Warren Snowdon (Lingiari, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for External Territories) Share this | Hansard source

During the budget there was great fanfare given to the release of a document announcing a $138 million package: the 1967 Referendum—50th Anniversary Indigenous Education Package. Among other things, it included $40 million to the Clontarf Foundation, which provides programs for boys in schools—a very successful and very good program. It also provided $5 million for the Brisbane Broncos for Beyond the Broncos Girls Academy, $3 million for the Wirrpanda Foundation for Deadly Sister Girlz program, $1 million for the Stars Foundation and $4 million for Role Models and Leaders Australia. These are all programs for young women.

There were other moneys made available: scholarship money to the Australian Indigenous Education Foundation, $30 million; the MADALAH Limited education scholarships, $1 million; Yalari Limited education scholarships, $1 million. Then there is capital infrastructure money for the Cape York girls program, Power Community Ltd and the Young Australian League. My issue here is the difference between the funding of boys programs and girls programs. The boys programs are funded three to one, so almost 75½ per cent of the funding for programs went to boys and 24½ per cent went to girls. I wonder if there is an explanation as to this inequity.

I would like to ask the minister: what measures are being taken to rectify this situation? Is the minister able to explain the differences between the various programs funded under these headings for girls programs, how they differ from one another, how they are being evaluated and how the Clontarf program is being evaluated? Can the minister say what other funds have been invested in any or all of these programs? I understand that they have been given funding before. I am assuming that that funding is ongoing.

A real question that arises out of this is: once that funding period for this allocated money finishes, will there be ongoing funding made available? You can appreciate that these programs are set up in schools. They meet the expectations of the community, we hope; they have the involvement of teachers, parents and kids. If they are not guaranteed funding beyond the funding period, then their funding is likely to cease, which means the programs stop and people get disappointed. We need to know: what are the commitments being made by the government to make sure these program funds are ongoing?

It would be interesting if the minister could also explain the funding periods that these funds have been available for, specifically the ones I have mentioned. I note the Clontarf program is funded until, it appears, December 2020. When are the other programs being funded until? That is the $40 million made available. What are the funding periods for the other programs and, if they are different, why is that the case? What is the explanation for the difference? As I said earlier, what is the process for evaluating the success or otherwise of these programs?

I should point out that I have observed many of these programs in operation, particularly Stars and Clontarf because they work alongside each other in schools in the Northern Territory. I have to say, they are regarded as very valuable by the school community. They are very successful—as I read success—in retaining people at school and providing pathways into the future. That is a very important—but not the only—outcome. They are also important in improving social and emotional wellbeing and recognising the importance of mental health and other issues related to young Aboriginal men and women. I would appreciate a detailed response from the minister around these issues and, if he cannot respond himself, I am wondering if can make sure that he takes it on notice and gets back to me about them.

See this speech in context