AUSTRALIAN HEARING SERVICES REFORM BILL 1998
December 1998
© Commonwealth of Australia 1997
ISBN 1440-2572 |
View the report as separate downloadable parts:
Membership of the Committee
Members in the 38th Parliament
| Senator Sue Knowles, Chairman |
LP, Western Australia |
| Senator Andrew Bartlett, Deputy Chairman |
AD, Queensland |
| Senator Kay Denman |
ALP, Tasmania |
| Senator Alan Eggleston |
LP, Western Australia |
| Senator Michael Forshaw |
ALP, New South Wales |
| Senator Ross Lightfoot |
LP, Western Australia |
Participating Members in the 38th Parliament
| Senator Eric Abetz |
LP, Tasmania |
| Senator Bob Brown |
Greens, Tasmania |
| Senator Mal Colston |
Ind, Queensland |
| Senator Barney Cooney |
ALP, Victoria |
| Senator the Hon Rosemary Crowley |
ALP, South Australia |
| Senator Chris Evans |
ALP, Western Australia |
| Senator the Hon John Faulkner |
ALP, New South Wales |
| Senator Brenda Gibbs |
ALP, Queensland |
| Senator Brian Harradine |
Ind, Tasmania |
| Senator Sue Mackay |
ALP, Tasmania |
| Senator Dee Margetts |
GWA, Western Australia |
| Senator Shayne Murphy |
ALP, Tasmania |
| Senator Belinda Neal |
ALP, New South Wales |
| Senator Kay Patterson |
LP, Victoria |
| Senator the Hon Margaret Reynolds |
ALP, Queensland |
| Senator Sue West |
ALP, New South Wales |
| Senator John Woodley |
AD, Queensland |
Members in the 39th Parliament
| Senator Sue Knowles, Chairman |
LP, Western Australia |
| Senator Andrew Bartlett, Deputy Chairman |
AD, Queensland |
| Senator Kay Denman |
ALP, Tasmania |
| Senator Alan Eggleston |
LP, Western Australia |
| Senator Chris Evans |
ALP, Western Australia |
| Senator Ross Lightfoot |
LP, Western Australia |
Participating Members in the 39th Parliament
| Senator Eric Abetz |
LP, Tasmania |
| Senator Bob Brown |
Greens, Tasmania |
| Senator Mal Colston |
Ind, Queensland |
| Senator the Hon Rosemary Crowley |
ALP, South Australia |
| Senator Brenda Gibbs |
ALP, Queensland |
| Senator Brian Harradine |
Ind, Tasmania |
| Senator Meg Lees |
AD, South Australia |
| Senator Dee Margetts |
GWA, Western Australia |
| Senator John Woodley |
AD, Queensland |
REPORT - AUSTRALIAN HEARING SERVICES REFROM BILL 1998
1. THE INQUIRY
1.1 The Australian Hearing Services Reform Bill 1998 was introduced into
the House of Representatives on 25 March 1998. On 8 July 1998, the
Senate, on the recommendation of the Selection of Bills Committee (Report
No. 10 of 1998), referred the provisions of the Bill to the Committee
for report by 11 August 1998. The changed sitting pattern for the Senate
and intervening Federal election delayed the presentation of this report.
Following the reappointment of the Committee at the commencement of the
new Parliament, the Senate agreed to the readoption of the reference on
26 November 1998.
1.2 The Committee considered the Bill at a public hearing on 18 August
1998. Details of the public hearing are referred to in Appendix 2. The
Committee received 29 submissions relating to the Bill and these are listed
at Appendix 1.
2. THE BILL
2.1 The Australian Hearing Services Reform Bill 1998 repeals the Australian
Hearing Services Act 1991 and provides for a number of transitional
provisions to facilitate the restructuring of the Australian Hearing Services
Authority (AHS) as a wholly Commonwealth owned company limited by shares.
The new company will be designated a Government Business Enterprise and
will compete with private providers in the provision of services for eligible
adult clients under the Commonwealth's Hearing Services Program. Company
status will not entail a relinquishment of Government control. The new
company will be subject to the Commonwealth Authorities and Companies
Act and will have to comply with its memorandum and articles of association
which will remain in the control of the Commonwealth. [1]
2.2 This Bill completes the reforms to the Hearing Services Program introduced
in 1997 to improve client choice of service provider and provide more
efficient and effective ways of delivering government hearing services
to clients. [2] These reforms included the creation, on 1 July
1997, of the Office of Hearing Services (OHS) within the Department of
Health and Family Services (DHFS) [3] to administer
the Hearing Services Program and the implementation, on 1 November, of
a new Hearing Services Voucher System. AHS recently adopted `Australian
Hearing' as its trading name to avoid confusion with OHS and the shift
in Program management and administrative responsibility.
