Ms JANN McFARLANE (3:46 PM) —In supporting the motion moved by my colleague the member for Griffith, I am pleased to speak about cochlear implants. It is an appropriate time to discuss this issue, as this week, which runs from 23 to 29 June, is Deaf-Blind Awareness Week. Members will be interested to know that Deaf-Blind Awareness Week is the lead-up to the sixth Australian National DeafBlind Conference, `Touching the World', which is to be held in Sydney from 12 to 15 July 2002. Conference details and information about issues of interest to that community can be found on their website: www.dbansw.org.au. This motion is an opportunity for us, in a bipartisan way, to focus on issues of interest and debate within the deaf community.

We need to be mindful that it is estimated that one in 10 Australians—that is, approximately 200,000 people—have a hearing loss. In Western Australia, the Australian Bureau of Statistics estimated that in 1993 approximately 93,600 people had some degree of hearing loss. The bureau also points out that hearing loss is frequently under-reported. The issue of cochlear implants as a new technology developed in Australia is of great interest to the community of deaf people in Australia. The community supports cochlear implanting into late-deafened adults who research for themselves the advantages and disadvantages of implants. It is generally accepted that cochlear implants may improve the quality of life for late-deafened adults. Besides that, adults usually are empowered to make their own decisions according to their specific life circumstances.

The deaf community have concerns about implanting deaf children according to decisions made by their parents. The main controversy is about implanting children who cannot decide for themselves. The community are also concerned that parents may put too much focus on the strategies supporting implants and insufficient focus on supporting strategies around children learning AUSLAN and other communication strategies. They are also concerned that funding and resources are being diverted away from services for deaf children and adults and into new and expensive technologies. I ask the government to listen to and work with the deaf community about these concerns.

Cochlear implants and replacement parts are covered by the government via Australian Hearing Services for children up to the age of 21 years. I want to focus on the issues for adults who choose cochlear implants. Firstly, adults who do not have private health cover generally get their upgrades and replacement speech processors through hospital inpatient services. Secondly, adults who have private health cover are covered for upgrades and replacement speech processors by their private health fund. I note with alarm the recommendations of the Private Health Industry Medical Devices Expert Committee to remove speech processors from appendix A of schedule 5 of the National Health Act 1953. What would that mean? It would mean that private health insurance companies would no longer be required to reimburse recipients of cochlear implants for the cost of upgrading or replacing their speech processors, which are the machines that are worn externally by a person with a cochlear implant. These processors need to be upgraded for a variety of reasons. The most common reasons occur when the processors become technologically obsolete or when they are worn out through damage or wear and tear.

Why did PHIMDEC recommend that the upgrades be removed? The argument is that upgrades and replacements be removed from schedule 5 on the basis that they occur in an outpatient setting rather than as part of an episode of hospital treatment. Medicare covers the original cochlear implant as it occurs as part of an episode of hospital treatment. However, under the new arrangements proposed by the minister, the upgrades may be covered by private health funds through their ancillary tables. That can put people out of pocket, as we all know that ancillary items, even with top cover, will not cover an $8,000 bill. Although PHIMDEC has recommended their delisting, the decision to move on that advice has been deferred. However, this has put the issue into limbo, and people who might be directly affected by the decision to remove the items from the schedule are extremely concerned.

Some people in the deaf community are asking, `Are the government and the committee going to organise some community consultation, especially with the deaf community, about the implications of this decision to delist upgrades and replacement processors?' I ask the government to take this concern on board and to work with the deaf community for a mutually beneficial outcome. I ask also that the government provide a telephone typewriter for every parliamentarian's office to improve deaf people's access to their members of parliament and senators. It is very badly missed in our repertoire of equipment provided by the parliament and by the Department of Finance and Administration.