How can Tony Burke serve as the Minister for Home Affairs, responsible for our national security, authorise hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars in grants to pro-Palestinian activists?
Grant recipients going to groups who have publicly referred to Hezbollah terrorists as “men of God,” supported Intifada, and condemned Australians who stood with the Jewish community after the massacres in Israel.
When I asked how a minister can balance protecting our security on one hand while funding anti-Australian rhetoric on the other, the Labor government refused to answer, instead claiming arts grants weren’t a matter for Home Affairs and are handled at “arm’s length” by independent councils.
Taxpayer dollars should never be used to fund individuals who undermine our social cohesion and praise banned terrorist organisations.
Labor can try to hide behind bureaucratic red tape, but I won’t let this drop.
Australians deserve to know exactly where their hard-earned money is going.
— May | Senate Estimates
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: Separately: Minister, I find it confusing that, as Minister for the Arts, Minister Tony Burke authorised hundreds of thousands of dollars in grants to known pro-Palestinian activists. These recipients of Australian tax dollars publicly support anti-Australian activities; refer to the terrorists of Hezbollah as ‘men of God’; support Intifada, which is a holy war—the slaughter of non-Muslims; and condemn those Australians who support the Jewish community after the massacre in Israel. Why would he do that?
CHAIR: Senator Roberts, I would suggest that any grants administered under Minister Burke’s portfolio in the arts is not a matter for the Home Affairs portfolio. You would need to take it to—
Senator ROBERTS: But, Chair, I’m interested in this because he’s also Minister for Home Affairs.
CHAIR: But the grants you’re talking about are administered under the arts, so if you have a question relating to the grants administered there then you need to ask your questions in that hearing.
Senator ROBERTS: We will be, but isn’t that hypocrisy? Security and funding terrorists?
Senator Watt: Senator Roberts, I do think that the chair is correct. There’s a whole other estimates session devoted to arts funding and grants. But I can tell you, in a general sense, that individual decisions about grants are made at arm’s length from the minister. In the arts portfolio there are groups like the Australia Council and other groups that determine who gets what grant. Those decisions are not made by this minister or have been by previous ministers.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you, Chair.
CHAIR: Thank you for your assistance, Senator Roberts.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/1wA_nVhnx9Q/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2026-07-09 16:30:322026-07-09 16:30:36Funding Hate: The Shocking Truth About Labor’s Grants
I seemed to have upset my colleagues when I questioned why more than half a million dollars was being spent on a grant exploring “Indigenous connections to outer space” and whether Aboriginal people “cared for other planets.”
How do such projects help Australians who are living in tents, skipping meals, or struggling to pay rent?
While people are hurting, the Labor government is spending $1 billion a year on grants like this.
Taxpayers deserve to know why.
— February | Senate Estimates
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: Moving on, Dr Lara Daley at the University of Newcastle received a grant of $528,491 over three years, including salary and project costs to study: ‘Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander knowledge in Australian space policy, using songlines and creation stories, aiming to broaden understandings of outer space by identifying and supporting Aboriginal connections between space and life on Earth to develop culturally respectful and environmentally responsible space exploration.’ How would Aboriginal environmental management be better than what these days is a collective understanding of environmental management that includes Aboriginal management of the environment?
Prof. Shergold: My answer to this and other questions I suspect are going to be identical. I can do no more than describe the peer-review processes that are being used and hopefully make it clear why it would be entirely inappropriate for me or the board to step in on particular projects on which we would have far less expertise than the assessors to overturn decisions.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you, Professor Shergold. That doesn’t give the taxpayers much confidence. How would Aboriginal management be better than what these days is a collective understanding of environmental management full stop? Does the ARC expect Elon Musk to encounter an Indigenous population on Mars for which we should prepare? According to her bio, Dr Daley’s research is grounded in herself as, inter alia, ‘a white, non-Indigenous person on unceded Aboriginal country specialising in human and more-than-human research, including outer space as being already known, cared for and inhabited through Indigenous ontologies. Did Aboriginals inhabit other planets?
CHAIR: The scope of estimates is very broad, but it is contained to the operations and expenditure of departments and agencies, and I—
Senator ROBERTS: Okay, one more question.