2.3 The Bill provides for the transfer of assets and liabilities of the
Authority, including pending proceedings, to the new company and for the
transfer of specified liabilities of the Authority to the Commonwealth.
The Bill also provides for the transfer of employees of the Authority
to the new company and protects their accrued entitlements and continuity
of service.
2.4 Responsibility for meeting essential community service obligations
(CSOs) on behalf of the Government will be transferred from the Office
of Hearing Services to the company through contractual arrangements. These
CSOs, currently provided for within the Australian Hearing Services
Act 1991, include the provision of hearing services to children (up
to the age of 21), clients with special needs, eligible people in remote
areas, notably Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, hearing and
noise related research, hearing loss prevention activities and industry
collaboration activities focusing on the development of Australian hearing
products. [4]
3. ISSUES
3.1 The general thrust of the Bill was not opposed by many of those involved
with the provision or receipt of hearing services in Australia including
the Deafness Forum [5], ACROD [6], HAMADAA [7]
and the Audiological Society of Australia (although with a strong proviso
of a legislative guarantee for CSOs being included) [8]. Nevertheless, a number of issues were raised with
the Committee though most concerns centred around future uncertainty and
getting the proposed arrangements correct, rather than the current delivery
of services. Indeed many submissions were laudatory of the consistently
high quality and standard of services provided by AHS. [9]
Future of Community Service Obligations
3.2 The future of Community Service Obligations (CSOs) was the subject
of considerable comment in virtually all submissions received by the Committee.
The comments covered three main points. Firstly, that repeal of the Australian
Hearing Services Act 1991 would mean that legislative protection would
no longer be guaranteed for those adults and children defined under the
CSOs. It was argued that the CSOs should be detailed in legislation to
guarantee that such protection is continued and that the services provided
may be evaluated to ensure that adequate resources are available for their
future provision. Secondly, that AHS should retain its present role in
carrying out these service obligations for the Government and be adequately
funded to meet that responsibility. AHS detailed for the Committee its
Community Service Program encompassing the specialist areas of Paediatric,
Specialist Adult and Indigenous Services that it provides. [10]
Thirdly, that the emphasis in carrying out the obligations should be on
service rather than price. [11]
3.3 The Government's ongoing commitment to CSOs was emphasised in the
Minister's second reading speech:
This government places a significant emphasis on the provision of CSOs
and remains committed to their ongoing delivery. To demonstrate our commitment,
the government will continue funding CSOs through appropriations. As well,
the Office of Hearing Services, which has responsibility for managing
CSOs, will draw up robust contractual arrangements with the new company
which will specify the standards of service delivery and the outcomes
to be achieved.
3.4 The Department reaffirmed this commitment in evidence noting that
`the government has indicated that it will continue to fund AHS to provide
CSOs at the current level and quality of service. There is no threat at
all to CSOs under the new bill.' DHFS advised that, accordingly, priority
leading to the anticipated signing of CSO contracts `has been given to
defining details of CSOs by level, type, standard and costs of services.
