❓ The question concerns the limited scope of the reinstated universal hearing screening program for newborn babies in WA, particularly its absence in many hospitals and regional areas. The Minister defends the initial scrapping of the program due to budget constraints and cites expert advice supporting a trial approach.
AnsweredQoN 315Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
I refer to the minister’s decision to reinstate the universal hearing screening program for newborn babies, which was one of a number of community preventive health programs the Government scrapped last September. (1) Is the minister aware that the program does not operate at metropolitan private hospitals - with the exception, I think, of St John of God Health Care, Subiaco - at public hospitals such as Rockingham-Kwinana District, Swan District and Bentley or in any regional area whatsoever? (2) If the minister agrees, as he professes, with the coalition that this program is an important and effective preventive care measure for newborn babies, will he extend the program to cover newborn babies at these remaining hospitals and in regional areas? Mr J.A. McGINTY
AnswerView source ↗
(1)-(2) I thank the member for Mitchell for the question. In June 2001, Professor Fiona Stanley’s Telethon Institute for Child Health Research, with which I am sure all members are familiar, conducted an evaluation of the Western Australian newborn hearing screening program. The summary of the report that Professor Fiona Stanley provided stated - Preliminary results indicate that hearing screening of babies admitted to level 2 or 3 nurseries and those with known risk factors is warranted. However, so far, the hearing screening programme has been of limited value to babies with no known risk factors of hearing loss and not admitted to a special care nursery. I skip a few lines - Therefore, there is currently insufficient evidence to support introducing screening at smaller maternity units. When I was confronted with a potential budget deficit in health of $136 million, and I was confronted with a report from someone as eminent as Dr Fiona Stanley raising serious questions about the wisdom of universal screening, the only sensible course of action was to say that we must get our health budget under control and to make sensible and rational decisions based on assessments. I am delighted to be able to say to Parliament today that as a result of introducing strict new budgetary controls within the Department of Health, what was projected to be a deficit this year of $136 million will now be a balanced budget. Several members interjected. Mr J.A. McGINTY: It is a pity that a former Minister for Health is not in the House today. I went back and discovered that the health budget had to be topped up every year during the past 10 years. On every occasion, extra consolidated fund money was tipped into health in order to produce a balanced result. For the first time in at least a decade, and my living political memory, the Government will produce a balanced result in health, unless something horrible happens in the next three or four weeks. What can be achieved from a measure of financial discipline, as was not seen in a single year when members opposite were in power, is that decisions can be made - Mr D.F. Barron-Sullivan: Will you extend the program? Mr J.A. McGINTY: Just listen. Mr B.K. Masters: You’re talking in riddles! Mr J.A. McGINTY: No, I am not. The member may not like it, but he should listen. As the Government has been disciplined in its approach to health financing, real decisions can be made about what can be afforded and where money should be spent. This is rather than throwing money at a problem, and irresponsibly topping up the budget at the end of each year. Give credit where it is due. The Government will produce a balanced budget in health this year, which has enabled the Government to obtain further advice from Professor Fiona Stanley. I have discussed this matter with Dr Stanley on a number of occasions. She said to me last week that it would be wise in her view to continue the newborn hearing screening programs trial so further figures can answer a number of questions. The program has never stopped. I quote Dr Stanley - Further research associated with this service would enable some fundamental questions to be addressed: 1. Does this screening test accurately identify hearing loss at birth? 2. What percentage of children are missed by the screening test? ie the percentage of false negatives. 3. Does early diagnosis of hearing loss improve outcome? 4. Is this a cost effective service? I am more than happy to take the word of someone as eminent in our community as Professor Fiona Stanley, last year’s Australian of the Year, who has guided me throughout this matter.
(1) Is the minister aware that the program does not operate at metropolitan private hospitals - with the exception, I think, of St John of God Health Care, Subiaco - at public hospitals such as Rockingham-Kwinana District, Swan District and Bentley or in any regional area whatsoever? (2) If the minister agrees, as he professes, with the coalition that this program is an important and effective preventive care measure for newborn babies, will he extend the program to cover newborn babies at these remaining hospitals and in regional areas? Mr J.A. McGINTY replied: (1)-(2) I thank the member for Mitchell for the question. In June 2001, Professor Fiona Stanley’s Telethon Institute for Child Health Research, with which I am sure all members are familiar, conducted an evaluation of the Western Australian newborn hearing screening program. The summary of the report that Professor Fiona Stanley provided stated - Preliminary results indicate that hearing screening of babies admitted to level 2 or 3 nurseries and those with known risk factors is warranted. However, so far, the hearing screening programme has been of limited value to babies with no known risk factors of hearing loss and not admitted to a special care nursery. I skip a few lines - Therefore, there is currently insufficient evidence to support introducing screening at smaller maternity units. When I was confronted with a potential budget deficit in health of $136 million, and I was confronted with a report from someone as eminent as Dr Fiona Stanley raising serious questions about the wisdom of universal screening, the only sensible course of action was to say that we must get our health budget under control and to make sensible and rational decisions based on assessments. I am delighted to be able to say to Parliament today that as a result of introducing strict new budgetary controls within the Department of Health, what was projected to be a deficit this year of $136 million will now be a balanced budget. Several members interjected. Mr J.A. McGINTY: It is a pity that a former Minister for Health is not in the House today. I went back and discovered that the health budget had to be topped up every year during the past 10 years. On every occasion, extra consolidated fund money was tipped into health in order to produce a balanced result. For the first time in at least a decade, and my living political memory, the Government will produce a balanced result in health, unless something horrible happens in the next three or four weeks. What can be achieved from a measure of financial discipline, as was not seen in a single year when members opposite were in power, is that decisions can be made - Mr D.F. Barron-Sullivan: Will you extend the program? Mr J.A. McGINTY: Just listen. Mr B.K. Masters: You’re talking in riddles! Mr J.A. McGINTY: No, I am not. The member may not like it, but he should listen. As the Government has been disciplined in its approach to health financing, real decisions can be made about what can be afforded and where money should be spent. This is rather than throwing money at a problem, and irresponsibly topping up the budget at the end of each year. Give credit where it is due. The Government will produce a balanced budget in health this year, which has enabled the Government to obtain further advice from Professor Fiona Stanley. I have discussed this matter with Dr Stanley on a number of occasions. She said to me last week that it would be wise in her view to continue the newborn hearing screening programs trial so further figures can answer a number of questions. The program has never stopped. I quote Dr Stanley - Further research associated with this service would enable some fundamental questions to be addressed: 1. Does this screening test accurately identify hearing loss at birth? 2. What percentage of children are missed by the screening test? ie the percentage of false negatives. 3. Does early diagnosis of hearing loss improve outcome? 4. Is this a cost effective service? I am more than happy to take the word of someone as eminent in our community as Professor Fiona Stanley, last year’s Australian of the Year, who has guided me throughout this matter.
(2) If the minister agrees, as he professes, with the coalition that this program is an important and effective preventive care measure for newborn babies, will he extend the program to cover newborn babies at these remaining hospitals and in regional areas? Mr J.A. McGINTY replied: (1)-(2) I thank the member for Mitchell for the question. In June 2001, Professor Fiona Stanley’s Telethon Institute for Child Health Research, with which I am sure all members are familiar, conducted an evaluation of the Western Australian newborn hearing screening program. The summary of the report that Professor Fiona Stanley provided stated - Preliminary results indicate that hearing screening of babies admitted to level 2 or 3 nurseries and those with known risk factors is warranted. However, so far, the hearing screening programme has been of limited value to babies with no known risk factors of hearing loss and not admitted to a special care nursery. I skip a few lines - Therefore, there is currently insufficient evidence to support introducing screening at smaller maternity units. When I was confronted with a potential budget deficit in health of $136 million, and I was confronted with a report from someone as eminent as Dr Fiona Stanley raising serious questions about the wisdom of universal screening, the only sensible course of action was to say that we must get our health budget under control and to make sensible and rational decisions based on assessments. I am delighted to be able to say to Parliament today that as a result of introducing strict new budgetary controls within the Department of Health, what was projected to be a deficit this year of $136 million will now be a balanced budget. Several members interjected. Mr J.A. McGINTY: It is a pity that a former Minister for Health is not in the House today. I went back and discovered that the health budget had to be topped up every year during the past 10 years. On every occasion, extra consolidated fund money was tipped into health in order to produce a balanced result. For the first time in at least a decade, and my living political memory, the Government will produce a balanced result in health, unless something horrible happens in the next three or four weeks. What can be achieved from a measure of financial discipline, as was not seen in a single year when members opposite were in power, is that decisions can be made - Mr D.F. Barron-Sullivan: Will you extend the program? Mr J.A. McGINTY: Just listen. Mr B.K. Masters: You’re talking in riddles! Mr J.A. McGINTY: No, I am not. The member may not like it, but he should listen. As the Government has been disciplined in its approach to health financing, real decisions can be made about what can be afforded and where money should be spent. This is rather than throwing money at a problem, and irresponsibly topping up the budget at the end of each year. Give credit where it is due. The Government will produce a balanced budget in health this year, which has enabled the Government to obtain further advice from Professor Fiona Stanley. I have discussed this matter with Dr Stanley on a number of occasions. She said to me last week that it would be wise in her view to continue the newborn hearing screening programs trial so further figures can answer a number of questions. The program has never stopped. I quote Dr Stanley - Further research associated with this service would enable some fundamental questions to be addressed: 1. Does this screening test accurately identify hearing loss at birth? 2. What percentage of children are missed by the screening test? ie the percentage of false negatives. 3. Does early diagnosis of hearing loss improve outcome? 4. Is this a cost effective service? I am more than happy to take the word of someone as eminent in our community as Professor Fiona Stanley, last year’s Australian of the Year, who has guided me throughout this matter.