CHAIR: Okay.
Senator ROBERTS: I wonder: did Aboriginals care for other planets in the solar system? You appear to be trying to extend Aboriginal mythology to other planets in the solar system. How far out—Pluto, Saturn, to infinity and beyond, as Buzz Lightyear said in Toy Story?
Senator FARUQI: My God. Read some books, Malcolm!
Senator ROBERTS: Australians are living in tents, struggling to buy food. Hundreds of thousands of people are struggling. Tens of thousands are living under bridges and in cars, and this is what you spend your $1 billion a year on. Unidentified speaker: Is there a question, Chair?
Senator FARUQI: Chair, please put us out of our misery.
CHAIR: Malcolm Roberts, please take a moment. Senators, I appreciate all the feelings at the table, but it is important that senators are able to be heard in silence as they ask their questions, as it is important for witnesses to be heard in silence and not spoken over. I will be enforcing this on both counts. Senator Roberts, you have the call to keep asking your question. Senators, regardless of what you think of it, please allow him to do so in silence.
Senator ROBERTS: With Australians struggling, why is this what you spend your $1 billion a year on? Taxpayers would be saying, ‘Shame on you.’
Senator Walsh: Was that for the professor or for me?
Senator ROBERTS: Both.
Senator Walsh: I’ll go first, Senator Roberts, and say that you are a politician and that you are expressing your political views right now—
Senator ROBERTS: On behalf of many constituents, yes.
Senator Walsh: and what we did is we removed politics from the processes that the ARC uses, because we believe in peer review of research not political review of research. The ARC’s process is rigorous. It is independent. As Professor Shergold has said, it is based on a strong network of peer reviewers. That is the decision of the government. We based that decision after an independent review of the ARC Act. Our reforms came into force from 1 July 2024, and we established an independent and expert ARC board to be responsible for the approval of grants, fellowships and the like. Professor Shergold and his team are discharging their obligations under the legislation to assess grant applications through these processes—through the panel, through peer review. They are discharging their obligations appropriately, and the government undermines efforts to undermine the trust in the Australian Research Council.
Prof. Shergold: You are quite right to be directing the question to me. It isn’t a ministerial decision. It is in very large measure a decision for me and the board of the ARC. You’re quite right. The reality is, as I said, that we had about 1,000 grants that were approved last year. It is inevitable that there will be 10 or 20 of those that will become highly controversial for the reasons you’ve suggested. I suppose my view is—and it’s not giving any view on any particular research—that the fact that becomes controversial is not a bad thing. The whole purpose of research is to look for new paradigms, to interpret in new ways, to provoke and, to be honest with you, to raise hackles on existence. It is the way in which we continue to improve what we do economically, socially and environmentally and have debates about culture within Australia. I can’t, like you, sit down and say, ‘I think that looks like a really good piece of research to me, and that one looks a bit whacky.’ I’ve got to be dependent upon the experts that I use. My task, as I’ve said, is to make sure that they are doing it with integrity. I want to make sure, to see, that there are no conflicts of interest. I want to look at the outcomes of that research, to make sure that all universities are getting agreement that Indigenous scholars—not just on Indigenous issues, incidentally, but Indigenous scholars in all areas—are getting fair access. That’s what I’m looking at when I look at the 4,000 grant applications we receive and the thousands of decisions we make. It’s making sure that, in all ways, the peer review process is working and, with the board, looking at ways in which it can be improved all the time.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/KfQtjTs2vls/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2026-07-09 09:15:062026-07-09 09:16:25Tents vs. Space Programs
I seemed to upset my colleagues when I questioned why the Australian Research Council is spending close to a billion dollars a year on grants that taxpayers would struggle to see any value in.
ARC leadership repeatedly hid behind “peer review processes”, refusing to justify cost-benefit while signing off on a $889,275 grant for an Arab/Muslim Australian social movements study, and another $322,213 grant that produced a commercial sold book Coming of Age in War on Terror.
While I respect independent review processes, the real issue is being ignored.