This data will be closely monitored to ensure that the current level and
quality of services is maintained.' [12]
3.5 However, the possibility of a legislative guarantee for CSOs was
referred to by the Departmental Deputy Secretary, Ms Murnane, who commented
in evidence that:
in this sort of structural change the practice has been for CSOs to be
dealt with in binding contracts. The policy position has not changed,
but to put the matter entirely to rest an amendment to the Hearing Services
Administration Act could be considered by government, and what would be
in that amendment would be fully in line with government policy as it
now exists. [13]
Provision of hearing services to children and pensioners
3.6 A particular concern put to the Committee related to the future of
hearing services for children. Children's services are a key Community
Service Obligation. Many of the consumers, parents and teaching groups
who have experienced the provision of children's services by AHS expressed
the opinion that such services should remain exclusively with AHS (although
a proviso that parents have the right to use a private provider where
AHS is unable to supply the listening device which most suits their child's
needs was also made). [14] This opinion was based on a number of reasons
including:
- AHS's international reputation for innovative services and support
from early childhood to adult life. This early intervention is very
important for the education and welfare of children with hearing difficulties
or loss;
- AHS's national infrastructure and experience ensures that all children
across Australia, irrespective of geographical or economic situation,
are well served;
- that only a single provider is able to cover all aspects of the children's
hearing program, including early diagnosis, fitting, rehabilitation
and support and that AHS has the capacity, the expertise and the facilities
to provide for these complex needs of children;
- splitting the provision of children's services could result in general
confusion for all involved, with children not receiving the same level
of service as currently supplied; and
- a range of existing benefits would continue. [15]
3.7 The Deafness Forum noted that there is `some consumer organisation
concern' in the area of services to pensioners. The Forum submitted that:
The principal problem relates to the fact that some older persons may
have difficulty understanding advice they receive, may be confused about
the voucher system and their options, and may be vulnerable to being led
to believe they need to purchase top up aids…The need is to find
ways of minimising the possibility that some older consumers might make
wrong decisions when seeking and obtaining hearing services. [16]
3.8 AHS indicated that its Board and Management `are committed to preserving
the organisation's commitment to excellence in providing services to pensioners
and children'. [17]
3.9 DHFS confirmed that `unquestionably, AHS, as virtually at the moment
the sole provider for services to children, is doing an excellent job
and has an enormous amount of consumer satisfaction'. [18]
The Department advised that the Government has responded to concerns at
the possible change to the arrangements whereby AHS is the sole provider
of government funded services to children `by restating its commitment
to excellence in the provision of hearing services to children'. While
there `are no plans at this stage to use any provider other than AHS to
deliver CSOs', the Department confirmed that:
The Government has indicated that it will not make any changes to the
existing provision by AHS unless it can be clearly demonstrated that such
a change would lead to further improvements in the level and quality of
hearing rehabilitation outcomes for children.
Any decision to allow other hearing service providers to also provide
these services would only be made after comprehensive consultation with
parents, peak bodies and industry, extensive evaluation and advice from
the Hearing Services Advisory Committee. [19]
Operation of the new arrangements for the provision of subsidised hearing
services
3.10 The Deafness Forum indicated that it has received only a small number
of specific complaints, and some general expressions of concern about
the new arrangements. A considerably greater expression of concern was
regarding the future, particularly in respect of possible changes to children's
services. [20]
3.11 However, a number of consumer and provider concerns were raised
with the Committee including the standard of information provided to consumers,
questionable advertising and marketing methods, potential for `top up'
overservicing and abuse, difficulties for NESB people being able to communicate
with their service provider, an increased administrative load for providers,
and extended waiting times for repairs, particularly in rural areas. [21] A reduction in service to rural areas since the
implementation of the changes was also referred to in evidence. [22]
3.12 The operation of the voucher system was commented upon, particularly
that the value of the vouchers provided do not adequately meet the costs
involved in the provision of quality service. It was suggested that this
situation could lead to possible abuse of the top up system by some profit-driven
providers. [23] Hearing aid manufacturer/distributor
companies have also contacted the Deafness Forum expressing concern about
currency changes impacting on the operation of the voucher system and
its possible implications for consumers. HAMADAA similarly advised that
its members were concerned `about the level of fixed prices under the
OHS contract and their impact on the viability of contractors' especially
given the drop in value of the Australian dollar. However, HAMADAA noted
that these concerns are presently being addressed through discussions
with the Department. [24]
3.13 The Department informed the Committee that OHS operates two toll
free hot-line services, one for consumers and one for providers. Between
1 November 1997 and 31 July 1998 around 8,700 calls were received, mostly
from people seeking information on the progress of their voucher application
and which could be answered during the telephone call. Where the call
is a complaint rather than an inquiry it is handled in accordance with
set internal complaints handling procedures. These procedures are also
used to resolve specific complaints by consumers about individual providers.