Mr J.A. McGINTY replied: (1)-(2) I thank the member for Mitchell for the question. In June 2001, Professor Fiona Stanley’s Telethon Institute for Child Health Research, with which I am sure all members are familiar, conducted an evaluation of the Western Australian newborn hearing screening program. The summary of the report that Professor Fiona Stanley provided stated - Preliminary results indicate that hearing screening of babies admitted to level 2 or 3 nurseries and those with known risk factors is warranted. However, so far, the hearing screening programme has been of limited value to babies with no known risk factors of hearing loss and not admitted to a special care nursery. I skip a few lines - Therefore, there is currently insufficient evidence to support introducing screening at smaller maternity units. When I was confronted with a potential budget deficit in health of $136 million, and I was confronted with a report from someone as eminent as Dr Fiona Stanley raising serious questions about the wisdom of universal screening, the only sensible course of action was to say that we must get our health budget under control and to make sensible and rational decisions based on assessments. I am delighted to be able to say to Parliament today that as a result of introducing strict new budgetary controls within the Department of Health, what was projected to be a deficit this year of $136 million will now be a balanced budget. Several members interjected. Mr J.A. McGINTY: It is a pity that a former Minister for Health is not in the House today. I went back and discovered that the health budget had to be topped up every year during the past 10 years. On every occasion, extra consolidated fund money was tipped into health in order to produce a balanced result. For the first time in at least a decade, and my living political memory, the Government will produce a balanced result in health, unless something horrible happens in the next three or four weeks. What can be achieved from a measure of financial discipline, as was not seen in a single year when members opposite were in power, is that decisions can be made - Mr D.F. Barron-Sullivan: Will you extend the program? Mr J.A. McGINTY: Just listen. Mr B.K. Masters: You’re talking in riddles! Mr J.A. McGINTY: No, I am not. The member may not like it, but he should listen. As the Government has been disciplined in its approach to health financing, real decisions can be made about what can be afforded and where money should be spent. This is rather than throwing money at a problem, and irresponsibly topping up the budget at the end of each year. Give credit where it is due. The Government will produce a balanced budget in health this year, which has enabled the Government to obtain further advice from Professor Fiona Stanley. I have discussed this matter with Dr Stanley on a number of occasions. She said to me last week that it would be wise in her view to continue the newborn hearing screening programs trial so further figures can answer a number of questions. The program has never stopped. I quote Dr Stanley - Further research associated with this service would enable some fundamental questions to be addressed: 1. Does this screening test accurately identify hearing loss at birth? 2. What percentage of children are missed by the screening test? ie the percentage of false negatives. 3. Does early diagnosis of hearing loss improve outcome? 4. Is this a cost effective service? I am more than happy to take the word of someone as eminent in our community as Professor Fiona Stanley, last year’s Australian of the Year, who has guided me throughout this matter.
(1)-(2) I thank the member for Mitchell for the question. In June 2001, Professor Fiona Stanley’s Telethon Institute for Child Health Research, with which I am sure all members are familiar, conducted an evaluation of the Western Australian newborn hearing screening program. The summary of the report that Professor Fiona Stanley provided stated - Preliminary results indicate that hearing screening of babies admitted to level 2 or 3 nurseries and those with known risk factors is warranted. However, so far, the hearing screening programme has been of limited value to babies with no known risk factors of hearing loss and not admitted to a special care nursery. I skip a few lines - Therefore, there is currently insufficient evidence to support introducing screening at smaller maternity units. When I was confronted with a potential budget deficit in health of $136 million, and I was confronted with a report from someone as eminent as Dr Fiona Stanley raising serious questions about the wisdom of universal screening, the only sensible course of action was to say that we must get our health budget under control and to make sensible and rational decisions based on assessments. I am delighted to be able to say to Parliament today that as a result of introducing strict new budgetary controls within the Department of Health, what was projected to be a deficit this year of $136 million will now be a balanced budget. Several members interjected. Mr J.A. McGINTY: It is a pity that a former Minister for Health is not in the House today. I went back and discovered that the health budget had to be topped up every year during the past 10 years. On every occasion, extra consolidated fund money was tipped into health in order to produce a balanced result. For the first time in at least a decade, and my living political memory, the Government will produce a balanced result in health, unless something horrible happens in the next three or four weeks. What can be achieved from a measure of financial discipline, as was not seen in a single year when members opposite were in power, is that decisions can be made - Mr D.F. Barron-Sullivan: Will you extend the program? Mr J.A. McGINTY: Just listen. Mr B.K. Masters: You’re talking in riddles! Mr J.A. McGINTY: No, I am not. The member may not like it, but he should listen. As the Government has been disciplined in its approach to health financing, real decisions can be made about what can be afforded and where money should be spent. This is rather than throwing money at a problem, and irresponsibly topping up the budget at the end of each year. Give credit where it is due. The Government will produce a balanced budget in health this year, which has enabled the Government to obtain further advice from Professor Fiona Stanley. I have discussed this matter with Dr Stanley on a number of occasions. She said to me last week that it would be wise in her view to continue the newborn hearing screening programs trial so further figures can answer a number of questions. The program has never stopped. I quote Dr Stanley - Further research associated with this service would enable some fundamental questions to be addressed: 1. Does this screening test accurately identify hearing loss at birth? 2. What percentage of children are missed by the screening test? ie the percentage of false negatives. 3. Does early diagnosis of hearing loss improve outcome? 4. Is this a cost effective service? I am more than happy to take the word of someone as eminent in our community as Professor Fiona Stanley, last year’s Australian of the Year, who has guided me throughout this matter.
Preliminary results indicate that hearing screening of babies admitted to level 2 or 3 nurseries and those with known risk factors is warranted. However, so far, the hearing screening programme has been of limited value to babies with no known risk factors of hearing loss and not admitted to a special care nursery. I skip a few lines - Therefore, there is currently insufficient evidence to support introducing screening at smaller maternity units. When I was confronted with a potential budget deficit in health of $136 million, and I was confronted with a report from someone as eminent as Dr Fiona Stanley raising serious questions about the wisdom of universal screening, the only sensible course of action was to say that we must get our health budget under control and to make sensible and rational decisions based on assessments. I am delighted to be able to say to Parliament today that as a result of introducing strict new budgetary controls within the Department of Health, what was projected to be a deficit this year of $136 million will now be a balanced budget. Several members interjected. Mr J.A. McGINTY: It is a pity that a former Minister for Health is not in the House today. I went back and discovered that the health budget had to be topped up every year during the past 10 years. On every occasion, extra consolidated fund money was tipped into health in order to produce a balanced result. For the first time in at least a decade, and my living political memory, the Government will produce a balanced result in health, unless something horrible happens in the next three or four weeks. What can be achieved from a measure of financial discipline, as was not seen in a single year when members opposite were in power, is that decisions can be made - Mr D.F. Barron-Sullivan: Will you extend the program? Mr J.A. McGINTY: Just listen. Mr B.K. Masters: You’re talking in riddles! Mr J.A. McGINTY: No, I am not. The member may not like it, but he should listen. As the Government has been disciplined in its approach to health financing, real decisions can be made about what can be afforded and where money should be spent. This is rather than throwing money at a problem, and irresponsibly topping up the budget at the end of each year. Give credit where it is due. The Government will produce a balanced budget in health this year, which has enabled the Government to obtain further advice from Professor Fiona Stanley. I have discussed this matter with Dr Stanley on a number of occasions. She said to me last week that it would be wise in her view to continue the newborn hearing screening programs trial so further figures can answer a number of questions. The program has never stopped. I quote Dr Stanley - Further research associated with this service would enable some fundamental questions to be addressed: 1. Does this screening test accurately identify hearing loss at birth? 2. What percentage of children are missed by the screening test? ie the percentage of false negatives. 3. Does early diagnosis of hearing loss improve outcome? 4. Is this a cost effective service? I am more than happy to take the word of someone as eminent in our community as Professor Fiona Stanley, last year’s Australian of the Year, who has guided me throughout this matter.