How is this supposedly “world-class system” allowing taxpayer money to be poured into niche ideological research with no demonstrated benefit to the people footing the bill?
The problem isn’t that research exists – it’s why taxpayers are being forced to fund it.
— February | Senate Estimates
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you, Chair, and thank you for appearing tonight. Good evening. I have here grant reference FT220100427 for beneficiary Dr Randa Abdel-Fattah, covering the period from 2022 to 2027, with a grant amount $802,000, since increased to $889,275. The purpose of this very large grant—inter alia—is: Arab/Muslim Australian Social Movements since the 1970s: a hidden history … aims to recover previously untapped oral histories and rare archival collections of Arab/Muslim Australian activists … Who have struggled against external systems and internal conflicts to build a socially just future … include a greater understanding of the transformative activism of communities whose movement work is often relegated to the margins. This is what you’re spending taxpayer money on. What is the cost benefit of this study sufficient to justify an almost $900,000 price tag?
Senator FARUQI: Why do you hate Muslims, Malcolm?
Senator ROBERTS: I don’t; we have some in this party.
Prof. Shergold: Let me answer that question and I’m happy to do so because the key change to the ARC legislation, as you will be aware, is that, at this stage—in most instances, not all—it is the ARC and board which make the decision on grants and not the minister. So the minister is clearly at arm’s length. Now, what do you do if you’re on a board and you are trying to make sure that you use public funds for the best purposes available for projects that are deemed by universities to be in the national interest? If you look at the number of applications that come forward, you’ll start to understand what a challenge it is. I think last year—I’m looking for the numbers—there was something about 4,000 applications.
Senator ROBERTS: Is this getting to the answer of my question?
Prof. Shergold: I am going to get there, because I want you to share my pain. We’ve got 4,000 applications and about, give or take, 25 per cent are accepted. It is quite unrealistic and very bad governance to imagine I and the board members sit down and look at 4,000 applications, even as well as presented as you’ve just done with this one, and say yes or no. How do you do it? You try and make sure you have the very best world-class system, which is a peer-review process. The role of myself, the role of the board, isn’t to go through and second-guess those expert peer reviewers in the decisions they make. My role—an important one; I feel a burden of responsibility—is to make sure that the processes that are being used are best practice in peer review and are done with honesty.
Senator ROBERTS: Is there a cost benefit?
Prof. Shergold: This was a proposal that came forward out of about was about 1,200, give or take, that were accepted last year.
Senator ROBERTS: So you can’t tell me—
Prof. Shergold: What I can tell you is we are using the best peer-review processes that we have available. It was thought by members of college of experts and then by disciplinary experts that this would be an important and innovative and, no doubt, provocative piece of research.
Senator ROBERTS: But you can’t tell me the cost benefit.
Prof. Shergold: Well, I tell you what I can do. I can tell you the cost benefit as assessed of the ARC grants overall, which we had undertaken a few years ago—
Senator ROBERTS: Is that for this grant?
Prof. Shergold: which gave a return on all our grants of about I think $3.20 on the dollar, something like that.
Senator ROBERTS: I’ll move on. This isn’t your first grant to the doctor. There was also grant DP110101249 titled ‘Youth in the digital age: Being young and Muslim in Australia’ for $322,213 covering 2018 to 2021. Now my question is: why didn’t you use the correct name of the project, which was: ‘”Trust, Politics, and Fear: ‘Generation 9/11’ Muslim and Non-Muslim youth compared”‘?
Prof. Shergold: Well, it wasn’t my piece of research.
Senator ROBERTS: This grant allowed the doctor to write a book titled Coming of Age in the War on Terror, published by Allen and Unwin. Why are you funding this person to write a book which she sold commercially and for which the doctor most likely received payment? Did she?
Prof. Shergold: I have no idea—
Senator ROBERTS: That is what bothers me.
Prof. Shergold: if she received payment from that. But I am delighted overall when pieces of research that we fund end up in books or articles. I think that was a good use of money.
Senator ROBERTS: Minister, this is socialising costs and privatising profits. Why is the Australian Research Council allowed to use taxpayer money to provide a commercial benefit to their friends in academia—paid to write the book, paid to sell the book? This seems to be a great scam going on here for academia.
