Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Disability
reprieve
groups
granted
temporary
The Assistant Social Services Ministers announcement of a short term extension to our
funding is welcomed.
Minister Mitch Fifield went further by putting on the public record that he will find a new way
to ensure the continuance of organisations such as Deafness Forum.
The Government has shown it is prepared to temper the ambition of its economic agenda
with empathy for disadvantaged and vulnerable members of the Australian community.
are choosing bilingualism, there are certain physiological facts that cannot be overcome. I
am shocked and offended that Deafness Forum would post an article with such a flagrantly
ignorant headline.
Toni: Hearing is not listening. Deaf children can be taught to listen. I agree - the headline
is wrong. But equally concerning is the concept of "just" signing.
Rachael: Hearing and speaking does not always equate understanding. When one
understands a concept whether it be conveyed via speaking or signing, that is success and
this is the success we should be measuring.
Liz: Gosh I SO wish this was available to me when I was growing up - I had NO support
whatsoever, and I STILL fumble pronouncing some words. I'm SO grateful for my cochlear
implant now because I am hearing so many sounds I never knew existed when I was
young.
Jodes: As an oral deaf kid I learnt to communicate with speechies and sign (family) and I'm
grateful to have both languages Auslan and English as strong as each other. My
preference is to sign but my language is both when I need it to be.. Glad I was given the
learning to love and live in both worlds.
The Governments proposed sale of Australian Hearing was raised at a recent Senate
Estimates hearing in Canberra.
Based on the responses to questions it seems that changes are highly likely and will be
announced in the Budget in May.
Transcript
Senator Cormann: In the budget last year we announced that there would be scoping
studies into future ownership options with the potential sale of four Commonwealth assets:
Defence Housing Australia, the ASIC registry services, the Royal Australian Mint and
Australian Hearing. That is a matter of public record. Those scoping studies have been
pursued under the leadership of the Department of Finance and they are in various stages
of completion. As the government indicated in the budget last year, we will consider any
recommendations and any findings as part of the 2015-16 budget process. But let me say
up-front that we will consider any such advice with a completely open mind; we do not have
any predetermined views. Our focus will be on what delivers the best possible outcomes
for relevant stakeholders and for the community at the best possible price.
Senator SMITH: Has the government yet given any public guarantees with regard to what
future support Hearing Services might receive in the event that it is sold?
Senator Cormann: The support for Hearing Services is not connected to the ownership of
Australian Hearing, which is a matter for the Health portfolio, actually. I might just ask
Secretary Halton, given her current and past responsibilities, to give you some more
information on this.
Ms Halton: As the minister says, I think it is important to make the distinction here between
the actual entity itself and the guarantee in relation to the services that are provided. There
are a number of things that are important and, as you know, as a former health secretary,
being able to ensure that people actually get access to needed services is incredibly
important. But one of the things that we also know is that the market is actually changing
quite significantly. So being able to say to people, 'The community service obligation is
very important and people getting access to needed services is very important'but
obviously the scoping study is looking at how that market currently works and where
Hearing Services sits in that context. In fact, as you know, there are a number of major
changes going on in this space at the moment, most particularly with the NDIS.
Senator SMITH: Agreed, yes.
Ms Halton: So the reality is that we are not in a steady state environment. It is more than
timelyit is actually necessarythat we have a look at these arrangements because I think
that it would be generally agreed that a commitment to make sure that people have access
to appropriate and needed services is a fundamental part of all of the other things that are
going on around us at the moment.
Senator Cormann: There is a very important point that is directly relevant to your question,
and that is, what is driving the service levels and the guarantees around the community
service obligations as far as the customer group and Australian Hearing are concerned. It is
really driven by the Office of Hearing Services in the Department of Health. It is the Office of
Hearing Services in the Department of Health which exercises direct control over the cost of
service delivery through control of service pricing and funding levels.
The important point here is that nothing that the government may or may not do in relation
to the future ownership of Australian Hearing Services really in any way impacts on the
eligibility for important support, which is really driven by determinations that are made in the
Health portfolio. Just to put this into context, with Australian Hearing, 70 per cent of their
revenue actually comes from providing services to pensioners, to Defence personnel and to
veterans. They provide that service as part of a completely contested market. There are
about 240-odd providers in the marketplace, compared with Australian Hearing, in relation
to that particular business.
The terms and conditions, if you like, around eligibility and around how much is paid and
whatever are really driven through a voucher program which facilitates access for that part
of the population to those services. The community service obligation really is about
providing hearing services to children and young Australians and various other vulnerable
groupsIndigenous people and the likeand that is where it really goes to the heart of the
community service obligation, which is managed by the Office of Hearing Services in the
Health portfolio. Nothing that the government may or may not do in relation to Australian
Hearing will have any bearing on any of these eligibility criteria. That is a very important
point.