I skip a few lines - Therefore, there is currently insufficient evidence to support introducing screening at smaller maternity units. When I was confronted with a potential budget deficit in health of $136 million, and I was confronted with a report from someone as eminent as Dr Fiona Stanley raising serious questions about the wisdom of universal screening, the only sensible course of action was to say that we must get our health budget under control and to make sensible and rational decisions based on assessments. I am delighted to be able to say to Parliament today that as a result of introducing strict new budgetary controls within the Department of Health, what was projected to be a deficit this year of $136 million will now be a balanced budget. Several members interjected. Mr J.A. McGINTY: It is a pity that a former Minister for Health is not in the House today. I went back and discovered that the health budget had to be topped up every year during the past 10 years. On every occasion, extra consolidated fund money was tipped into health in order to produce a balanced result. For the first time in at least a decade, and my living political memory, the Government will produce a balanced result in health, unless something horrible happens in the next three or four weeks. What can be achieved from a measure of financial discipline, as was not seen in a single year when members opposite were in power, is that decisions can be made - Mr D.F. Barron-Sullivan: Will you extend the program? Mr J.A. McGINTY: Just listen. Mr B.K. Masters: You’re talking in riddles! Mr J.A. McGINTY: No, I am not. The member may not like it, but he should listen. As the Government has been disciplined in its approach to health financing, real decisions can be made about what can be afforded and where money should be spent. This is rather than throwing money at a problem, and irresponsibly topping up the budget at the end of each year. Give credit where it is due. The Government will produce a balanced budget in health this year, which has enabled the Government to obtain further advice from Professor Fiona Stanley. I have discussed this matter with Dr Stanley on a number of occasions. She said to me last week that it would be wise in her view to continue the newborn hearing screening programs trial so further figures can answer a number of questions. The program has never stopped. I quote Dr Stanley - Further research associated with this service would enable some fundamental questions to be addressed: 1. Does this screening test accurately identify hearing loss at birth? 2. What percentage of children are missed by the screening test? ie the percentage of false negatives. 3. Does early diagnosis of hearing loss improve outcome? 4. Is this a cost effective service? I am more than happy to take the word of someone as eminent in our community as Professor Fiona Stanley, last year’s Australian of the Year, who has guided me throughout this matter.
Therefore, there is currently insufficient evidence to support introducing screening at smaller maternity units. When I was confronted with a potential budget deficit in health of $136 million, and I was confronted with a report from someone as eminent as Dr Fiona Stanley raising serious questions about the wisdom of universal screening, the only sensible course of action was to say that we must get our health budget under control and to make sensible and rational decisions based on assessments. I am delighted to be able to say to Parliament today that as a result of introducing strict new budgetary controls within the Department of Health, what was projected to be a deficit this year of $136 million will now be a balanced budget. Several members interjected. Mr J.A. McGINTY: It is a pity that a former Minister for Health is not in the House today. I went back and discovered that the health budget had to be topped up every year during the past 10 years. On every occasion, extra consolidated fund money was tipped into health in order to produce a balanced result. For the first time in at least a decade, and my living political memory, the Government will produce a balanced result in health, unless something horrible happens in the next three or four weeks. What can be achieved from a measure of financial discipline, as was not seen in a single year when members opposite were in power, is that decisions can be made - Mr D.F. Barron-Sullivan: Will you extend the program? Mr J.A. McGINTY: Just listen. Mr B.K. Masters: You’re talking in riddles! Mr J.A. McGINTY: No, I am not. The member may not like it, but he should listen. As the Government has been disciplined in its approach to health financing, real decisions can be made about what can be afforded and where money should be spent. This is rather than throwing money at a problem, and irresponsibly topping up the budget at the end of each year. Give credit where it is due. The Government will produce a balanced budget in health this year, which has enabled the Government to obtain further advice from Professor Fiona Stanley. I have discussed this matter with Dr Stanley on a number of occasions. She said to me last week that it would be wise in her view to continue the newborn hearing screening programs trial so further figures can answer a number of questions. The program has never stopped. I quote Dr Stanley - Further research associated with this service would enable some fundamental questions to be addressed: 1. Does this screening test accurately identify hearing loss at birth? 2. What percentage of children are missed by the screening test? ie the percentage of false negatives. 3. Does early diagnosis of hearing loss improve outcome? 4. Is this a cost effective service? I am more than happy to take the word of someone as eminent in our community as Professor Fiona Stanley, last year’s Australian of the Year, who has guided me throughout this matter.
When I was confronted with a potential budget deficit in health of $136 million, and I was confronted with a report from someone as eminent as Dr Fiona Stanley raising serious questions about the wisdom of universal screening, the only sensible course of action was to say that we must get our health budget under control and to make sensible and rational decisions based on assessments. I am delighted to be able to say to Parliament today that as a result of introducing strict new budgetary controls within the Department of Health, what was projected to be a deficit this year of $136 million will now be a balanced budget. Several members interjected. Mr J.A. McGINTY: It is a pity that a former Minister for Health is not in the House today. I went back and discovered that the health budget had to be topped up every year during the past 10 years. On every occasion, extra consolidated fund money was tipped into health in order to produce a balanced result. For the first time in at least a decade, and my living political memory, the Government will produce a balanced result in health, unless something horrible happens in the next three or four weeks. What can be achieved from a measure of financial discipline, as was not seen in a single year when members opposite were in power, is that decisions can be made - Mr D.F. Barron-Sullivan: Will you extend the program? Mr J.A. McGINTY: Just listen. Mr B.K. Masters: You’re talking in riddles! Mr J.A. McGINTY: No, I am not. The member may not like it, but he should listen. As the Government has been disciplined in its approach to health financing, real decisions can be made about what can be afforded and where money should be spent. This is rather than throwing money at a problem, and irresponsibly topping up the budget at the end of each year. Give credit where it is due. The Government will produce a balanced budget in health this year, which has enabled the Government to obtain further advice from Professor Fiona Stanley. I have discussed this matter with Dr Stanley on a number of occasions. She said to me last week that it would be wise in her view to continue the newborn hearing screening programs trial so further figures can answer a number of questions. The program has never stopped. I quote Dr Stanley - Further research associated with this service would enable some fundamental questions to be addressed: 1. Does this screening test accurately identify hearing loss at birth? 2. What percentage of children are missed by the screening test? ie the percentage of false negatives. 3. Does early diagnosis of hearing loss improve outcome? 4. Is this a cost effective service? I am more than happy to take the word of someone as eminent in our community as Professor Fiona Stanley, last year’s Australian of the Year, who has guided me throughout this matter.
