❓ A member of parliament questions the Health Minister's decision to abandon universal newborn hearing screening, arguing it's a false economy and seeks commitment to reinstate and extend the program. The Minister's response is non-committal.
AnsweredQoN 284Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
It would be interesting to know whether the minister has run any interesting High Court appeals recently. I refer to the Government’s decision to abandon the highly successful, universal, newborn hearing screening program and test only at-risk babies. (1) Is the minister aware that screening newborn babies for hearing deficiencies saves taxpayers as much as $1.2 million per child; at-risk babies accounted for only one in seven of all newborns diagnosed with bilateral permanent hearing loss last year; and it will cost the Government $150 000 to test 1 000 at-risk babies, whereas it would cost just $494 000 - that is, just $19 per baby - if all 25 000 newborn children across the State were screened? (2) This is the most important question: in view of the false economy in limiting this program to at-risk babies and the tremendous medical, social and financial benefits associated with a comprehensive statewide screening program, will the minister join with the coalition and commit to reinstate this program in the metropolitan area and extend it to regional communities? Mr J.A. McGINTY
AnswerView source ↗
(1)-(2) The matter is and remains under consideration.
I refer to the Government’s decision to abandon the highly successful, universal, newborn hearing screening program and test only at-risk babies. (1) Is the minister aware that screening newborn babies for hearing deficiencies saves taxpayers as much as $1.2 million per child; at-risk babies accounted for only one in seven of all newborns diagnosed with bilateral permanent hearing loss last year; and it will cost the Government $150 000 to test 1 000 at-risk babies, whereas it would cost just $494 000 - that is, just $19 per baby - if all 25 000 newborn children across the State were screened? (2) This is the most important question: in view of the false economy in limiting this program to at-risk babies and the tremendous medical, social and financial benefits associated with a comprehensive statewide screening program, will the minister join with the coalition and commit to reinstate this program in the metropolitan area and extend it to regional communities? Mr J.A. McGINTY replied: (1)-(2) The matter is and remains under consideration.
(1) Is the minister aware that screening newborn babies for hearing deficiencies saves taxpayers as much as $1.2 million per child; at-risk babies accounted for only one in seven of all newborns diagnosed with bilateral permanent hearing loss last year; and it will cost the Government $150 000 to test 1 000 at-risk babies, whereas it would cost just $494 000 - that is, just $19 per baby - if all 25 000 newborn children across the State were screened? (2) This is the most important question: in view of the false economy in limiting this program to at-risk babies and the tremendous medical, social and financial benefits associated with a comprehensive statewide screening program, will the minister join with the coalition and commit to reinstate this program in the metropolitan area and extend it to regional communities? Mr J.A. McGINTY replied: (1)-(2) The matter is and remains under consideration.
(2) This is the most important question: in view of the false economy in limiting this program to at-risk babies and the tremendous medical, social and financial benefits associated with a comprehensive statewide screening program, will the minister join with the coalition and commit to reinstate this program in the metropolitan area and extend it to regional communities? Mr J.A. McGINTY replied: (1)-(2) The matter is and remains under consideration.
Mr J.A. McGINTY replied: (1)-(2) The matter is and remains under consideration.
(1)-(2) The matter is and remains under consideration.
I refer to the Government’s decision to abandon the highly successful, universal, newborn hearing screening program and test only at-risk babies. (1) Is the minister aware that screening newborn babies for hearing deficiencies saves taxpayers as much as $1.2 million per child; at-risk babies accounted for only one in seven of all newborns diagnosed with bilateral permanent hearing loss last year; and it will cost the Government $150 000 to test 1 000 at-risk babies, whereas it would cost just $494 000 - that is, just $19 per baby - if all 25 000 newborn children across the State were screened? (2) This is the most important question: in view of the false economy in limiting this program to at-risk babies and the tremendous medical, social and financial benefits associated with a comprehensive statewide screening program, will the minister join with the coalition and commit to reinstate this program in the metropolitan area and extend it to regional communities? Mr J.A. McGINTY replied: (1)-(2) The matter is and remains under consideration.
(1) Is the minister aware that screening newborn babies for hearing deficiencies saves taxpayers as much as $1.2 million per child; at-risk babies accounted for only one in seven of all newborns diagnosed with bilateral permanent hearing loss last year; and it will cost the Government $150 000 to test 1 000 at-risk babies, whereas it would cost just $494 000 - that is, just $19 per baby - if all 25 000 newborn children across the State were screened? (2) This is the most important question: in view of the false economy in limiting this program to at-risk babies and the tremendous medical, social and financial benefits associated with a comprehensive statewide screening program, will the minister join with the coalition and commit to reinstate this program in the metropolitan area and extend it to regional communities? Mr J.A. McGINTY replied: (1)-(2) The matter is and remains under consideration.
(2) This is the most important question: in view of the false economy in limiting this program to at-risk babies and the tremendous medical, social and financial benefits associated with a comprehensive statewide screening program, will the minister join with the coalition and commit to reinstate this program in the metropolitan area and extend it to regional communities? Mr J.A. McGINTY replied: (1)-(2) The matter is and remains under consideration.
Mr J.A. McGINTY replied: (1)-(2) The matter is and remains under consideration.
(1)-(2) The matter is and remains under consideration.
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.