Prof. Shergold: Well, in answering the question, and you were frustrated at the delay, the one thing I did show is how this is a best-practice peer-review process, and to identify that as a scam is probably stretching it somewhat.
Senator ROBERTS: Minister, why is the ARC allowed to do this—socialise costs and privatise benefits?
Senator Walsh: The ARC’s role in the process is through its independent and expert board to use the process of peer review that Professor Shergold spoke about to be responsible for the approval of grants and fellowships and so on. That’s the ARC’s role and they rely on independent peer review to discharge their obligations. I think you’re asking questions about academics then publishing books after they have conducted research which may be funded by the ARC or may be supported in other ways. I think that publishing opportunity is just a part of higher education; it is standard procedure.
Senator ROBERTS: Minister, you have been funding this person continuously since 2018. Dr Randa Abdel Fattah is a radical Islamic activist who just participated in the figurative ‘burning down’ of the Adelaide Writers Festival. Is this grant nothing more than the ARC funding Islamic activism?
Prof. Shergold: I won’t repeat the process which the minister has described well. I will say we have a college of experts carefully selected who do a first assessment. We then have detailed assessments from over 20,000 assessors from Australia and around the world that then assess each of those pieces of research. And roughly about 25 per cent of them manage to make the cut. I wish I could fund more. There are many more good projects you could, but that’s the truth. There is a process. I can’t possibly step in and start to overrule decisions of that process on the basis that I don’t like particularly the political advocacy that someone does. I’ve got to make sure on your behalf that that process is being used as well as it possibly can be to make sure that decisions are being made fairly, honestly, transparently and in the national interest.
Senator ROBERTS: They’re nice words. But I’d leave this to the taxpayers to decide. The doctor has now organised an alternative event to the Adelaide Writers Festival, which, by all reports, is designed to exclude people of a certain faith or belief. Minister, I keep on hearing about social cohesion and yet this grant has gone to a person who is attacking social cohesion to advance Islamic propaganda. Why is your grants program encouraging social conflict?
Senator Walsh: There are a lot of incorrect premises there about the role of the ARC and the grants process and the investigation that was undertaken by Macquarie University. Essentially, Professor Shergold has already gone through that process. To go over it again, briefly, the minister wrote to the ARC and, I think, to Professor Shergold and asked the ARC to look into this particular grant to the doctor and make sure that the grant was being appropriately used. The way that works is that it’s the university that receives the grant that is then tasked with doing the investigation. Macquarie University appointed academic experts to conduct the review. The review investigated whether the grant funding was being used for its intended purpose. During that process, the funding was suspended. The process concluded and the grant was reinstated. It was reinstated, as I understand it, because there was no evidence that there was an inappropriate acquittal of public funds. So that’s the process.
Prof. Shergold: The only thing I would add is that, of course, we will continue to review this grant, just as we review all the other grants.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. Minister. Just moving on then—
Senator FARUQI: Chair, may I raise a point of order?
CHAIR: Yes.
Senator FARUQI: Senator Roberts is making completely unfounded and false allegations about a very respected academic and researcher. I would really like you to ask him to withdraw those or stop that line of questioning.
Senator ROBERTS: I’d like to move on, Chair.
CHAIR: Senator Roberts, you need to wait for me to respond to the point of order before you can direct the committee to move on. I take your point, Senator Faruqi, but I don’t believe there has been a breach of the standing orders from what I can observe. But I would just remind all senators, as we continue through this session, to do so respectfully of the witnesses and topics we’re dealing with and of each other at the table. Senator Roberts, you still have the call.
During this Estimates session, I questioned why the National Australia Day Council’s website and their 2024-25 report seem to treat our flag as an afterthought. The report is full of glossy photos, yet the Australian flag is almost entirely absent, appearing only incidentally.
Is this a government directive to ignore our flag, or is the Council doing this on its own?
I noted that there has been a massive 120% increase in the Council’s grant budget, jumping from $4.5 million to $10 million. While the government claims this supports local events, I pointed out that this funding is being directed toward “reflective” activities like truth-telling workshops and smoking ceremonies.