Several members interjected. Mr J.A. McGINTY: It is a pity that a former Minister for Health is not in the House today. I went back and discovered that the health budget had to be topped up every year during the past 10 years. On every occasion, extra consolidated fund money was tipped into health in order to produce a balanced result. For the first time in at least a decade, and my living political memory, the Government will produce a balanced result in health, unless something horrible happens in the next three or four weeks. What can be achieved from a measure of financial discipline, as was not seen in a single year when members opposite were in power, is that decisions can be made - Mr D.F. Barron-Sullivan: Will you extend the program? Mr J.A. McGINTY: Just listen. Mr B.K. Masters: You’re talking in riddles! Mr J.A. McGINTY: No, I am not. The member may not like it, but he should listen. As the Government has been disciplined in its approach to health financing, real decisions can be made about what can be afforded and where money should be spent. This is rather than throwing money at a problem, and irresponsibly topping up the budget at the end of each year. Give credit where it is due. The Government will produce a balanced budget in health this year, which has enabled the Government to obtain further advice from Professor Fiona Stanley. I have discussed this matter with Dr Stanley on a number of occasions. She said to me last week that it would be wise in her view to continue the newborn hearing screening programs trial so further figures can answer a number of questions. The program has never stopped. I quote Dr Stanley - Further research associated with this service would enable some fundamental questions to be addressed: 1. Does this screening test accurately identify hearing loss at birth? 2. What percentage of children are missed by the screening test? ie the percentage of false negatives. 3. Does early diagnosis of hearing loss improve outcome? 4. Is this a cost effective service? I am more than happy to take the word of someone as eminent in our community as Professor Fiona Stanley, last year’s Australian of the Year, who has guided me throughout this matter.
Mr J.A. McGINTY: It is a pity that a former Minister for Health is not in the House today. I went back and discovered that the health budget had to be topped up every year during the past 10 years. On every occasion, extra consolidated fund money was tipped into health in order to produce a balanced result. For the first time in at least a decade, and my living political memory, the Government will produce a balanced result in health, unless something horrible happens in the next three or four weeks. What can be achieved from a measure of financial discipline, as was not seen in a single year when members opposite were in power, is that decisions can be made - Mr D.F. Barron-Sullivan: Will you extend the program? Mr J.A. McGINTY: Just listen. Mr B.K. Masters: You’re talking in riddles! Mr J.A. McGINTY: No, I am not. The member may not like it, but he should listen. As the Government has been disciplined in its approach to health financing, real decisions can be made about what can be afforded and where money should be spent. This is rather than throwing money at a problem, and irresponsibly topping up the budget at the end of each year. Give credit where it is due. The Government will produce a balanced budget in health this year, which has enabled the Government to obtain further advice from Professor Fiona Stanley. I have discussed this matter with Dr Stanley on a number of occasions. She said to me last week that it would be wise in her view to continue the newborn hearing screening programs trial so further figures can answer a number of questions. The program has never stopped. I quote Dr Stanley - Further research associated with this service would enable some fundamental questions to be addressed: 1. Does this screening test accurately identify hearing loss at birth? 2. What percentage of children are missed by the screening test? ie the percentage of false negatives. 3. Does early diagnosis of hearing loss improve outcome? 4. Is this a cost effective service? I am more than happy to take the word of someone as eminent in our community as Professor Fiona Stanley, last year’s Australian of the Year, who has guided me throughout this matter.
Mr D.F. Barron-Sullivan: Will you extend the program? Mr J.A. McGINTY: Just listen. Mr B.K. Masters: You’re talking in riddles! Mr J.A. McGINTY: No, I am not. The member may not like it, but he should listen. As the Government has been disciplined in its approach to health financing, real decisions can be made about what can be afforded and where money should be spent. This is rather than throwing money at a problem, and irresponsibly topping up the budget at the end of each year. Give credit where it is due. The Government will produce a balanced budget in health this year, which has enabled the Government to obtain further advice from Professor Fiona Stanley. I have discussed this matter with Dr Stanley on a number of occasions. She said to me last week that it would be wise in her view to continue the newborn hearing screening programs trial so further figures can answer a number of questions. The program has never stopped. I quote Dr Stanley - Further research associated with this service would enable some fundamental questions to be addressed: 1. Does this screening test accurately identify hearing loss at birth? 2. What percentage of children are missed by the screening test? ie the percentage of false negatives. 3. Does early diagnosis of hearing loss improve outcome? 4. Is this a cost effective service? I am more than happy to take the word of someone as eminent in our community as Professor Fiona Stanley, last year’s Australian of the Year, who has guided me throughout this matter.
Mr J.A. McGINTY: Just listen. Mr B.K. Masters: You’re talking in riddles! Mr J.A. McGINTY: No, I am not. The member may not like it, but he should listen. As the Government has been disciplined in its approach to health financing, real decisions can be made about what can be afforded and where money should be spent. This is rather than throwing money at a problem, and irresponsibly topping up the budget at the end of each year. Give credit where it is due. The Government will produce a balanced budget in health this year, which has enabled the Government to obtain further advice from Professor Fiona Stanley. I have discussed this matter with Dr Stanley on a number of occasions. She said to me last week that it would be wise in her view to continue the newborn hearing screening programs trial so further figures can answer a number of questions. The program has never stopped. I quote Dr Stanley - Further research associated with this service would enable some fundamental questions to be addressed: 1. Does this screening test accurately identify hearing loss at birth? 2. What percentage of children are missed by the screening test? ie the percentage of false negatives. 3. Does early diagnosis of hearing loss improve outcome? 4. Is this a cost effective service? I am more than happy to take the word of someone as eminent in our community as Professor Fiona Stanley, last year’s Australian of the Year, who has guided me throughout this matter.
Mr B.K. Masters: You’re talking in riddles! Mr J.A. McGINTY: No, I am not. The member may not like it, but he should listen. As the Government has been disciplined in its approach to health financing, real decisions can be made about what can be afforded and where money should be spent. This is rather than throwing money at a problem, and irresponsibly topping up the budget at the end of each year. Give credit where it is due. The Government will produce a balanced budget in health this year, which has enabled the Government to obtain further advice from Professor Fiona Stanley. I have discussed this matter with Dr Stanley on a number of occasions. She said to me last week that it would be wise in her view to continue the newborn hearing screening programs trial so further figures can answer a number of questions. The program has never stopped. I quote Dr Stanley - Further research associated with this service would enable some fundamental questions to be addressed: 1. Does this screening test accurately identify hearing loss at birth? 2. What percentage of children are missed by the screening test? ie the percentage of false negatives. 3. Does early diagnosis of hearing loss improve outcome? 4. Is this a cost effective service? I am more than happy to take the word of someone as eminent in our community as Professor Fiona Stanley, last year’s Australian of the Year, who has guided me throughout this matter.
Mr J.A. McGINTY: No, I am not. The member may not like it, but he should listen. As the Government has been disciplined in its approach to health financing, real decisions can be made about what can be afforded and where money should be spent. This is rather than throwing money at a problem, and irresponsibly topping up the budget at the end of each year. Give credit where it is due. The Government will produce a balanced budget in health this year, which has enabled the Government to obtain further advice from Professor Fiona Stanley. I have discussed this matter with Dr Stanley on a number of occasions. She said to me last week that it would be wise in her view to continue the newborn hearing screening programs trial so further figures can answer a number of questions. The program has never stopped. I quote Dr Stanley - Further research associated with this service would enable some fundamental questions to be addressed: 1. Does this screening test accurately identify hearing loss at birth? 2. What percentage of children are missed by the screening test? ie the percentage of false negatives. 3. Does early diagnosis of hearing loss improve outcome? 4. Is this a cost effective service? I am more than happy to take the word of someone as eminent in our community as Professor Fiona Stanley, last year’s Australian of the Year, who has guided me throughout this matter.
As the Government has been disciplined in its approach to health financing, real decisions can be made about what can be afforded and where money should be spent. This is rather than throwing money at a problem, and irresponsibly topping up the budget at the end of each year. Give credit where it is due. The Government will produce a balanced budget in health this year, which has enabled the Government to obtain further advice from Professor Fiona Stanley. I have discussed this matter with Dr Stanley on a number of occasions. She said to me last week that it would be wise in her view to continue the newborn hearing screening programs trial so further figures can answer a number of questions. The program has never stopped. I quote Dr Stanley - Further research associated with this service would enable some fundamental questions to be addressed: 1. Does this screening test accurately identify hearing loss at birth? 2. What percentage of children are missed by the screening test? ie the percentage of false negatives. 3. Does early diagnosis of hearing loss improve outcome? 4. Is this a cost effective service? I am more than happy to take the word of someone as eminent in our community as Professor Fiona Stanley, last year’s Australian of the Year, who has guided me throughout this matter.