Senator SMITH: The eligibility criteriaif I have heard you correctly, Ministeris part of the
relationship between the Department of Health and Australian Hearing. Is that what you
are saying?
Ms Halton: The reality is that the CSO is actually covered by legislation and it is part of the
Department of Health's responsibility to make sure that those obligations are realised. The
fact is that it is currently delivered by Hearing Services, although, in fact, there is some
change anticipated in that and, as you know, with the advent of the NDIS, it was always the
former government's intentionand, as we know, there is bipartisan support for the NDIS
to actually include that CSO funding for the groups that will transition in in the NDIS.
The minister talks about the part of the market that is contestable, although I should
observe that Hearing Services, probably for a series of reasons, have not grown that part of
their market anywhere near as significantly as the private providers. At the same time, the
NDIS will also be significantly changing the approach to the delivery of services to people
who are eligible, people with disability and a potentially significant groupand Mr Thomann
can probably go to some of this detailwho are currently in receipt of CSO obligations.
That funding is earmarked into the NDIS. So, by definition, this world is going to change
fairly significantly. Those decisions have already been taken, but Mr Thomann can
probably
Senator SMITH: No. There was a lot in what the minister and you have shared with us.
Senator Cormann: This is a very important aspect though. What the secretary has just
talked about is really very important for everyone to understand. When we talk about these
issues, I appreciate that there are a lot of stakeholders across the community who take a
very close interest in this because of their care for loved ones and their perception of what
may or may not happen to the services for their children and so on in the future, depending
on what decision the government might make. So we have got to separate out the benefits
and services that people are entitled to from the provision of those services.
When you look at the way Australian Hearing operate right now, 70 per cent of their
revenue is generated in a completely contestable market already, where they are
competing with 240 other private providers; the other 30 per cent so far has not been part of
a contestable market. But what the secretary has just indicated to you was a very important
consideration as we grapple with the decision about the best way forwardthat is, as a
result of the NDIS, which is being pursued in a bipartisan way, the other 30 per cent is also
going to a contestable market where Australian Hearing will have to compete with all of
these other providers. What we have to think about is, in that context, what is the best way
for Australian Hearing to position itself in that market in the strongest possible way in order
to be able to meet those opportunities?
Senator SMITH: I do not want to lose my train of questioning, so my question was: what, if
any, public guarantees have the government given regarding support for Hearing Services
in the event that Australian Hearing Services is sold?
Ms Halton: in legislation, and let us be very clear, what we are talking about here is access
and quality; they are important considerations. There are a number of people at this table
who have worked in the health portfolio. This is something which we understand is
extremely important to consumers. It is also amenable to people running a scare
campaign, so we need to be very clear that we are on about protecting access and quality
for people. There are commercial issues about the running of Australian Hearing at the
moment which, if they are allowed to run as they currently are, will present a serious
problem in terms of delivering that access and quality, NDIS being one part of it. So they
are all issues that we are currently considering, but access and quality and the guarantee
are very important to be understood.
The important point here is that nothing that the government may or may not do in relation
to the future ownership of Australian Hearing Services really in any way impacts on the
eligibility for important support, which is really driven by determinations that are made in the
Health portfolio. Just to put this into context, with Australian Hearing, 70 per cent of their
revenue actually comes from providing services to pensioners, to Defence personnel and to
veterans. They provide that service as part of a completely contested market. There are
about 240-odd providers in the marketplace, compared with Australian Hearing, in relation
to that particular business.
The terms and conditions, if you like, around eligibility and around how much is paid and
whatever are really driven through a voucher program which facilitates access for that part
of the population to those services. The community service obligation really is about
providing hearing services to children and young Australians and various other vulnerable
groupsIndigenous people and the likeand that is where it really goes to the heart of the
community service obligation, which is managed by the Office of Hearing Services in the
Health portfolio. Nothing that the government may or may not do in relation to Australian
Hearing will have any bearing on any of these eligibility criteria. That is a very important
point.
Senator SMITH: The eligibility criteriaif I have heard you correctly, Ministeris part of the
relationship between the Department of Health and Australian Hearing. Is that what you are
saying?
Ms Halton: The reality is that the CSO is actually covered by legislation and it is part of the
Department of Health's responsibility to make sure that those obligations are realised. The
fact is that it is currently delivered by Hearing Services, although, in fact, there is some
change anticipated in that and, as you know, with the advent of the NDIS, it was always the
former government's intentionand, as we know, there is bipartisan support for the NDIS
to actually include that CSO funding for the groups that will transition in in the NDIS.