I expressed concern that major events, such as the flag-raising in Sydney, emphasise Indigenous flags while the presence of the Australian flag remains unclear or secondary.
I confronted Minister Wong directly on whether the ALP government has “declared war” on our Western heritage. I wanted to know if this administration is ashamed of our history, as their actions suggest a move away from the traditional celebration of our nation.
The government’s response was to hide behind the “independence” of the Council, though they admitted to supporting these funding shifts.
I asked if they were ashamed of our heritage and the Minister responded with a simple “no,” – however their actions on the ground tell a different story.
— Senate Estimates | February 2026
Transcript
CHAIR: We are now going to rotate the call. I will go to Senator Roberts.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for attending again. Good afternoon. Minister, national identity is important. I’m sure you’d agree. It’s one of the core issues for any country: national identity. Could you please explain why the website for the National Australia Day Council does not show the Australian flag? Does the government or the Prime Minister believe the Australian flag is not appropriate to the celebration of Australia Day?
Senator Wong: Which website, sorry?
Senator ROBERTS: The National Australia Day Council.
Senator Wong: I think they appear separately, Senator. I’m not trying to be difficult.
Senator ROBERTS: I understand that, but you’re overseeing them.
Senator Wong: Am I?
Senator ROBERTS: Your government is.
CHAIR: I don’t believe they’ve been requesting the Australian flag.
Senator ROBERTS: I want to know what the government’s attitude is.
Mr Walter: Senator, the National Australia Day Council is a Commonwealth company, and they make their own decisions about their website. I haven’t looked at their website recently, but I can do that. But they’re an independent body. There’s an independent council that’s appointed that manages the secretariat and the company, so those decisions are a matter for it.
Senator ROBERTS: Let’s continue. The 2024-25 report by the National Australia Day Council has lots of glossy pages full of photos of the world that matters to them. No Australian flags are treated as a photo illustration. Three are seen in incidental shots. Is the National Australia Day Council acting on a government instruction to ignore that we have a national flag, or are they doing so on their own initiative?
Mr Walter: As I said, Senator, the National Australia Day Council is a company. It’s an independent company set up under Commonwealth company legislation. It makes its own decisions.
Senator ROBERTS: I understand the National Australia Day Council budget for grants has risen from $4½ million in 2025, last year, to $10 million in 2026—a 120 per cent increase, more than double. This covers 849 grants in the amounts of $2,000 and 869 grants of $10,000 for larger events and a special rate for Aboriginal groups of up to $15,000. Are you aware, is this correct and do you condone it?
Mr Walter: The government absolutely supports the grants process. Funding has been provided over many years for a grants program for the National Australia Day Council. What those grants are used for is to host Australia Day events. That’s the purpose of the grants. They’re provided largely to local government instrumentalities to support their holding of Australia Day functions—functions in support of Australia Day. So, yes, the government does support that program.
Senator ROBERTS: This funding included funding for smoking ceremonies, truth-telling workshops and cultural performances and multicultural events. Direct National Australia Day Council examples include capital city events like Sydney’s flag-raising with Indigenous flags. Did those flag-raising events include the Australian flag?
Mr Walter: I’d have to take that on notice. I assume so, but I would have to take it on notice. I didn’t attend the events, but I would presume they did, yes. They’re for Australia Day.
Senator ROBERTS: This is my last question on this topic before switching briefly. I understand Minister Gorman required the National Australia Day Council to conduct these events—Minister Gorman; that’s my understanding—which he calls reflective. Minister, has the ALP government declared war on our Western heritage and flag? Are you, as a government, ashamed of our heritage?
I raised with Creative Australia the “rumoured” $800,000 grant to Sara M. Saleh. While the CEO, Mr. Collette, could not confirm this specific figure, he did clarify that artist Khaled Sabsabi, whose political views have been a point of contention, has received over $800,000 from the agency over the last 20 years, including his current representation of Australia at the Venice Biennale.
I questioned why a commercial entity like APRA, with record revenues of $740 million, requires $4.3 million in taxpayer-funded grants. This raises the question: should public money subsidise the talent development of a profitable private firm? We must ask if these funds are supporting growth or simply replacing private capital.
