❓ Mr. Cook questions the Minister for Health about a perceived halving of Aboriginal health funding in the 2015-16 budget. The Minister responds that funding was reallocated based on the Holman review's assessment of program effectiveness, prioritizing high-quality programs.
AnsweredQoN 419Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
STATE BUDGET 2015–16 — ABORIGINAL
HEALTH
419. Mr R.H. COOK to the Minister for
Health:
Before I ask my question, I
acknowledge the students from Midvale Primary School in the member for Midland's
electorate.
I refer to the 2014–15
budget, which states that Aboriginal health will be funded at $30.3 million.
The 2015–16 budget states that funding for Aboriginal health will
receive an allocation of $49 million over a three-year period. Can the minister
confirm that he has slashed funding for Aboriginal health programs in half to
just $16.5 million per annum?
HEALTH
419. Mr R.H. COOK to the Minister for
Health:
Before I ask my question, I
acknowledge the students from Midvale Primary School in the member for Midland's
electorate.
I refer to the 2014–15
budget, which states that Aboriginal health will be funded at $30.3 million.
The 2015–16 budget states that funding for Aboriginal health will
receive an allocation of $49 million over a three-year period. Can the minister
confirm that he has slashed funding for Aboriginal health programs in half to
just $16.5 million per annum?
AnswerView source ↗
This government moved from Closing
the Gap funding to Footprints for Better Health funding. In doing that, we had
a one-year allocation of funding to allow a detailed study into the effectiveness
of the Footprints for Better Health funding and a whole range of other
Aboriginal health funding. That was conducted by Professor Holman and is titled
the Holman review. This review went through all the programs that are provided
under the Footprints for Better Health banner, as the member says, in the order
of $30-odd million. It found a range of successes and outcomes. As the member
knows, particularly with Aboriginal communities, we are going to focus our
funding on outcomes rather than inputs. It found a range of programs that were
listed as high quality and very good. Another range of programs were listed as
good and others as poor. In total, 88 per cent of the programs were listed as
either very good or good. The funding that I received through the Treasury
process only funded the programs that were listed as very good. In effect, this
halves the funding available for those programs. The view within the Department
of Health is that a lot of those programs that are listed as good still provide
a very good service and, in our view, are essential in supporting Aboriginal
communities. The Department of Health is going through all of its programs and
all of its budgets in all of the regions to find additional funding. We are
pretty confident—we will see further through estimates—that we
have reached that. We will increase that funding out of our own resources so
that we are able to fund the full 88 per cent of programs that the Holman
review listed as either very good or good. Funding will not continue for the
remaining 12 per cent that were listed as marginal or poor.
the Gap funding to Footprints for Better Health funding. In doing that, we had
a one-year allocation of funding to allow a detailed study into the effectiveness
of the Footprints for Better Health funding and a whole range of other
Aboriginal health funding. That was conducted by Professor Holman and is titled
the Holman review. This review went through all the programs that are provided
under the Footprints for Better Health banner, as the member says, in the order
of $30-odd million. It found a range of successes and outcomes. As the member
knows, particularly with Aboriginal communities, we are going to focus our
funding on outcomes rather than inputs. It found a range of programs that were
listed as high quality and very good. Another range of programs were listed as
good and others as poor. In total, 88 per cent of the programs were listed as
either very good or good. The funding that I received through the Treasury
process only funded the programs that were listed as very good. In effect, this
halves the funding available for those programs. The view within the Department
of Health is that a lot of those programs that are listed as good still provide
a very good service and, in our view, are essential in supporting Aboriginal
communities. The Department of Health is going through all of its programs and
all of its budgets in all of the regions to find additional funding. We are
pretty confident—we will see further through estimates—that we
have reached that. We will increase that funding out of our own resources so
that we are able to fund the full 88 per cent of programs that the Holman
review listed as either very good or good. Funding will not continue for the
remaining 12 per cent that were listed as marginal or poor.
Explore WA Government Data
Search the full archive in the free dashboard, or query programmatically via API.
Explore more
Government Gazette
Appointments, regulatory notices, planning changes.
Hansard
Debates, questions, speeches and sentiment.
Tabled Papers
Reports and documents tabled in Parliament.
Committees
Committee profiles and recent reports.
Regulations
Subsidiary legislation with filters and summaries.
Bills
Proposed laws and parliamentary progress.
Acts
Current WA legislation and summaries.
Explanatory Memoranda
Bills with EMs (text/PDF) available.
Members
MP profiles, party breakdown and rankings.
Pollie Rankings
Data-driven rankings across 19 categories.
Amendment Chains
Track how schemes and regulations evolve over time.