Renee Coffey (Griffith, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

In Griffith we are fortunate to have a community that believes deeply in good health care, in medical research and in looking after one another. We are also home to some of our country's most valued hospitals, medical research facilities and other treatment facilities. We are a community that knows illness is never abstract. It is the specialist appointment in the middle of a workday. It's the test result you wait on. It's the quiet and difficult conversation at the kitchen table about what happens next. It is the hope that early action, good advice and modern medicine can all make a difference.

Australians deserve protection from discrimination of all forms when it comes to accessing the health care and health information that they need. That is why I support this bill, the Treasury Laws Amendment (Genetic Testing Protections in Life Insurance and Other Measures) Bill 2025, which delivers on this Albanese Labor government's commitment to ban the use of adverse genetic test results in life insurance and to do exactly what we said we would do to protect Australians from discrimination when engaging with their own health care.

At its heart, this bill is about making sure our laws keep up with modern science and keep faith with people who these laws are supposed to serve. Most importantly, it's about ensuring Australians are not punished for seeking information that could protect their health or even save their lives. This bill establishes a ban on life insurers using certain information about an individual's genetic testing when deciding whether to offer life insurance or on what terms, and it aligns with the Disability Discrimination Act with that reform.

Schedule 1 of this bill deals with a problem that has sat in front of governments for too long. Genetic testing has become an increasingly important part of modern medicine. It can help doctors prevent, monitor and treat a range of cancers, cancer predisposition syndromes and other heritable conditions. It can guide earlier intervention. It can help families understand risk. It can also support clinical research that improves care for everyone. But, for too many Australians, the promise of that science has been overshadowed by a very practical fear. 'If I take this test, will I be penalised by an insurer?' Treasury's analysis shows that concerns about life insurance have caused some people to delay or avoid genetic testing, including participation in research. That is not an acceptable choice for any Australian to face. No-one should have to choose between protecting their health and protecting their family's financial future. No-one should sit in a doctor's office and hesitate about a medically recommended test because they are worried that an insurer may later use that information against them. No-one should hold back from joining medical research because a commercial consequence hangs over them. Health care should be guided by clinical need and informed consent, not distorted by fear or financial disadvantage.

This issue is also a personal one to me. As someone living with MS, multiple sclerosis, I know what it's like to live with health uncertainty. At present, we've identified over 200 genes which have been linked to the risk of developing MS. I know what it's like to think seriously about the future, to navigate medical systems and to understand that a diagnosis or a test result can shape not only how you feel physically but how secure you feel in every other aspect of your life. I understand in a very real way why health decisions must be driven by care, by knowledge and by what gives people the best chance to live well, not by the fear that doing the right thing medically will somehow leave them worse off financially. That is why this reform matters so much. It gives people certainty. It tells Australians that, if they undertake genetic testing, whether for their own health care or through health and medical research, that decision will not be used to block them from life insurance or saddle them with worse terms. This government announced these reforms because the existing arrangements were not delivering that certainty, and this legislation gives effect to that decision.

The bill will apply the ban to life insurance contract decisions. It amends the Insurance Contract Act 1984 to stop insurers from using protected genetic information in life insurance underwriting and contract decisions. It also amends the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 so that our antidiscrimination law is aligned with that new protection. This matters because people deserve a framework that is coherent. They deserve laws that speak clearly to one another. They deserve to know that the advance of genomic medicine is being matched by the advance of legal protection.

It is also important to be clear about what this reform does not do. It does not prevent life insurance from continuing to be properly risk rated. Insurers will still be able to use information they can already access and use, including signs, symptoms, diagnosed disease and family medical history. The bill is directly targeted at genetic test information and has been drafted and consulted on to remove a specific barrier to care while preserving the broader capacity of insurers to underwrite policies in a way that reflects actual clinical presentation and existing risk factors. Nor does this bill prevent people from choosing to disclose test results where that benefits them. The framework allows an individual with written consent to volunteer genetic test results in circumstances where doing so would not adversely affect the insurance offer or policy terms. It is a proportionate and sensible response, and it protects people from harm while allowing room for choice where disclosure is genuinely in their interests.

These protections have teeth. The bill establishes both civil penalties and strict liability offence for non-compliance, with regulatory responsibility assigned to the Australian Securities and Investment Commission, ASIC. That matters because rights without enforcement are often not rights at all. If this parliament is going to say to Australians that they can proceed with genetic testing without fear of misuse by insurers, then we must back that promise with a regulator that can monitor, enforce and act.

The bill also provides for regular review of the operation of new provisions, including whether they are effective in giving individuals reasonable certainty and whether there are any unintended consequences. That is good lawmaking—firm where it needs to be and accountable over time.

For me, one of the most compelling arguments for this reform is what it says about the kind of country we want to be. We should be a country that backs prevention. We should be a country that wants people to seek information early, not late. We should be a country that supports research participation, because the discoveries of today become the treatments of tomorrow, and I would like to acknowledge all of the wonderful medical research facilities that exist in my community of Griffith and the remarkable work that they are doing in this space. And we should be a country where the benefits of scientific progress are not reserved for those wealthy enough to absorb financial risk but shared fairly across the community.