I also sought clarity on the accounting for Aboriginal arts programs. It was confirmed that approximately $32.1 million is dedicated to First Nations creative practice out of a total grant pool of $285 million.
Several questions have been put on notice. I will wait for the exact figures on overseas spending, recent grants to Mr. Sabsabi, and the specific KPIs from their annual report to ensure that “investment” isn’t just a buzzword for unchecked spending.
My focus remains on ensuring that government funding serves the Australian public effectively and stays clear of political extremism.
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for appearing today. My first question is on behalf of a constituent, who provided it, actually. It is a fact check on social media reports that Sara M Saleh, a Palestinian Australian writer, activist and human rights lawyer, has received an $800,000 grant from Creative Australia. We can’t find anything on your website, and it’s a larger grant than usual. Do you have any information on this?
Mr Collette: I don’t have specific information. If you let me speculate for one moment, I think that, if it were a grant of that size, I would be aware of it. But we will have to take that on notice to check it.
Senator ROBERTS: If you could, please.
Mr Collette: You have to remember that we give about 3,700 grants and contracts a year.
Senator ROBERTS: In reviewing your grants, we can see a lot that appear to be for the purpose of sending Australians overseas. My question is not criticism at this point. Please explain how much was spent sending artists or students overseas and what the cost benefit for taxpayers was.
Mr Collette: I will have to take that on notice and get you the final figure. But, yes, we do invest in programs to send artists overseas. That is done for the best possible reasons: to support their careers and to make sure that great Australian storytelling and music making are experienced overseas. I’d ask you to keep this in mind, particularly in the fields of literature and contemporary music: we are a relatively small English-speaking market competing increasingly against very large English-speaking markets. Since the establishment of Revive, in particular, we’ve doubled down on supporting Australian artists to establish their careers overseas. We are at a particular moment now in contemporary music, for example, where we find that Australians have never listened to more music, because of streaming services, but that the Australian artists they are listening to constitute only about eight per cent of that. So we have a big challenge ahead of us. The way we are working in contemporary music, in particular, is through matched and incentive grants, which I think is a great development in Creative Australia. We have a very strong eye on export. We will co-invest in an artist and a career with a record label with other forms of matched funding that are trying to break this artist overseas.
Senator ROBERTS: Khaled Sabsabi and his extremist political views have been an issue for Creative Australia. First, he was our Venice Biennale selection, then he wasn’t, then he is again—perhaps—then he had a large grant, then it was a $100,000 ‘sorry’ grant. Can you provide us the latest on Khaled Sabsabi, please? What sort of money is he being given? Is he representing us in any way?
Mr Collette: He’s representing us, I’m very pleased to say, at the Venice Biennale, which opens in May this year. You’re aware of the history. We recommissioned Khaled Sabsabi as the artist and Michael Dagostino as his curator. We have worked very closely, as we do with all our Venice artists, to support the development of their work.
Senator ROBERTS: How much money has he received from Creative Australia?
Mr Collette: All up, we believe he’s received slightly in excess of $800,000 over a 20-year period. That includes his commissions for Venice.
Senator ROBERTS: What about the last 12 months?
Mr Collette: In the last 12 months he’s received—I’m trying to get the dates right in my head—his commission for Venice and he’s also applied for, competitively, and received a grant. Actually, more accurately, I think the South Australian gallery did to ensure that the work he does in Venice is able to be brought home so that Australians get to enjoy the work as well.
Senator ROBERTS: What would that total in the last 12 months?
Mr Collette: To get you an exact number, I’d have to take it on notice.
Senator ROBERTS: That’s fine. Moving on, I note your continued strong spending on orchestras, theatre and dance. Thank you for that. This question goes to accounting, not to Australian values. You list the Australian Cultural Fund at $13.5 million, which includes several programs for First Nations. Then you have a line item for First Nations of $15.6 million. Is this figure the total spend for dedicated First Nations and Aboriginal arts programs or just an element of it? If not, what was the total spend on Aboriginal grants?