Further research associated with this service would enable some fundamental questions to be addressed: 1. Does this screening test accurately identify hearing loss at birth? 2. What percentage of children are missed by the screening test? ie the percentage of false negatives. 3. Does early diagnosis of hearing loss improve outcome? 4. Is this a cost effective service? I am more than happy to take the word of someone as eminent in our community as Professor Fiona Stanley, last year’s Australian of the Year, who has guided me throughout this matter.
1. Does this screening test accurately identify hearing loss at birth? 2. What percentage of children are missed by the screening test? ie the percentage of false negatives. 3. Does early diagnosis of hearing loss improve outcome? 4. Is this a cost effective service? I am more than happy to take the word of someone as eminent in our community as Professor Fiona Stanley, last year’s Australian of the Year, who has guided me throughout this matter.
2. What percentage of children are missed by the screening test? ie the percentage of false negatives. 3. Does early diagnosis of hearing loss improve outcome? 4. Is this a cost effective service? I am more than happy to take the word of someone as eminent in our community as Professor Fiona Stanley, last year’s Australian of the Year, who has guided me throughout this matter.
3. Does early diagnosis of hearing loss improve outcome? 4. Is this a cost effective service? I am more than happy to take the word of someone as eminent in our community as Professor Fiona Stanley, last year’s Australian of the Year, who has guided me throughout this matter.
4. Is this a cost effective service? I am more than happy to take the word of someone as eminent in our community as Professor Fiona Stanley, last year’s Australian of the Year, who has guided me throughout this matter.
I am more than happy to take the word of someone as eminent in our community as Professor Fiona Stanley, last year’s Australian of the Year, who has guided me throughout this matter.
(1) Is the minister aware that the program does not operate at metropolitan private hospitals - with the exception, I think, of St John of God Health Care, Subiaco - at public hospitals such as Rockingham-Kwinana District, Swan District and Bentley or in any regional area whatsoever? (2) If the minister agrees, as he professes, with the coalition that this program is an important and effective preventive care measure for newborn babies, will he extend the program to cover newborn babies at these remaining hospitals and in regional areas? Mr J.A. McGINTY replied: (1)-(2) I thank the member for Mitchell for the question. In June 2001, Professor Fiona Stanley’s Telethon Institute for Child Health Research, with which I am sure all members are familiar, conducted an evaluation of the Western Australian newborn hearing screening program. The summary of the report that Professor Fiona Stanley provided stated - Preliminary results indicate that hearing screening of babies admitted to level 2 or 3 nurseries and those with known risk factors is warranted. However, so far, the hearing screening programme has been of limited value to babies with no known risk factors of hearing loss and not admitted to a special care nursery. I skip a few lines - Therefore, there is currently insufficient evidence to support introducing screening at smaller maternity units. When I was confronted with a potential budget deficit in health of $136 million, and I was confronted with a report from someone as eminent as Dr Fiona Stanley raising serious questions about the wisdom of universal screening, the only sensible course of action was to say that we must get our health budget under control and to make sensible and rational decisions based on assessments. I am delighted to be able to say to Parliament today that as a result of introducing strict new budgetary controls within the Department of Health, what was projected to be a deficit this year of $136 million will now be a balanced budget. Several members interjected. Mr J.A. McGINTY: It is a pity that a former Minister for Health is not in the House today. I went back and discovered that the health budget had to be topped up every year during the past 10 years. On every occasion, extra consolidated fund money was tipped into health in order to produce a balanced result. For the first time in at least a decade, and my living political memory, the Government will produce a balanced result in health, unless something horrible happens in the next three or four weeks. What can be achieved from a measure of financial discipline, as was not seen in a single year when members opposite were in power, is that decisions can be made - Mr D.F. Barron-Sullivan: Will you extend the program? Mr J.A. McGINTY: Just listen. Mr B.K. Masters: You’re talking in riddles! Mr J.A. McGINTY: No, I am not. The member may not like it, but he should listen. As the Government has been disciplined in its approach to health financing, real decisions can be made about what can be afforded and where money should be spent. This is rather than throwing money at a problem, and irresponsibly topping up the budget at the end of each year. Give credit where it is due. The Government will produce a balanced budget in health this year, which has enabled the Government to obtain further advice from Professor Fiona Stanley. I have discussed this matter with Dr Stanley on a number of occasions. She said to me last week that it would be wise in her view to continue the newborn hearing screening programs trial so further figures can answer a number of questions. The program has never stopped. I quote Dr Stanley - Further research associated with this service would enable some fundamental questions to be addressed: 1. Does this screening test accurately identify hearing loss at birth? 2. What percentage of children are missed by the screening test? ie the percentage of false negatives. 3. Does early diagnosis of hearing loss improve outcome? 4. Is this a cost effective service? I am more than happy to take the word of someone as eminent in our community as Professor Fiona Stanley, last year’s Australian of the Year, who has guided me throughout this matter.
(2) If the minister agrees, as he professes, with the coalition that this program is an important and effective preventive care measure for newborn babies, will he extend the program to cover newborn babies at these remaining hospitals and in regional areas? Mr J.A. McGINTY replied: (1)-(2) I thank the member for Mitchell for the question. In June 2001, Professor Fiona Stanley’s Telethon Institute for Child Health Research, with which I am sure all members are familiar, conducted an evaluation of the Western Australian newborn hearing screening program. The summary of the report that Professor Fiona Stanley provided stated - Preliminary results indicate that hearing screening of babies admitted to level 2 or 3 nurseries and those with known risk factors is warranted. However, so far, the hearing screening programme has been of limited value to babies with no known risk factors of hearing loss and not admitted to a special care nursery. I skip a few lines - Therefore, there is currently insufficient evidence to support introducing screening at smaller maternity units. When I was confronted with a potential budget deficit in health of $136 million, and I was confronted with a report from someone as eminent as Dr Fiona Stanley raising serious questions about the wisdom of universal screening, the only sensible course of action was to say that we must get our health budget under control and to make sensible and rational decisions based on assessments. I am delighted to be able to say to Parliament today that as a result of introducing strict new budgetary controls within the Department of Health, what was projected to be a deficit this year of $136 million will now be a balanced budget. Several members interjected. Mr J.A. McGINTY: It is a pity that a former Minister for Health is not in the House today. I went back and discovered that the health budget had to be topped up every year during the past 10 years. On every occasion, extra consolidated fund money was tipped into health in order to produce a balanced result. For the first time in at least a decade, and my living political memory, the Government will produce a balanced result in health, unless something horrible happens in the next three or four weeks. What can be achieved from a measure of financial discipline, as was not seen in a single year when members opposite were in power, is that decisions can be made - Mr D.F. Barron-Sullivan: Will you extend the program? Mr J.A. McGINTY: Just listen. Mr B.K. Masters: You’re talking in riddles! Mr J.A. McGINTY: No, I am not. The member may not like it, but he should listen. As the Government has been disciplined in its approach to health financing, real decisions can be made about what can be afforded and where money should be spent. This is rather than throwing money at a problem, and irresponsibly topping up the budget at the end of each year. Give credit where it is due. The Government will produce a balanced budget in health this year, which has enabled the Government to obtain further advice from Professor Fiona Stanley. I have discussed this matter with Dr Stanley on a number of occasions. She said to me last week that it would be wise in her view to continue the newborn hearing screening programs trial so further figures can answer a number of questions. The program has never stopped. I quote Dr Stanley - Further research associated with this service would enable some fundamental questions to be addressed: 1. Does this screening test accurately identify hearing loss at birth? 2. What percentage of children are missed by the screening test? ie the percentage of false negatives. 3. Does early diagnosis of hearing loss improve outcome? 4. Is this a cost effective service? I am more than happy to take the word of someone as eminent in our community as Professor Fiona Stanley, last year’s Australian of the Year, who has guided me throughout this matter.
