Your hard work appreciated

There are Australian homeless people that need that money to set up somewhere for them to be safe

Great work once again, senator!

We seriously need a DOGE here. When you guys win.... I'll be happy to do it for free

get em Malcolm, you are a legend

And when you have the need for life saving medical attention, we should ask the same question,,, will we have any benefit of applying the time and resources

Wow sounds like the UK government.

, VOTE ONE NATION

Thanks for sharing.

That’s the Labor way.!!👇🏿👇🏿

This is crazy. Thank you Senator Malcolm Roberts for all that you do!

I so very very much love and appreciate your work

How can I apply for one of these grants, I would be set, I could do an independent study on an Australian movement study, hell I’ll even chuck in the word Muslim to get it across the line. Let me know how I do this. Sick of struggling when I can join the fraud squad going by the name of Australian Government.

The small print: This is an interesting standard. Should we apply it consistently? Australia will spend about $63.4 billion on Defence this financial year. Can every taxpayer identify the tangible benefit they receive from every individual Defence project? Probably not. Nor would we expect them to. In fact, the ANAO recently found that $693 million had already been spent on design-related work for the Collins-class submarine life-extension project while Defence was still not well placed to demonstrate that the project represented value for money. That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t fund submarines. It means public expenditure isn’t judged by asking whether every taxpayer can personally see an immediate return from every dollar. Research works the same way. The ARC funds basic research precisely because its eventual economic, social or cultural benefit cannot necessarily be known before the research is done. By all means scrutinise whether the ARC’s processes allocate money appropriately. It’s public money and scrutiny is warranted. But “I can’t see what taxpayers get from studying this” isn’t a cost-benefit analysis. It’s an opinion about which subjects are worth studying.

Nailed it 👌

Speaking of shitty value, Roberts has been in the Senate for near on ten years or so, other than as a protest vote against opposition parties. Not to be outdone, Hanson has been at it for 30 thirty and has accomplished zip, zilch, nada.

Thankyou for shining light on gov waste we didn't know existed.

The argument falls apart once you look at how the ARC works. It cherry‑picks two grants, ignores the ARC’s purpose, and pretends research should only be funded if the average taxpayer instantly “sees value”. ARC funding isn’t judged on vibes — it’s judged on research merit, national benefit, and independent peer review. That’s the same model used in every advanced research system on Earth. If “taxpayers must directly see value” were the rule, Australia would have no philosophy, no pure maths, no astronomy, no linguistics, no archaeology, no social science, no basic medical research. Peer review isn’t a dodge — it’s the safeguard that stops politicians deciding which topics are ideologically acceptable. And the two grants being used as outrage bait? They’re standard Discovery grants in recognised fields with policy relevance (social cohesion, radicalisation, multicultural dynamics, etc.). Picking two projects out of thousands doesn’t prove systemic failure. The real issue isn’t “ideological research”. It’s the false premise that only immediately obvious, non‑specialist outcomes count as public benefit. That’s not how research works, and never has.

And why issues from countries of overseas origin are placed above issues here in our country; usually it's for international security eg Solomon Islands, Papua New Guinea, funding for unusual purposes, only benefiting those people eg millions for football in PNG, lots of waste around social cohesion, gay pride, trans pride, Indigenous affairs etc... I reckon it's money laundering not community funding?

DOGE please..