DHFS stated that most complaints are resolved to the satisfaction of both
the consumer and the provider through these procedures. If there are a
number of complaints about a particular provider a formal investigation
is undertaken. However, since the implementation of the voucher system
only three formal investigations have been initiated. [25]
3.14 The Department indicated that the concerns expressed by private
providers about the new arrangements largely centred around delays in
the claim payments system. Some initial computer problems and service
provider uncertainty about the new claiming rules and procedures resulted
in significant payment delays. However, these have been corrected and
further information and guidance given to service providers, with the
result that new claims are now paid within 14 days of receipt of a valid
claim. [26]
3.15 In relation to the voucher system and possible abuse of top up devices,
the Department emphasised that:
the consumer is the focus of these reforms and there are safeguards in
place to ensure that the consumer can exercise choice with regard to top-up
devices, but at the same time be protected from pressure to purchase a
top-up device…We are continually monitoring the system overall, particularly
the situation with respect to top-up devices. [27]
3.16 DHFS also acknowledged that some providers and manufacturers had
been in contact with it about the value of the voucher being insufficient
and that it is `now in a lead-up to a renegotiation of the price. That
will be completed by 1 November.' [28]
Continuation of high quality hearing services research
3.17 The high quality and international recognition accorded hearing
services research performed in Australia was referred to favourably in
much of the evidence. Many of the particular research successes were also
referred to in evidence. [29] The Audiological
Society of Australia (ASA) noted that the AHS, through its research arm
the National Acoustics Laboratories (NAL), has for many years contributed
significantly to research aimed at improving hearing prosthetics and communication
for hearing impaired adults and children. The NAL also performs valuable
research into the prevention of hearing loss, and in preventing other
adverse effects of noise. The research conducted by the NAL is internationally
recognised, and has had significant impact on clinical practice world-wide
in relation to services to hearing impaired adults and children. The ASA
stressed that `the internationally-recognised results of AHS research
have only been possible due to the close alliance of the researchers with
a large national-based clinical service organisation, providing the opportunity
for efficient trialing of fitting procedures or new technology'. [30]
3.18 The NAL is also a core party to the Cooperative Research Centre
for Cochlear Implant, Speech and Hearing Research. This CRC research is
focussed both on commercial and public good outcomes. [31]
The NAL primarily works to improve amplification schemes for hearing aids,
and to improve methods for selecting and adjusting hearing aids to best
suit the characteristics of hearing impaired people.
3.19 The ASA, among others, was concerned that the legislative changes
imply that OHS will only be in a managerial position in regards to the
funding of NAL research, and that it is unclear whether OHS will have
a controlling position in regards to the inclusion of specific projects
in the research program, or to the specific funding allocated to individual
research projects. It was imperative that future research could not be
curtailed in response to short-term budget pressures or requirements for
efficiency dividends. [32]
3.20 AHS advised that the conduct, progress, appropriateness and outcomes
of the NAL research program are monitored by the Authority's Research
Advisory Committee, comprising senior managers from within the AHS, and
a majority of external experts from relevant fields. [33] DHFS also informed the Committee that following
the restructure of the AHS, the Office of Hearing Services will contract
with AHS to provide quarterly reports on the research undertaken with
the funds provided. These funds, $3.5million per annum, are a specified
appropriation for research and will continue as an identified element
into the future. [34]
4. RECOMMENDATIONS
4.1 The Committee reports to the Senate that it has considered the Australian
Hearing Services Reform Bill 1998 and recommends that the Bill
proceed.
4.2 The Committee further recommends that the Government consider
amending the Hearing Services Administration Act 1997 to enshrine
in legislation its policy commitment that there would be no change to
the existing Community Service Obligations (CSOs) and that their funding
arrangements would be retained.
Senator Sue Knowles
Chairman
December 1998
MINORITY REPORT
AUSTRALIAN LABOR PARTY
AUSTRALIAN HEARING SERVICES REFORM BILL 1998
The Opposition members of this committee wish to express their concern
that the long term outcome for disadvantaged groups of hearing impaired
people are very likely to be worse, if this Bill is passed and the Government
continues to effectively privatise what is an essential service. Those
most likely to be affected by a reduction in service are children, aboriginal
groups and the elderly
Australian Hearing Services has developed a deserved reputation as a
specialist delivery agency for low cost services. Evidence suggested that
in several areas the private sector was not prepared to compete or was
unable to match the price offered by a single national specialist body.
There is no support for this body to be privatised. This would potentially
result in the loss of these services for no demonstrated gain. The CSO's
have not yet been put into legislation and there is no guarantee that
the CSO's will not be whittled down over time.
The needs of deaf people are not the place to start making economies.
Australian Hearing Services is not the place to start experiments in organisational
reform when the case for reform has not been demonstrated.
As there can be no certainty about how far the reform process will be
taken and because there is no clear definition of the CSO's and a commitment
about who will fund them in future, this Bill should not proceed in its
current form.
Senator Chris Evans (ALP, Western Australia)
Senator Kay Denman (ALP, Tasmania)
MINORITY REPORT BY THE AUSTRALIAN DEMOCRATS
Australian Hearing Services Reform Bill 1998
The Democrats believe that this Bill should reflect the Government's
stated commitment to providing reliable and high quality hearing services
to people with hearing impairments. We are committed to ensuring that
the estimated 600 000 Australians who are currently eligible for assistance
under the hearing services program are not disadvantaged by the move towards
corporatisation of the Australian Hearing Service (AHS).