Mr J.A. McGINTY replied: (1)-(2) I thank the member for Mitchell for the question. In June 2001, Professor Fiona Stanley’s Telethon Institute for Child Health Research, with which I am sure all members are familiar, conducted an evaluation of the Western Australian newborn hearing screening program. The summary of the report that Professor Fiona Stanley provided stated - Preliminary results indicate that hearing screening of babies admitted to level 2 or 3 nurseries and those with known risk factors is warranted. However, so far, the hearing screening programme has been of limited value to babies with no known risk factors of hearing loss and not admitted to a special care nursery. I skip a few lines - Therefore, there is currently insufficient evidence to support introducing screening at smaller maternity units. When I was confronted with a potential budget deficit in health of $136 million, and I was confronted with a report from someone as eminent as Dr Fiona Stanley raising serious questions about the wisdom of universal screening, the only sensible course of action was to say that we must get our health budget under control and to make sensible and rational decisions based on assessments. I am delighted to be able to say to Parliament today that as a result of introducing strict new budgetary controls within the Department of Health, what was projected to be a deficit this year of $136 million will now be a balanced budget. Several members interjected. Mr J.A. McGINTY: It is a pity that a former Minister for Health is not in the House today. I went back and discovered that the health budget had to be topped up every year during the past 10 years. On every occasion, extra consolidated fund money was tipped into health in order to produce a balanced result. For the first time in at least a decade, and my living political memory, the Government will produce a balanced result in health, unless something horrible happens in the next three or four weeks. What can be achieved from a measure of financial discipline, as was not seen in a single year when members opposite were in power, is that decisions can be made - Mr D.F. Barron-Sullivan: Will you extend the program? Mr J.A. McGINTY: Just listen. Mr B.K. Masters: You’re talking in riddles! Mr J.A. McGINTY: No, I am not. The member may not like it, but he should listen. As the Government has been disciplined in its approach to health financing, real decisions can be made about what can be afforded and where money should be spent. This is rather than throwing money at a problem, and irresponsibly topping up the budget at the end of each year. Give credit where it is due. The Government will produce a balanced budget in health this year, which has enabled the Government to obtain further advice from Professor Fiona Stanley. I have discussed this matter with Dr Stanley on a number of occasions. She said to me last week that it would be wise in her view to continue the newborn hearing screening programs trial so further figures can answer a number of questions. The program has never stopped. I quote Dr Stanley - Further research associated with this service would enable some fundamental questions to be addressed: 1. Does this screening test accurately identify hearing loss at birth? 2. What percentage of children are missed by the screening test? ie the percentage of false negatives. 3. Does early diagnosis of hearing loss improve outcome? 4. Is this a cost effective service? I am more than happy to take the word of someone as eminent in our community as Professor Fiona Stanley, last year’s Australian of the Year, who has guided me throughout this matter.
(1)-(2) I thank the member for Mitchell for the question. In June 2001, Professor Fiona Stanley’s Telethon Institute for Child Health Research, with which I am sure all members are familiar, conducted an evaluation of the Western Australian newborn hearing screening program. The summary of the report that Professor Fiona Stanley provided stated - Preliminary results indicate that hearing screening of babies admitted to level 2 or 3 nurseries and those with known risk factors is warranted. However, so far, the hearing screening programme has been of limited value to babies with no known risk factors of hearing loss and not admitted to a special care nursery. I skip a few lines - Therefore, there is currently insufficient evidence to support introducing screening at smaller maternity units. When I was confronted with a potential budget deficit in health of $136 million, and I was confronted with a report from someone as eminent as Dr Fiona Stanley raising serious questions about the wisdom of universal screening, the only sensible course of action was to say that we must get our health budget under control and to make sensible and rational decisions based on assessments. I am delighted to be able to say to Parliament today that as a result of introducing strict new budgetary controls within the Department of Health, what was projected to be a deficit this year of $136 million will now be a balanced budget. Several members interjected. Mr J.A. McGINTY: It is a pity that a former Minister for Health is not in the House today. I went back and discovered that the health budget had to be topped up every year during the past 10 years. On every occasion, extra consolidated fund money was tipped into health in order to produce a balanced result. For the first time in at least a decade, and my living political memory, the Government will produce a balanced result in health, unless something horrible happens in the next three or four weeks. What can be achieved from a measure of financial discipline, as was not seen in a single year when members opposite were in power, is that decisions can be made - Mr D.F. Barron-Sullivan: Will you extend the program? Mr J.A. McGINTY: Just listen. Mr B.K. Masters: You’re talking in riddles! Mr J.A. McGINTY: No, I am not. The member may not like it, but he should listen. As the Government has been disciplined in its approach to health financing, real decisions can be made about what can be afforded and where money should be spent. This is rather than throwing money at a problem, and irresponsibly topping up the budget at the end of each year. Give credit where it is due. The Government will produce a balanced budget in health this year, which has enabled the Government to obtain further advice from Professor Fiona Stanley. I have discussed this matter with Dr Stanley on a number of occasions. She said to me last week that it would be wise in her view to continue the newborn hearing screening programs trial so further figures can answer a number of questions. The program has never stopped. I quote Dr Stanley - Further research associated with this service would enable some fundamental questions to be addressed: 1. Does this screening test accurately identify hearing loss at birth? 2. What percentage of children are missed by the screening test? ie the percentage of false negatives. 3. Does early diagnosis of hearing loss improve outcome? 4. Is this a cost effective service? I am more than happy to take the word of someone as eminent in our community as Professor Fiona Stanley, last year’s Australian of the Year, who has guided me throughout this matter.
Preliminary results indicate that hearing screening of babies admitted to level 2 or 3 nurseries and those with known risk factors is warranted. However, so far, the hearing screening programme has been of limited value to babies with no known risk factors of hearing loss and not admitted to a special care nursery. I skip a few lines - Therefore, there is currently insufficient evidence to support introducing screening at smaller maternity units. When I was confronted with a potential budget deficit in health of $136 million, and I was confronted with a report from someone as eminent as Dr Fiona Stanley raising serious questions about the wisdom of universal screening, the only sensible course of action was to say that we must get our health budget under control and to make sensible and rational decisions based on assessments. I am delighted to be able to say to Parliament today that as a result of introducing strict new budgetary controls within the Department of Health, what was projected to be a deficit this year of $136 million will now be a balanced budget. Several members interjected. Mr J.A. McGINTY: It is a pity that a former Minister for Health is not in the House today. I went back and discovered that the health budget had to be topped up every year during the past 10 years. On every occasion, extra consolidated fund money was tipped into health in order to produce a balanced result. For the first time in at least a decade, and my living political memory, the Government will produce a balanced result in health, unless something horrible happens in the next three or four weeks. What can be achieved from a measure of financial discipline, as was not seen in a single year when members opposite were in power, is that decisions can be made - Mr D.F. Barron-Sullivan: Will you extend the program? Mr J.A. McGINTY: Just listen. Mr B.K. Masters: You’re talking in riddles! Mr J.A. McGINTY: No, I am not. The member may not like it, but he should listen. As the Government has been disciplined in its approach to health financing, real decisions can be made about what can be afforded and where money should be spent. This is rather than throwing money at a problem, and irresponsibly topping up the budget at the end of each year. Give credit where it is due. The Government will produce a balanced budget in health this year, which has enabled the Government to obtain further advice from Professor Fiona Stanley. I have discussed this matter with Dr Stanley on a number of occasions. She said to me last week that it would be wise in her view to continue the newborn hearing screening programs trial so further figures can answer a number of questions. The program has never stopped. I quote Dr Stanley - Further research associated with this service would enable some fundamental questions to be addressed: 1. Does this screening test accurately identify hearing loss at birth? 2. What percentage of children are missed by the screening test? ie the percentage of false negatives. 3. Does early diagnosis of hearing loss improve outcome? 4. Is this a cost effective service? I am more than happy to take the word of someone as eminent in our community as Professor Fiona Stanley, last year’s Australian of the Year, who has guided me throughout this matter.
