 Luxury – which uses a naturally aspirated 2.5-litre petrol four-cylinder engine – is due to what Lexus says is a 'reduction in demand'. This makes the NX350 AWD F Sport (from $79,450 plus on-road costs) the sole petrol-only NX offered in Australia. Hundreds of new car deals are available through CarExpert right now. Get the experts on your side and score a great deal. Browse now. The NX450h+ was introduced in Australia in 2022 as the brand's first PHEV, available only in F Sport trim (pictured below) with Enhancement Pack 2 equipped. The new Luxury grade will be equipped with Enhancement Pack 1. While Lexus hasn't published a full list of standard equipment, it has confirmed the new entry-level PHEV SUV will include: Proximity entry and push-button start Leather upholstery Heated and ventilated front seats Heated outboard rear seats Heated steering wheel Wireless Apple CarPlay and Android Auto Wireless phone charger Power tailgate Surround-view camera The F Sport builds on this with features like adaptive suspension and F Sport-exclusive styling tweaks. The Luxury uses the same 2.5-litre plug-in hybrid four-cylinder powertrain as the F Sport, featuring two electric motors, an 18.7kWh lithium-ion battery pack and all-wheel drive. Total system output is 227kW, while claimed electric-only driving range is 87km (NEDC) as part of a total 1167km range. Further announcements on standard equipment and features will be made ahead of the Lexus NX450h+ Luxury's planned arrival in September 2025. The launch of the more affordable Luxury trim comes after shipments of the NX450h+ were paused for more than 18 months until order books reopened in November 2024. Lexus Australia said the decision to suspend orders came after customers faced waiting lists of almost two years after it first went on sale in 2022. Deliveries of the NX increased 6.0 per cent in the first half of 2025 compared with the same period last year, with 3080 examples reaching Australian customers. That made it the brand's best-selling model, accounting for almost half its total 7338 sales to the end of June. Pricing