The Democrats have also been aware of the impact of the corporatisation
on the 700 staff employed by the AHS. We believe that employees of AHS
should also not be disadvantaged by the corporatisation of the AHS.
The Democrats strongly support the retention by AHS of services to children,
clients with special needs and remote and indigenous clients and research.
We believe that the community service obligations (CSO) of AHS should
be enshrined in legislation to ensure that this policy commitment is upheld
by successive governments.
The Democrats do not necessarily agree that separating the purchaser
and provider functions of AHS will lead to greater efficiency in service
delivery. We recognise however that people with hearing impairments can
benefit from having a greater choice of service providers. We believe
that there are other important factors that should be addressed in the
move towards corporatisation. These include:
- A more explicit articulation of policy priorities;
- A greater clarification of responsibilities;
- The setting of targets, standards and evaluation goals, in consultation
with consumers;
- A commitment to accountability in expenditure to the community; and
- A greater responsiveness to the needs and priorities of clients.
The Democrats acknowledge the concerns that many consumers have about
the impact of corporatisation on consumers who may be more vulnerable
to exploitation, such as pensioners and people with limited English skills.
We urge the Government to address these concerns and to ensure that all
consumers are fully informed about their rights and the choices available
to them. We believe that the government should ensure that service providers
and their associated marketing practices are closely monitored to avoid
the potential for inappropriate practices, such as overservicing.
The Democrats support the Committee's recommendations and wish to emphasise
the need for ongoing monitoring of the implementation of the measures
contained in this Bill.
Senator Andrew Bartlett
Australian Democrats Senator for Queensland
APPENDIX 1: Submissions received by the Committee
| 1 |
Australian Conductive Deafness Association Inc. |
| 2 |
Royal Institute for Deaf and Blind Children |
| 3 |
Mr David Bullock |
| 4 |
SHHH Australia Inc. |
| 5 |
Committee of Principals and Heads of Services for Deaf
and Hearing Impaired Students |
| 6 |
The Advisory Council for Children with Impaired Hearing
(Victoria) |
| 7 |
Deafness Forum of Australia |
| 8 |
Tinnitus Association WA (Inc) |
| 9 |
Better Hearing Australia (WA) Inc. |
| 10 |
Mr Richard A. Roper |
| 11 |
Early Education Program for Hearing Impaired Children |
| 12 |
Deafness Association of the NT Inc |
| 13 |
North Shore Deaf Children's Association Incorporated,
Management Committee |
| 14 |
Parents of Hearing Impaired South Australia Inc. |
| 15 |
Parents of Hearing Impaired Children National Network |
| 16 |
HAMADAA |
| 17 |
Australian Consumers' Association |
| 18 |
Deafness Council Western Australia |
| 19 |
ACROD Limited |
| 20 |
Australian Hearing Services |
| 21 |
Commonwealth Department of Health and Family Services
- Additional Information, dated 26 August 1998
|
| 22 |
Community and Public Sector Union, PSU Group (CPSU) |
| 23 |
Cooperative Research Centre for Cochlear Implant, Speech
& Hearing Research |
| 24 |
Speech Pathology Association of Australia |
| 25 |
Audiological Society of Australia |
| 26 |
Parents of Hearing Impaired Children Victorian Federation
Inc |
| 27 |
NACCHO |
| 28 |
Parent Council for Deaf Education Inc |
| 29 |
Mr Lindsay Symons |
APPENDIX 2: Public hearing
A public hearing was held on the Bill on 18 August 1998 in Senate
Committee Room 2S1.
Committee Members in attendance
Senator Sue Knowles (Chairman)
Senator Kay Denman
Senator Michael Forshaw
Senator Ross Lightfoot
Witnesses
Deafness Forum of Australia
Mr Brian Rope, Chief Executive Officer
Parents of Hearing Impaired Children National Network
Ms Jean Feder, South Australian Coordinator & Board Member Deafness
Forum
SHHH Australia Inc.
Mr Richard Brading, President
ACROD Limited
Mr Damian Lacey, Chief Executive Officer, VSDC
Royal Institute for Deaf and Blind Children
Dr Dianne Toe, Clinical Audiologist/Research Fellow
Audiological Society of Australia
Cooperative Research Centre for Cochlear Implant, Speech & Hearing
Research
Dr Robert Cowan, Federal President, Audiological Society & Director,
Cooperative Research Centre
CPSU
Mr David O'Neill, National Industrial Officer
Committee of Principals and Heads of Services for Deaf and
Hearing Impaired
Mrs Noeleen Bieske, Principal of St Mary's School for Children with Impaired
Hearing Inc.
