Senator DENMAN(8.48 p.m.) —I rise to speak on the Hearing Services Administration Bill 1997 and the Hearing Services and AGHS Reform Bill 1997. This legislation, if it passes, would mark the start of an era of uncertainty for those who are deaf or hearing impaired. With regard to particular groups of hearing impaired, it will cause hardship that is needless and pointless.

With the introduction of these bills, promises made at election time have been breached. As we have said on this side of the chamber on many occasions, those who have been singled out in the first 12 months of this government have been those in need of an element of assistance to help them get started—to get them on an equal footing. So it is with the deaf and hearing impaired. By and large, that is the position.

There has been no better exemplification of how this government will attack those in need than the measures contained in these bills. That came out clearly in the committee hearings into these bills. I was heartened to hear though that the government will make amends to the 18- to 21-year-olds. This particular group would have been severely disadvantaged, as will other groups, but it is heartening to see that there will be amendments made to the legislation for that particular age group.

On the north-west coast of Tasmania, where I live, for example, there are currently approximately 50 young people who are in the age group that would have been affected by the changes. Many of these people in the 18 to 21 age group would, I suspect, either be continuing their studies or be in the unfortunate position of being unemployed. Not only have many of these young people had troubles recently—for example, with their Austudy entitlements or with the withdrawal of the benefits they have received from the Department of Social Security—but they were not going to be able to have access to the Burnie Hearing Centre. Their access would have been—I hope it is not going to be—severely curtailed. This would have been at a period in their lives when they need to have their confidence and their self-assuredness boosted and not shattered. Again, I make the point that I am delighted that amendments will be moved.

The fact that these bills would have jeopardised the ability for young people to communicate as effectively and properly as they have in the past with a model public service provider as Australian Hearing Services is a true travesty. As I said earlier, many of the 18- to 21-year-old deaf students are still at school. Having this service removed would, as ACROD stated, `Significantly impact upon these students and their access to higher education'.

The services provided by the Australian Hearing Service for the 18- to 21-year-olds does not just include the fitting of hearing aids, but also other assistance devices which can be very expensive. For parents of students, the financial impost in purchasing a normal hearing device so that there is adequate access to lectures and tutorials would have caused much unnecessary hardship. I also wonder whether, for those young people on the north-west coast and throughout Tasmania who suffer hearing loss, placing a model public service provider such as the Australian Hearing Service in a competitive environment will lead to an improvement.

It must not be forgotten that Australian Hearing Services currently provides hearing aids to its clients at an average price which is $400 lower than the private sector providers and can, for example, due to buying powers, achieve discounts of more than 33 per cent on batteries. Australian Hearing Services also, through a joint venture, produces hearing aids, creating highly skilled jobs and $200 million in foreign investment with the resultant sales and exports of high quality hearing aids and devices.

Unfortunately, it is more likely that the Burnie Hearing Centre, which has provided so professionally services to the hearing impaired in the region, will, with the proposed reforms, see the loss of jobs and a related falling away of service. At the moment, there are private enterprises providing visiting services to the region. But I doubt whether such services will set up a regional based service equivalent to that currently provided, employing locals and spending money locally. This type of situation, I suspect, will be replicated all over regional Australia.

I would hope that, within the next decade, one would be able to look back and observe a change for the better. I believe prima facie these bills do not augur well for the future level of service in Tasmania. I concede that competition may lead to benefits in the larger metropolitan areas, but I cannot see those benefits flowing at the same level to the deaf and hearing impaired community in Tasmania.

From a consumer perspective, there has not been any real problem or disadvantage with waiting times in Tasmania. I guess smallness has an advantage. Anyway, the argument is put that waiting lists reflect a system where there is no client choice. It may also likewise be argued that they reflect the comprehensive level of ongoing after-care services that are provided by the Australian Hearing Services. There is, on my understanding, an expectation that a smaller number of private providers will visit the north-west coast of Tasmania and other parts of the state. But how that will provide a service other than offering devices, as opposed to a whole rehabilitation approach, is anybody's guess.

Tasmania needs a public service provider like the Australian Hearing Services, as it does not possess the mass of people to drive a competitive environment. What I fear is that over the next decade we will end up with an inferior hearing service because, like many industries and professions in Tasmania, the gains to be made from adopting the Hilmer competition reforms are unknown at this stage in my home state.

We hear a lot about the fact that those in the affected age group who will lose eligibility for full services will be able to take advantage of the extension of the hearing aid maintenance service support package for a period of up to five years. For a young hearing impaired person, there will not be much solace gained from knowing that he or she may be eligible for maintenance when the body of a hearing aid falls on the floor and breaks or where electronic components fail. There will be no regular supply of batteries and this would impose a cost of upwards of $150 per annum. There will also be a cut-off of the Commonwealth seniors health card holders from access to Australian Hearing Services.

I understand that there are presently 15 clients of the Australian Hearing Services on the north-west coast of Tasmania who are Commonwealth seniors health card holders. Obviously there are many more in the rest of Tasmania. There is no doubt that the number will increase with the ageing of the population.

As stated in the Labor members' dissenting committee report on this measure, the government is also being mean spirited when those to be affected will largely be self-funded retirees who may be asset rich but are income poor. I thought this government was going to look after self-funded retirees but, alas, it would appear that if you have a hearing problem you will have to pay in future or go without. Realistically, most will not be able to afford the cost.