Posts

Where is Our Flag?

,

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?  

Senator Wong: No and no.  

/0 Comments/by

Political Extremism and the Public Purse

,

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.  

Senator ROBERTS: Send us that on notice.  

Mr Collette: Sure.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you very much. 

/0 Comments/by

How much is getting invented for $4.5 billion?

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. 

/3 Comments/by