The minister talks about the part of the market that is contestable, although I should
observe that Hearing Services, probably for a series of reasons, have not grown that part of
their market anywhere near as significantly as the private providers. At the same time, the
NDIS will also be significantly changing the approach to the delivery of services to people
who are eligible, people with disability and a potentially significant groupand Mr Thomann
can probably go to some of this detailwho are currently in receipt of CSO obligations.
That funding is earmarked into the NDIS. So, by definition, this world is going to change
fairly significantly. Those decisions have already been taken, but Mr Thomann can
probably
Senator SMITH: No. There was a lot in what the minister and you have shared with us.
Senator Cormann: This is a very important aspect though. What the secretary has just
talked about is really very important for everyone to understand. When we talk about these
issues, I appreciate that there are a lot of stakeholders across the community who take a
very close interest in this because of their care for loved ones and their perception of what
may or may not happen to the services for their children and so on in the future, depending
on what decision the government might make. So we have got to separate out the benefits
and services that people are entitled to from the provision of those services. When you
look at the way Australian Hearing operate right now, 70 per cent of their revenue is
generated in a completely contestable market already, where they are competing with 240
other private providers; the other 30 per cent so far has not been part of a contestable
market. But what the secretary has just indicated to you was a very important consideration
as we grapple with the decision about the best way forwardthat is, as a result of the
NDIS, which is being pursued in a bipartisan way, the other 30 per cent is also going to a
contestable market where Australian Hearing will have to compete with all of these other
providers. What we have to think about is, in that context, what is the best way for
Australian Hearing to position itself in that market in the strongest possible way in order to
be able to meet those opportunities?
Senator SMITH: I do not want to lose my train of questioning, so my question was: what, if
any, public guarantees have the government given regarding support for Hearing Services
in the event that Australian Hearing Services is sold?
Ms Halton: in legislation, and let us be very clear, what we are talking about here is access
and quality; they are important considerations. There are a number of people at this table
who have worked in the health portfolio. This is something which we understand is
extremely important to consumers. It is also amenable to people running a scare
campaign, so we need to be very clear that we are on about protecting access and quality
for people. There are commercial issues about the running of Australian Hearing at the
moment which, if they are allowed to run as they currently are, will present a serious
problem in terms of delivering that access and quality, NDIS being one part of it. So they
are all issues that we are currently considering, but access and quality and the guarantee
are very important to be understood.
Clients receiving services under the Australian Government Hearing Services Voucher
Program are predominantly pensioners and veterans with non-complex hearing
rehabilitation needs. If the Voucher Program was the only issue to consider in relation to
the sale of Australian Hearing then the investigation and decision on the sale would be
straightforward. However this is not the case.
The main point of difference between Australian Hearing and other hearing services
providers is its delivery of services to special needs groups under the Australian
Government Hearing Services Community Service Obligations Program (CSO Program),
and the world renowned research undertaken at the National Acoustic Laboratories (NAL).
In 1997 when the Voucher Program was established, it was determined that the needs of
certain client groups could not be adequately met by the Voucher scheme. These client
groups were classified as Community Service Obligations, and Australian Hearing was
appointed as the sole provider of services under a fixed funding arrangement. The NAL
research facility was also identified as a Community Service Obligation (CSO).
There have been several investigations in the last 17 years to see if the service could
be delivered by other providers, but no changes have been made.
Clinicians working with the CSO client groups need to have a high level of specialised
knowledge and expertise. There are no formal qualifications in paediatric audiology, or
working with clients with complex hearing rehabilitation needs. Audiologists working with
CSO client groups attain their skills through in house training and mentoring programs at
Australian Hearing.
So before the CSO Program arrangements could change, there would need to be formal
training programs established for professionals to gain the skills they need to deliver CSO
client services. If CSO clients are not able to access services from an appropriately skilled
clinician, it is likely to have a detrimental effect on their rehabilitation program outcomes.
Also, there is a critical number of clients that need to be seen by an individual clinician in
order to maintain skill levels. The CSO client groups are very small. There are around
20,000 Deaf and hearing impaired children and about the same number of adults with
complex hearing rehabilitation needs across Australia that qualify for services under the
Program. If that number is broken up across more than one Provider it will be difficult for
clinicians to maintain their skill level.
There are other crucial considerations. We have done the analysis for the government
investigation in our submission at
http://www.deafnessforum.org.au/index.php/issues/112-uncategorised/245-submissions
We request the government reciprocates by making the report on its investigation publicly
available.
th
KEY DATES
Conference Dates
16 18 October 2015
17 October 2015
01 March 2015
01 May 2015
15 May 2015
01 June 2015
01 August 2015
Registration Closes
01 October 2015