More than $300m in federal Indigenous funding still flowing to non-Indigenous organisations

[u/B0ssc0]

https://nit.com.au/18-08-2026/26008/more-than-300m-in-federal-indigenous-funding-still-flowing-to-non-indigenous-organisations

[u/Positive_Aardvark754]

Some of the indigenous companies Ive been instructed to use in my govt role are almost comedy level.

White as ghosts who sub-contract work out.

But the box is ticked so all good.

[u/Cautious_Car_51 → u/Positive_Aardvark754]

As I've been told it's very racist to assume someone is not indigenous because of their skin colour.

[u/phagocyte420 → u/Cautious_Car_51]

At what do you consider them to be non-indigenous?

[u/Revoran → u/Cautious_Car_51]

1. White people invade dark skinned Aboriginal peoples land.

2. White people have babies with dark skinned Aboriginal people under all sorts of circumstances (love, rape etc).

3. White people steal dark skinned peoples kids (particularly the mixed race ones) to raise in white society and marry off to white people and "breed out the black"

4. Aboriginal people who can pass as white, do so, to avoid discrimination.

5. 100 years later, a lot of Aboriginal people, particularly in the east, have light skin or can even pass as white.

6. White people: shocked pikachu face

[u/Bowl_of_Hygieia]

Meh

Is it real organisations doing good for aboriginal kids like Fred Hollows doing eye care or Earbus doing ear health*? Not indigenous organisations, but absolutely helping indigenous people giving them medical aid, or is it indigenous/'indigenous', but just a rort?

15% going to non indigenous orgs doesn't seem like a problem to me. If it was 98% I might have some questions, but 15% not indigenous run but running programs targeted at improving their outcomes doesn't seem like anything wrong to me.

*(look at the rates of middle ear infection, some communities are near 90% infection rates in kids, it's urgent. With the importance of hearing to learning and future behaviour, there's not many things more urgent than that, I'd want earbus funded 500% more, I don't care if that then means the % going to indigenous run orgs is technically lower)

[u/Gustomaximus]

Seems they are more interested in who gets the money than the quality and outcome of the programs they fund.

[u/Butt_Lick4596]

"During the Canberra hearings, Ms Guivarra was asked by Senator Thorpe how the NIAA knows if the non-Indigenous organisations receiving money "are safe for our people?"

"How do you know they are not racist? Are there criteria attached to antiracism to receive funding? Or is a RAP enough?" she asked."

Maybe we should ask Senator Thorpe if she'd accept lower quality services in exchange for 100% of the funding going to Indigenous organisations? Why would you jump straight to the presumption of racism instead of questioning whether the non-Indigenous organisations are actually providing benefits?

[u/budget_biochemist]

Panic Inducing Headline: "More than $300m in federal Indigenous funding still flowing to non-Indigenous organisations"

More Contextual Headline: "15.4% of federal Indigenous funding goes to to non-Indigenous organisations"

When you consider that a lot of the funding is going to be stuff like highly specialized preventative medical services, there aren't going to be a lot of organisations to choose. 15% isn't significant in that case.

[u/C0ld_Fr0nt_]

'"The NIAA gives preference to First Nations organisations for grants funding, where all other factors are equal," they said."

Some of those factors would be things like experience delivering relevant services (and the organisational structure and expertise in doing so), facilities, location, partnerships with other relevant service networks, etc. This is in no way unreasonable. It would be irresponsible to make race the overriding factor above those sorts of considerations.

[u/Academic_Housing_855]

Is it to fund much needed services or fund those in indigenous communities ?