Consultation on this very issue followed years of concern from advocates, clinicians and researchers, and the evidence put before government showed that the status quo was suppressing the full benefits of genetic testing. We know that, in health, delay can come at a real cost. Delay can mean a missed opportunity for surveillance. Delay can mean treatment starting later than it should. Delay can mean a family member not understanding their risk in time. Delay can also mean fewer people participating in research, slowing progress for the whole community. When the law creates hesitation around testing that may be medically indicated or socially valuable, the law is failing to serve the public interest. I hope this is unacceptable to all members.

It is worth saying plainly that voluntary arrangements were evidently not enough. The Australian Genetics and Life Insurance Moratorium: Monitoring the Effectiveness and Response report from Monash University found that the existing moratorium was 'inadequate to address and prevent genetic discrimination in life insurance', and they recommended a legislative prohibition instead. That is why government action matters here. A patchwork approach could not deliver the certainty that Australians needed. Only a clear, statutory rule could do that.

In my electorate of Griffith, this matters because our community values research, innovation and access to good care. We are home to families who participate in screening, who support medical research and who understand that early intervention often changes outcomes. We are also home to people who carry enough already—a health concern, a family history, caring responsibilities, the cost of living. They should not carry an extra burden created by outdated insurance settings. This reform says to them, 'Your health comes first.' It says to clinicians and researchers, 'We will not leave unnecessary barriers in the way of good care and scientific progress.'

Schedules 2 through 4 of the bill deal with practical questions on how our economy is regulated and how public administration should work. They are different in subject matter, but they share an underlying principle that good law should be clear, modern and proportionate.

Schedule 2 deals with foreign financial services providers. It establishes licensing exemptions for certain providers, including a comparable regulator exemption, a professional investor exemption and a market maker exemption. It also creates a faster path through aspects of the licensing process for some foreign providers who have already been authorised in comparable regulatory regimes by exempting them from the fit-and-proper-person assessment when applying for a standard Australian financial services licence for wholesale services. The aim is to facilitate access to a wider range of global investment opportunities, specialised advice and new financing sources for Australian businesses and investors while retaining conditions, notification requirements and ASIC oversight.

That matters in practical terms because Australian wholesale and professional investors, including superannuation funds, operate in global financial environments. Access to international markets can help diversify holdings and increase competition. At the same time, we should never lose sight of the need for regulatory safeguards and domestic market integrity. What this schedule attempts to do is strike that balance: reduce duplication where there is comparable overseas regulation but preserve conditions, court submission requirements in some cases, and ASIC's ability to supervise, vary conditions or cancel exemptions. Schedule 3 modernises the legislative architecture that supports Australia's participation in multilateral development banks and the International Monetary Fund. These institutions matter because they help finance development, economic stability and, increasingly, climate resilience across our region.

The amendments standardise appropriation provisions, allow Australia to participate more effectively in evolving financial arrangements and reduce the need for repeated legislative amendment every time routine or non-controversial administrative steps are required. At the same time, they retain parliamentary transparency by requiring notice of new financial obligations through disallowable legislative instruments. That is important for a country like Australia. Our prosperity is tied to the stability and the resilience of our region. In an era of climate disruption, economic uncertainty and growing development finance needs, multilateral development banks are changing how they work.

The 2024-25 MYEFO included support through a US$150 million purchase of World Bank hybrid capital and US$200 million guarantees for the Asian Development Bank's Innovative Finance Facility for Climate in Asia and the Pacific. This schedule helps ensure our legislative settings are flexible enough to support commitments of that kind and future commitments without sacrificing parliamentary oversight.

Schedule 4 repeals stage 2 of the financial adviser registration process that was due to commence on 1 July 2026. Under the current stage 1 system, Australian financial services licensees already have to register authorised financial advisers with ASIC before those advisers can lawfully provide personal advice to retail clients. The Financial Services and Credit Panel also already has the authority to take disciplinary action where needed. This schedule removes the requirement for individual advisers to separately register themselves annually, a process that otherwise would add red tape without improving consumer protection.

These are sensible changes. Consumer protection must always be real and robust but regulation should also be effective and proportionate. Our laws must evolve alongside science; when medicine advances, policy must keep pace. When we know that an outdated rule is discouraging life-saving or life-improving action, it is our responsibility to change that rule. When people have raised this issue for years, we owe them far more than just warm words; we owe them guarantees.

That's what this bill is here to do. It gives Australians reassurance against genetic discrimination in life insurance. It offers hope to people considering genetic testing or participation in research. It aligns our insurance law with our anti-discrimination framework. It establishes enforcement provisions that give reform real force. It modernises financial service regulation, supports Australia's international economic engagement and removes unnecessary red tape. Most of all, it says to Australians living with uncertainty about their health, quite simply: get the test, join the research, have the conversation with your doctor, seek the information that could help you or help your family. This government will not leave you exposed for doing so. That is fair, that is humane and that is exactly why this House should support this bill.

See this speech in context