I skip a few lines - Therefore, there is currently insufficient evidence to support introducing screening at smaller maternity units. When I was confronted with a potential budget deficit in health of $136 million, and I was confronted with a report from someone as eminent as Dr Fiona Stanley raising serious questions about the wisdom of universal screening, the only sensible course of action was to say that we must get our health budget under control and to make sensible and rational decisions based on assessments. I am delighted to be able to say to Parliament today that as a result of introducing strict new budgetary controls within the Department of Health, what was projected to be a deficit this year of $136 million will now be a balanced budget. Several members interjected. Mr J.A. McGINTY: It is a pity that a former Minister for Health is not in the House today. I went back and discovered that the health budget had to be topped up every year during the past 10 years. On every occasion, extra consolidated fund money was tipped into health in order to produce a balanced result. For the first time in at least a decade, and my living political memory, the Government will produce a balanced result in health, unless something horrible happens in the next three or four weeks. What can be achieved from a measure of financial discipline, as was not seen in a single year when members opposite were in power, is that decisions can be made - Mr D.F. Barron-Sullivan: Will you extend the program? Mr J.A. McGINTY: Just listen. Mr B.K. Masters: You’re talking in riddles! Mr J.A. McGINTY: No, I am not. The member may not like it, but he should listen. As the Government has been disciplined in its approach to health financing, real decisions can be made about what can be afforded and where money should be spent. This is rather than throwing money at a problem, and irresponsibly topping up the budget at the end of each year. Give credit where it is due. The Government will produce a balanced budget in health this year, which has enabled the Government to obtain further advice from Professor Fiona Stanley. I have discussed this matter with Dr Stanley on a number of occasions. She said to me last week that it would be wise in her view to continue the newborn hearing screening programs trial so further figures can answer a number of questions. The program has never stopped. I quote Dr Stanley - Further research associated with this service would enable some fundamental questions to be addressed: 1. Does this screening test accurately identify hearing loss at birth? 2. What percentage of children are missed by the screening test? ie the percentage of false negatives. 3. Does early diagnosis of hearing loss improve outcome? 4. Is this a cost effective service? I am more than happy to take the word of someone as eminent in our community as Professor Fiona Stanley, last year’s Australian of the Year, who has guided me throughout this matter.
Therefore, there is currently insufficient evidence to support introducing screening at smaller maternity units. When I was confronted with a potential budget deficit in health of $136 million, and I was confronted with a report from someone as eminent as Dr Fiona Stanley raising serious questions about the wisdom of universal screening, the only sensible course of action was to say that we must get our health budget under control and to make sensible and rational decisions based on assessments. I am delighted to be able to say to Parliament today that as a result of introducing strict new budgetary controls within the Department of Health, what was projected to be a deficit this year of $136 million will now be a balanced budget. Several members interjected. Mr J.A. McGINTY: It is a pity that a former Minister for Health is not in the House today. I went back and discovered that the health budget had to be topped up every year during the past 10 years. On every occasion, extra consolidated fund money was tipped into health in order to produce a balanced result. For the first time in at least a decade, and my living political memory, the Government will produce a balanced result in health, unless something horrible happens in the next three or four weeks. What can be achieved from a measure of financial discipline, as was not seen in a single year when members opposite were in power, is that decisions can be made - Mr D.F. Barron-Sullivan: Will you extend the program? Mr J.A. McGINTY: Just listen. Mr B.K. Masters: You’re talking in riddles! Mr J.A. McGINTY: No, I am not. The member may not like it, but he should listen. As the Government has been disciplined in its approach to health financing, real decisions can be made about what can be afforded and where money should be spent. This is rather than throwing money at a problem, and irresponsibly topping up the budget at the end of each year. Give credit where it is due. The Government will produce a balanced budget in health this year, which has enabled the Government to obtain further advice from Professor Fiona Stanley. I have discussed this matter with Dr Stanley on a number of occasions. She said to me last week that it would be wise in her view to continue the newborn hearing screening programs trial so further figures can answer a number of questions. The program has never stopped. I quote Dr Stanley - Further research associated with this service would enable some fundamental questions to be addressed: 1. Does this screening test accurately identify hearing loss at birth? 2. What percentage of children are missed by the screening test? ie the percentage of false negatives. 3. Does early diagnosis of hearing loss improve outcome? 4. Is this a cost effective service? I am more than happy to take the word of someone as eminent in our community as Professor Fiona Stanley, last year’s Australian of the Year, who has guided me throughout this matter.
When I was confronted with a potential budget deficit in health of $136 million, and I was confronted with a report from someone as eminent as Dr Fiona Stanley raising serious questions about the wisdom of universal screening, the only sensible course of action was to say that we must get our health budget under control and to make sensible and rational decisions based on assessments. I am delighted to be able to say to Parliament today that as a result of introducing strict new budgetary controls within the Department of Health, what was projected to be a deficit this year of $136 million will now be a balanced budget. Several members interjected. Mr J.A. McGINTY: It is a pity that a former Minister for Health is not in the House today. I went back and discovered that the health budget had to be topped up every year during the past 10 years. On every occasion, extra consolidated fund money was tipped into health in order to produce a balanced result. For the first time in at least a decade, and my living political memory, the Government will produce a balanced result in health, unless something horrible happens in the next three or four weeks. What can be achieved from a measure of financial discipline, as was not seen in a single year when members opposite were in power, is that decisions can be made - Mr D.F. Barron-Sullivan: Will you extend the program? Mr J.A. McGINTY: Just listen. Mr B.K. Masters: You’re talking in riddles! Mr J.A. McGINTY: No, I am not. The member may not like it, but he should listen. As the Government has been disciplined in its approach to health financing, real decisions can be made about what can be afforded and where money should be spent. This is rather than throwing money at a problem, and irresponsibly topping up the budget at the end of each year. Give credit where it is due. The Government will produce a balanced budget in health this year, which has enabled the Government to obtain further advice from Professor Fiona Stanley. I have discussed this matter with Dr Stanley on a number of occasions. She said to me last week that it would be wise in her view to continue the newborn hearing screening programs trial so further figures can answer a number of questions. The program has never stopped. I quote Dr Stanley - Further research associated with this service would enable some fundamental questions to be addressed: 1. Does this screening test accurately identify hearing loss at birth? 2. What percentage of children are missed by the screening test? ie the percentage of false negatives. 3. Does early diagnosis of hearing loss improve outcome? 4. Is this a cost effective service? I am more than happy to take the word of someone as eminent in our community as Professor Fiona Stanley, last year’s Australian of the Year, who has guided me throughout this matter.
Several members interjected. Mr J.A. McGINTY: It is a pity that a former Minister for Health is not in the House today. I went back and discovered that the health budget had to be topped up every year during the past 10 years. On every occasion, extra consolidated fund money was tipped into health in order to produce a balanced result. For the first time in at least a decade, and my living political memory, the Government will produce a balanced result in health, unless something horrible happens in the next three or four weeks. What can be achieved from a measure of financial discipline, as was not seen in a single year when members opposite were in power, is that decisions can be made - Mr D.F. Barron-Sullivan: Will you extend the program? Mr J.A. McGINTY: Just listen. Mr B.K. Masters: You’re talking in riddles! Mr J.A. McGINTY: No, I am not. The member may not like it, but he should listen. As the Government has been disciplined in its approach to health financing, real decisions can be made about what can be afforded and where money should be spent. This is rather than throwing money at a problem, and irresponsibly topping up the budget at the end of each year. Give credit where it is due. The Government will produce a balanced budget in health this year, which has enabled the Government to obtain further advice from Professor Fiona Stanley. I have discussed this matter with Dr Stanley on a number of occasions. She said to me last week that it would be wise in her view to continue the newborn hearing screening programs trial so further figures can answer a number of questions. The program has never stopped. I quote Dr Stanley - Further research associated with this service would enable some fundamental questions to be addressed: 1. Does this screening test accurately identify hearing loss at birth? 2. What percentage of children are missed by the screening test? ie the percentage of false negatives. 3. Does early diagnosis of hearing loss improve outcome? 4. Is this a cost effective service? I am more than happy to take the word of someone as eminent in our community as Professor Fiona Stanley, last year’s Australian of the Year, who has guided me throughout this matter.
Mr J.A. McGINTY: It is a pity that a former Minister for Health is not in the House today. I went back and discovered that the health budget had to be topped up every year during the past 10 years. On every occasion, extra consolidated fund money was tipped into health in order to produce a balanced result. For the first time in at least a decade, and my living political memory, the Government will produce a balanced result in health, unless something horrible happens in the next three or four weeks. What can be achieved from a measure of financial discipline, as was not seen in a single year when members opposite were in power, is that decisions can be made - Mr D.F. Barron-Sullivan: Will you extend the program? Mr J.A. McGINTY: Just listen. Mr B.K. Masters: You’re talking in riddles! Mr J.A. McGINTY: No, I am not. The member may not like it, but he should listen. As the Government has been disciplined in its approach to health financing, real decisions can be made about what can be afforded and where money should be spent. This is rather than throwing money at a problem, and irresponsibly topping up the budget at the end of each year. Give credit where it is due. The Government will produce a balanced budget in health this year, which has enabled the Government to obtain further advice from Professor Fiona Stanley. I have discussed this matter with Dr Stanley on a number of occasions. She said to me last week that it would be wise in her view to continue the newborn hearing screening programs trial so further figures can answer a number of questions. The program has never stopped. I quote Dr Stanley - Further research associated with this service would enable some fundamental questions to be addressed: 1. Does this screening test accurately identify hearing loss at birth? 2. What percentage of children are missed by the screening test? ie the percentage of false negatives. 3. Does early diagnosis of hearing loss improve outcome? 4. Is this a cost effective service? I am more than happy to take the word of someone as eminent in our community as Professor Fiona Stanley, last year’s Australian of the Year, who has guided me throughout this matter.