Mr Collette: We can get you that number. I think the number you are alluding to—the $15 million—under Revive we established a dedicated First Nations fund with its own First Nations board that has decision-making rights over the spending of those funds.
Senator ROBERTS: So you give money to the board and they disburse it?
Mr Collette: Yes. We had that fund, and the First Nations board, appointed by the minister, has decision making rights on how that fund is invested. What I’m trying to get for you is the total—I think the total for 2024- 25 invested in First Nation creative practice and arts was $32.1 million.
Senator ROBERTS: To give the figure context, for those new to the subject, this is out of a total spent on grants of $285 million—correct?
Mr Collette: Yes.
Senator ROBERTS: And about $74 million for orchestras, including regional.
Mr Collette: As a part of the creative sector, the orchestras constitute our biggest area of funding. That is as part of the National Partnership Framework. Importantly, that is an understanding of co-investment with all the states and territories as well. We fund each of the state orchestras, plus the territory orchestras. We co-invest with the states.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. I note that the Australasian Performing Right Association, APRA, has received around $4.3 million in grants in the last three years. APRA had record revenue last year of $740 million, with revenue noticeably outpacing inflation. Isn’t it their job to develop local talent and then benefit from increased Australian airplay and the royalties they collect from their talent? They have a great business model here, it seems. Why are taxpayers funding a commercial operation that should be funding new talent themselves?
Mr Collette: They do indirectly fund new talent, because their business collects receipts for—
Senator ROBERTS: So why should you be funding it?
Mr Collette: Well, the most particular thing we do with APRA is fund Sounds Australia. That is an organisation that we have funded historically, and we chose to continue that funding, even after the establishment of Music Australia, because it is such an effective way of supporting Australian artists to get to and benefit from overseas markets.
Senator ROBERTS: But can’t the Australasian Performing Right Association—which are a commercial entity, by the sound of it—do it on their own? They’re developing the talent and they’re making money off it.
Mr Collette: You’ll have to ask them that question.
Senator ROBERTS: But you’re giving them money, so you—
Mr Collette: We’re giving them money because we think it is very good value for money, given the expertise they bring to supporting Australian artists to get to overseas markets.
Senator ROBERTS: Are you replacing private funding with government funding?
Mr Collette: Not at all. In fact, it’s growing, I’m happy to say. To get back to first principles, under Revive, our revised legislation allowed us, really for the first time, to co-invest. That means co-invest with philanthropic interests. It means co-invest with commercial interests. That is why, for example, if we want to invest in Australian artists getting overseas, we can ensure that we are co-investing with commercial interests to try and drive the value of our government funding further.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. There are only a few more quick questions to go. Doesn’t the music industry need more live venues? Have you done any grants in that area?
Mr Collette: I don’t think we’ve done any grants specifically into live venues, no.
Senator ROBERTS: You call these grants ‘investments’, yet we don’t see any mention of a return on investment—how Australia benefited from the spend. How many people attended events that you funded?
Mr Collette: We do have that number. I will get it to you. In the last annual report it was upwards of $14 million.
Senator ROBERTS: Last question: do you have any performance metrics to ensure that you are spending where the public want it spent, as evidenced by ticket sales, artwork sales—some tangible KPI?
Mr Collette: Yes, we do. If you look at our annual report, we report against KPIs, and attendance at the events we fund is very much part of that. Again, because of Revive, we will be putting an even greater emphasis on audience and market development going forward.
Senator ROBERTS: Where can we get that figure?
Mr Collette: We can get it for you. It is in the annual report last published.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/osyruYyYqYI/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2026-05-07 13:08:372026-05-07 13:08:40Political Extremism and the Public Purse
As the Parliament passes another $400 million in research grants I have a question that no one seems to be able to answer: What return are we actually getting for these huge amounts of taxpayer money?
Transcript
As a servant to the people of Queensland and Australia, I have concerns about the Higher Education Support Amendment (Australia’s Economic Accelerator) Bill 2022. We can hear the cheers of joy from the research rent-seekers. This bill includes a huge $400 million grant program, over four years, adding to the nearly $4 billion a year the government already spends on research. Research is important; I know that myself. In the past Australia has led the world on innovation. Yet I’m not convinced the government deserves the credit for our country men and women’s inventions.
