Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee, , 2:41:19 to 2:49:18
Examination of funding allocations within the Indigenous Australians Health Programme (IAHP) and the percentage of support directed toward community-controlled health organizations.
Topics: Health, First Nations, Government spending
Speakers: Hon Anne Ruston, Melinda Turner, Blair Comley, Ben Barratt, Unknown Speaker
Uh thank you. I've just got a few questions in relation to um the Indigenous Australians Health Programme. And then just as a um I've got some questions in relation to proton therapy. I need the AIHW, NHMRC and the Rural Health Commissioner. And so that they're all ready to come. Thank you, Ms. Turner. Um there's been some concerns I understand in relation to the funding of the um uh of the indigenous um Australians health programme through uh trows and I understand um from the portfolio budget statements that the share of um IAHP funding going to Aboriginal Community Controlled Health Organisations has fallen from 77% to 76% from 25-26 to appropriations for 27-28, 26-27. Is that correct?
Uh no, that's actually the other way around, Senator. Sorry, I'm Melinda Turner first. Um the result in 24-25 was um 76%.
Yep.
Uh the 25-26 result is actually up to 77%.
Okay, and in 26-20, so that's so 25-26 is 77, you said?
Yes, that's right.
Okay, 26-27.
Uh we don't have 26 uh 27 uh figures at the at the moment.
So you haven't got a budget for 26, 27 for 10.
We do, but we don't have the um uh the split of that information. I can get take that on notice and get that for you. So I just don't have that in front of me at the time.
Okay, well, according to the portfolio budget statements, it's gone back from 77 back to 76. I'm just interested to understand if if that's the case. So let's just assume it's the case. I understand that you will confirm that. Yes. Um, what would a one percentage point represent in dollars?
Uh I'll have to take that on on notice as well, Senator.
Um so my understanding is um that the department went through a selection process to get the organisations um who would to be invited to apply for the funding, is that correct?
No, that that's not correct. I you might be referring to it depends on what you're referring to in terms of uh one of our any of our grants programs that we run.
Um I'm referring to the um the Indigenous Australians Health Programme.
Uh so it's not an application based. So majority of our funding goes to um through our comprehensive um primary health care funding. Um so that is to the Aboriginal Community Controlled uh Health Services. Um those uh the they're actually um Aboriginal Community Controlled Health Organizations um that are not it's not an application based process. They're actually members of NATO.
Okay, so in order for you for a um an Aboriginal controlled health provider to be able to access funding under this program. Yes, are they required to be a member of NATO?
Uh yes. So we have a sorry I'm disciplined to my public.
Um sorry, Ben Barrett, Assistant Secretary of Crusaders. Um not all not all indigenous indigenous organisations funded through the IHP are members of NACO, but some programs like the comprehensive primary health care program would require that you were a member of either NATO or an affiliate.
Okay. So in terms of the selection of the organisations that receive funding under the programs, what role does NATO play in selecting those organizations?
So NATO, well we work very closely with NATO as the national organisation in terms of um funding organisations through the comprehensive primary uh health care funding because they they are Aboriginal Community Control Health Organizations. Um we do have different streams of funding. So for example, um our child and maternal health program is um like it is a separate programme, and so the way that is that is designed is with the child and maternal health sector, which may be different to the RCO sector. So it does depend on what programme we are funding and the guidelines that we have over each of each of those programs.
Okay, I'm just trying to understand um I mean obviously there are organizations that would be captured by um uh you know appropriate organisations to do leaving services under these programs, um of whom would not be members of NACO.
That's that's correct.
Um just trying to keep to understand the process here in terms of the influence of NACO over the determination of where that funding goes to because I suppose is it possible to provide a breakdown of the funding that that goes to each of the organizations under the IHP.
Yes, absolutely, Senator. We can I can provide that on on notice. Uh and as I said, it is it is dependent on the programme, the programme guidelines that sit sit across it, um, and then who is eligible for funding under under those programmes.
So I'm happy to provide that for the sure and um and and and maybe this will be contained in that information, but I just sort of interested to understand how you assure yourselves um that there are no claims of conflicted interest um in the process of doing that.
Yes, uh yes, I can provide that as well.
I can speak to that very briefly, Senator. So under the First Nations Health Infrastructure Programme, we actually um both co-design the the grant opportunity guidelines and assess with NATO,
but we include uh a probity advisor through the entire process. So we have an independent probity advisor that ensures um you know NATO were aware of their obligations, provides recommendations to ensure you know probity is considered through each step of the process.
Yeah. Okay, that's great. Thank you very much.
But Senator, I just children. I think um I found the part of the portfolio budget statements that you were referring to.
Yeah, it's page 59.
Yeah, thank you. I found it myself, but it would be nice to know 59 on the way through. I just want to make a distinction here in the portfolio budget statements because um the number you were quoting for 76% is actually um not a forecast of what we're gonna do, but the planned performance result.
Yep.
So in 2526, the actual planned performance result or the target was 74%.
Yes, I can read it too.
Yeah, but I'm just but the point I'm really making is it's a different concept. This is a glide path of a of a target, not what we actually think is going to happen. So we outperformed in 25-26.
So we won't know till next year where that's the same.
We may in fact outperform that. So it's not a lowering of ambition, it's actually a ramping up of the target trajectory.
Okay, no problem at all. Um, so it's it's actually the relativity here is 74 to 76 as opposed to seven, six. Okay, yeah, totally understand. Maybe you should have been more ambitious if you've got 77 last year, maybe she'd have seventy eight.
We've got 78, then 80 and 82 over the Ford Estimates.
That's fine, thank you.