Mr D.F. Barron-Sullivan: Will you extend the program? Mr J.A. McGINTY: Just listen. Mr B.K. Masters: You’re talking in riddles! Mr J.A. McGINTY: No, I am not. The member may not like it, but he should listen. As the Government has been disciplined in its approach to health financing, real decisions can be made about what can be afforded and where money should be spent. This is rather than throwing money at a problem, and irresponsibly topping up the budget at the end of each year. Give credit where it is due. The Government will produce a balanced budget in health this year, which has enabled the Government to obtain further advice from Professor Fiona Stanley. I have discussed this matter with Dr Stanley on a number of occasions. She said to me last week that it would be wise in her view to continue the newborn hearing screening programs trial so further figures can answer a number of questions. The program has never stopped. I quote Dr Stanley - Further research associated with this service would enable some fundamental questions to be addressed: 1. Does this screening test accurately identify hearing loss at birth? 2. What percentage of children are missed by the screening test? ie the percentage of false negatives. 3. Does early diagnosis of hearing loss improve outcome? 4. Is this a cost effective service? I am more than happy to take the word of someone as eminent in our community as Professor Fiona Stanley, last year’s Australian of the Year, who has guided me throughout this matter.
Mr J.A. McGINTY: Just listen. Mr B.K. Masters: You’re talking in riddles! Mr J.A. McGINTY: No, I am not. The member may not like it, but he should listen. As the Government has been disciplined in its approach to health financing, real decisions can be made about what can be afforded and where money should be spent. This is rather than throwing money at a problem, and irresponsibly topping up the budget at the end of each year. Give credit where it is due. The Government will produce a balanced budget in health this year, which has enabled the Government to obtain further advice from Professor Fiona Stanley. I have discussed this matter with Dr Stanley on a number of occasions. She said to me last week that it would be wise in her view to continue the newborn hearing screening programs trial so further figures can answer a number of questions. The program has never stopped. I quote Dr Stanley - Further research associated with this service would enable some fundamental questions to be addressed: 1. Does this screening test accurately identify hearing loss at birth? 2. What percentage of children are missed by the screening test? ie the percentage of false negatives. 3. Does early diagnosis of hearing loss improve outcome? 4. Is this a cost effective service? I am more than happy to take the word of someone as eminent in our community as Professor Fiona Stanley, last year’s Australian of the Year, who has guided me throughout this matter.
Mr B.K. Masters: You’re talking in riddles! Mr J.A. McGINTY: No, I am not. The member may not like it, but he should listen. As the Government has been disciplined in its approach to health financing, real decisions can be made about what can be afforded and where money should be spent. This is rather than throwing money at a problem, and irresponsibly topping up the budget at the end of each year. Give credit where it is due. The Government will produce a balanced budget in health this year, which has enabled the Government to obtain further advice from Professor Fiona Stanley. I have discussed this matter with Dr Stanley on a number of occasions. She said to me last week that it would be wise in her view to continue the newborn hearing screening programs trial so further figures can answer a number of questions. The program has never stopped. I quote Dr Stanley - Further research associated with this service would enable some fundamental questions to be addressed: 1. Does this screening test accurately identify hearing loss at birth? 2. What percentage of children are missed by the screening test? ie the percentage of false negatives. 3. Does early diagnosis of hearing loss improve outcome? 4. Is this a cost effective service? I am more than happy to take the word of someone as eminent in our community as Professor Fiona Stanley, last year’s Australian of the Year, who has guided me throughout this matter.
Mr J.A. McGINTY: No, I am not. The member may not like it, but he should listen. As the Government has been disciplined in its approach to health financing, real decisions can be made about what can be afforded and where money should be spent. This is rather than throwing money at a problem, and irresponsibly topping up the budget at the end of each year. Give credit where it is due. The Government will produce a balanced budget in health this year, which has enabled the Government to obtain further advice from Professor Fiona Stanley. I have discussed this matter with Dr Stanley on a number of occasions. She said to me last week that it would be wise in her view to continue the newborn hearing screening programs trial so further figures can answer a number of questions. The program has never stopped. I quote Dr Stanley - Further research associated with this service would enable some fundamental questions to be addressed: 1. Does this screening test accurately identify hearing loss at birth? 2. What percentage of children are missed by the screening test? ie the percentage of false negatives. 3. Does early diagnosis of hearing loss improve outcome? 4. Is this a cost effective service? I am more than happy to take the word of someone as eminent in our community as Professor Fiona Stanley, last year’s Australian of the Year, who has guided me throughout this matter.
As the Government has been disciplined in its approach to health financing, real decisions can be made about what can be afforded and where money should be spent. This is rather than throwing money at a problem, and irresponsibly topping up the budget at the end of each year. Give credit where it is due. The Government will produce a balanced budget in health this year, which has enabled the Government to obtain further advice from Professor Fiona Stanley. I have discussed this matter with Dr Stanley on a number of occasions. She said to me last week that it would be wise in her view to continue the newborn hearing screening programs trial so further figures can answer a number of questions. The program has never stopped. I quote Dr Stanley - Further research associated with this service would enable some fundamental questions to be addressed: 1. Does this screening test accurately identify hearing loss at birth? 2. What percentage of children are missed by the screening test? ie the percentage of false negatives. 3. Does early diagnosis of hearing loss improve outcome? 4. Is this a cost effective service? I am more than happy to take the word of someone as eminent in our community as Professor Fiona Stanley, last year’s Australian of the Year, who has guided me throughout this matter.
Further research associated with this service would enable some fundamental questions to be addressed: 1. Does this screening test accurately identify hearing loss at birth? 2. What percentage of children are missed by the screening test? ie the percentage of false negatives. 3. Does early diagnosis of hearing loss improve outcome? 4. Is this a cost effective service? I am more than happy to take the word of someone as eminent in our community as Professor Fiona Stanley, last year’s Australian of the Year, who has guided me throughout this matter.
1. Does this screening test accurately identify hearing loss at birth? 2. What percentage of children are missed by the screening test? ie the percentage of false negatives. 3. Does early diagnosis of hearing loss improve outcome? 4. Is this a cost effective service? I am more than happy to take the word of someone as eminent in our community as Professor Fiona Stanley, last year’s Australian of the Year, who has guided me throughout this matter.
2. What percentage of children are missed by the screening test? ie the percentage of false negatives. 3. Does early diagnosis of hearing loss improve outcome? 4. Is this a cost effective service? I am more than happy to take the word of someone as eminent in our community as Professor Fiona Stanley, last year’s Australian of the Year, who has guided me throughout this matter.
3. Does early diagnosis of hearing loss improve outcome? 4. Is this a cost effective service? I am more than happy to take the word of someone as eminent in our community as Professor Fiona Stanley, last year’s Australian of the Year, who has guided me throughout this matter.
4. Is this a cost effective service? I am more than happy to take the word of someone as eminent in our community as Professor Fiona Stanley, last year’s Australian of the Year, who has guided me throughout this matter.
I am more than happy to take the word of someone as eminent in our community as Professor Fiona Stanley, last year’s Australian of the Year, who has guided me throughout this matter.
Explore WA Government Data
Search the full archive in the free dashboard, or query programmatically via API.
Explore more
Government Gazette
Appointments, regulatory notices, planning changes.
Hansard
Debates, questions, speeches and sentiment.
Tabled Papers
Reports and documents tabled in Parliament.
Committees
Committee profiles and recent reports.
Regulations
Subsidiary legislation with filters and summaries.
Bills
Proposed laws and parliamentary progress.
Acts
Current WA legislation and summaries.
Explanatory Memoranda
Bills with EMs (text/PDF) available.
Members
MP profiles, party breakdown and rankings.
Pollie Rankings
Data-driven rankings across 19 categories.
Amendment Chains
Track how schemes and regulations evolve over time.