Research is not just about money. I’m not convinced that a huge, centralised, bloated federal government splashing huge amounts of cash is going to supercharge our economy. Science grants have already been responsible across science sectors for corrupting science. We see that in climate. We see that in COVID. We see that in water management and many other areas. Money for advocacy on behalf of government ideology—that is what has plagued the CSIRO and turned it into a siphon for taxpayer funds. In return, the CSIRO is now corrupting science and being an advocate.
Don’t take my word for it. I’m talking about senior research scientists who have retired from CSIRO saying exactly what I just said. CSIRO is now an advocacy group for government ideology and policy—not just the Labor Party but the general policies that have been pushed by governments. Australia’s Economic Accelerator has a focus on translating research to commercial outcomes. Sounds good! Has it occurred to anyone that the reason some of that research has not been translated into a commercial outcome might be that businesses have looked at the research and decided it’s a terrible business idea? What if we’re spending nearly half a billion dollars here to flog dead horses or giving taxpayer money to companies which would have commercialised the research anyway, without grants, because it’s a good business idea? That’s the point: in a free society, not corrupted by massive bloated government, merit determines what succeeds.
These handouts for projects that businesses would have undertaken anyway are corporate welfare, or maybe they’re corporate bribes. Only the big companies will get access to this corporate welfare. Small business misses out yet again. Only the huge corporates can hire the grand consultants, navigate the forests and weeds of more than 200 grant scheme programs through which the government provides research funding, and make the applications.
The Department of Education confesses that most submissions to the University Research Commercialisation Action Plan:
… agreed that there is no ‘silver bullet’ solution to improving research commercialisation outcomes, and that new reforms need to be integrated across the whole research commercialisation ecosystem.
Anyone reading between the lines on those bureaucratic super buzzwords will realise that no-one really knows if the economic accelerator will do much to achieve its supposed purpose. We know that the biggest brake—b-r-a-k-e—on our country, and particularly our country’s innovation, is big, bloated government pushing on the brake and the accelerator at the same time.
There’s a big assumption underpinning this bill and research funding in Australia. It assumes that a big, bloated federal government, with bureaucrats sitting in Canberra enforcing grant guidelines, will lead to innovation and commercial activity. That’s a big assumption. If we want true innovation—I think we all do—and a boost in commercial activity, government grants are a terrible way to do it. Government is the one standing in the way. It’s not just the Labor-Greens government; it’s also the former Liberal-National government. The government is the one standing in the way of innovation and commercial outcomes.
Instead of grants, how about this: get government policy focused on getting back to basics, firstly making electricity as cheap as humanly possible, after government has spent decades blowing up the price of electricity with artificial subsidies that are destroying our electricity sector. That ripples right through the economy; every sector uses electricity. Once it has been made expensive, there goes the competitive advantage that used to apply. Aluminium smelters are now shutting down, rather than coming on, because they can’t afford the electricity.
Secondly, simplify industrial relations. Instead of protecting the industrial relations club members—large foreign and domestic corporates, unaccountable union bosses, lawyers, consultants and bureaucrats—exploiting workers, as I’ve discussed so many times, and suppressing small and medium-sized businesses, we need an industrial relations system that protects workers and enables small and medium-sized enterprise to get on with the job of employing people.
Thirdly, fix the taxation system’s hideous complexity and the counterproductive behaviours that it drives. Fix the taxation system with comprehensive reform so that multinationals pay their fair share of tax and relieve the burden on families and on Australian companies struggling under a high tax burden in times of severe inflation—yet another highly regressive government financial burden.
Do these three things, Minister, and watch the commercialisation of research take off. The government will never have to make another grant. One Nation will not oppose this bill. Without proper reform of the important parts of our economy, though, research grants are just flogging a dead horse. I will be returning to the topic of research grants lacking accountability, which is such a widespread problem in our country.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/ZfVYRwYKLnI/hqdefault.jpg360480Sheenagh Langdonhttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSheenagh Langdon2023-03-07 16:02:052023-03-07 16:02:09How much is getting invented for $4.5 billion?