Mrs Marilyn Dann, Coordinator, Mount View Primary School Facility for
Deaf and Hearing Impaired Children
Australian Hearing Services
Mr Peter O'Byrne, Managing Director
Mr Warren Butler, General Manager, Operations
Department of Health and Family Services
Ms Mary Murnane, Deputy Secretary
Mr Barry Wight, First Assistance Secretary, Disability Programs Division
Mr Peter DeGraaff, A/g Assistant Secretary, Office of Hearing Services
Mr Nicholas Blazow, Assistant Secretary, Corporate Development Branch
Mr John Reynolds, Director, Portfolio Support Unit
Footnotes
[1] Committee Hansard, 18.8.98, pp.CA93-4.
[2] See Community Affairs Legislation Committee,
Report on the Hearing Services Administration Bill 1997 and the Hearing
Services and AGHS Reform Bill 1997, March 1997.
[3] At its public hearing in August 1998 the
Committee took evidence on this Bill from the Department of Health and
Family Services. As a result of changes to the Administrative Arrangements
in October 1998 following the Federal election, the Hearing Services Program
is now administered by the new Department of Health and Aged Care.
[4] Explanatory memorandum – Outline; Minister's
second reading speech, House of Representatives Hansard, 25.3.98, p.1478.
[5] Committee Hansard, 18.8.98, p.CA70.
[6] Committee Hansard, 18.8.98, p.CA76.
[7] Submission No.16, p.1.
[8] Committee Hansard, 18.8.98, pp.CA81,
84.
[9] For example Submissions No.2, p.1; No.5,
p.2; No.7, p.7; No.15, p.1; No.19, p.2. DHFS also referred to a recent
survey of 1100 hearing services clients which indicated a rate of over
90 per cent satisfaction or better with the services provided, Committee
Hansard, 18.8.98, p.CA93.
[10] Submission No.20, pp.1-5.
[11] For example Submissions No.4, p.2; No.7,
p.4; No.12, pp.1-2; No.19, p.2; No.22, p.2; No.23, p.3; No.25, p.4.
[12] Committee Hansard, 18.8.98, p.CA94;
Submission No.21, p.4.
[13] Committee Hansard, 18.8.98, p.CA95.
[14] Submission No.13, p.1 and Submission No.28,
p.1.
[15] For example Submissions No.4, pp.2-3;
No.5, pp.2-4; No.6, pp.1-2, 5; No.7, pp.5-6; No.11, pp.2-3; No.12, p.2;
No.13, pp.2-3.
[16] Submission No.7, p.6.
[17] Submission No.20, p.5.
[18] Committee Hansard, 18.8.98, p.CA97.
[19] Submission No.21, pp.4-5. See also Committee
Hansard, 18.8.98, pp.CA95-6.
[20] Submission No.7, p.2.
[21] For example Submissions No.4, pp.3-4;
No.7, pp.7-9; No.17, p.1; No.25, pp.6-12 which outlines the concerns of
audiologists in an ASA survey with cost reductions and their impact on
service delivery.
[22] Committee Hansard, 18.8.98, pp.CA71-2,
91; and Submission No.3, pp.1-2.
[23] Submissions No.2, p.3; No.12, p.3; No.15,
p.2; No.19, p.3 and Committee Hansard, 18.8.98, p.CA77.
[24] Submission No.16, p.1.
[25] Submission No.21, p.5; and Committee
Hansard, 18.8.98, p.CA93.
[26] Submission No.21, p.6.
[27] Committee Hansard, 18.8.98, p.CA94.
[28] Committee Hansard, 18.8.98, p.CA99.
[29] For example Submissions No.2, p.4; No.4,
p.4; No.5, p.4; No.7, p.10; No.12, p.3; No.15, p.2.
[30] Submission No.25, p.13. AHS also noted
that `this unparalleled association has brought several competitive advantages
to the research, which in turn has helped the community at large', Submission
No.20, p.6.
[31] The organisation and major achievements
of the CRC are referred to in its submission, see Submission No.23, pp.2-3.
[32] Submission No.25, p.15. See also Submission
No.23, pp.5-6.
[33] Submission No.20, p.8.
[34] Submission No.21, p.6 and Committee
Hansard, 18.8.98, p.CA97.