Mary Doyle (Aston, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Treasury Laws Amendment (Genetic Testing Protections in Life Insurance and Other Measures) Bill 2025. At its heart, this legislation is about removing barriers to better health, to smarter investment, to global engagement and to sensible regulation. For Australians, it is about confidence—confidence in our health system, confidence in our financial system and confidence that government is working in their interests.

One of the greatest barriers to broader participation in genetic screening has been the fear of discrimination by life insurers. No-one should ever be deterred from taking a potentially life-saving test because they are worried it could later be used against them. That is why I am proud to be part of a federal Labor government introducing legislation to ban the use of genetic test results in life insurance underwriting. Schedule 1 amends the Insurance Contracts Act 1984 and aligns the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 to make it crystal clear that life insurers will not be able to use a person's genetic test results to determine whether they are offered cover or on what terms.

Genetic testing can extend and indeed save lives. It allows doctors to prevent, treat and monitor cancers and other genetic conditions. It enables research that identifies new risk factors and develops new therapies. Yet Treasury analysis shows the current framework has led some Australians to delay or avoid testing, even avoiding participation in clinical trials because of fear it could affect their access to affordable life insurance. That means the full benefits of genetic science are not being realised, and that is exactly what this bill addresses.

I understand on a deeply personal level the importance of undergoing genetic testing. Just over 30 years ago, in February 1996, I underwent genetic testing for the BRCA1 and BRCA2 gene mutations after being diagnosed with breast cancer in early December 1995, aged just 25. At that time, genetic testing was in its early stages. I had blood drawn—it wasn't a cheek swab back then—and it took another 18 months to receive my results. During that long wait, anxious about what lay ahead, I received the added benefit of genetic counselling. At first I was very confused by this, not quite understanding why I needed to have genetic counselling. I just wanted to know, with these gene mutations, which meant a higher chance of breast cancer recurrence, what medical options were going to be available to me so I could live my life to its fullest. Of course I would need genetic counselling along that road—even more so if my results turned out to be positive.

I was very young and very naive. I'd only just gotten engaged a month or so before my cancer diagnosis, so there was a lot going on in my mind. I was yet to even think about my wedding venue, wedding date and wedding dress, and all that guff, let alone think about having children one day with my husband-to-be. The thought of passing on a gene mutation to our future children was quite alarming, to say the least. All of these thoughts were popping into my head, so of course it never occurred to me what genetic testing might mean if I was ever to apply for life insurance one day. Long-term financial matters such as that are rarely on the radar of a young person in their mid-20s. Yes, there are many things to consider.

Ultimately, I was very glad I underwent genetic testing. In August 1997, 18 months later, I received a letter in the mail informing me that I had tested negative for both the BRCA1 and BRCA2 gene. The relief that swept over me was incredible. It was as if decades of my life ahead had been handed back to me, and they were. I'm so thankful for genetic testing and I highly recommend it for anyone who may require it. For those like myself, a negative result gives some peace of mind that there isn't a genetic link at least for the cancer or other ailment with which they may have been diagnosed.

For those who do receive positive results, however, it gives them the ability to look at options that suit them and to take swift action. From the stories I've heard over the years from people who do have positive genetic test results for cancer or other ailments, it is an empowering step for them to take, as they are now able to take control of their medical and health decisions. They are forewarned and forearmed. They say knowledge is power. It can be life saving or life extending for them, and that means the world to people who have tested positive and for their loved ones. That kind of empowering knowledge should not have to be forsaken out of fear of being unable to obtain life insurance or an affordable life insurance option.

I'd like to now acknowledge the outstanding work of Dr Jane Tiller, senior research fellow, genetic counsellor and public health researcher at Monash University, for her dedication and advocacy in regard to this important issue. Dr Tiller has advocated tirelessly to raise awareness regarding genetic discrimination in life insurance for around a decade, and without her and her team's efforts, this bill may not have been introduced into this House today. I thank her.

For many families and households juggling mortgages, raising children and planning for retirement, life insurance is not a luxury. It means a sense of security, and that should never come at the cost of affording lifesaving medical information. The ban on the use of genetic test results in life insurance will provide a level of certainty. It will reassure people that participating in genetic testing, whether through their doctor or through medical research, will not jeopardise their financial security.

Importantly, the reform strikes the right balance. It does not prevent individuals from voluntarily providing genetic test results where it would not adversely affect their policy. It does not prevent insurers from using information about diagnosed conditions, symptoms or family medical history. Risk ratings remain intact. What is removed is discrimination based on predictive genetic information. There will be strong enforcement, including civil penalties and criminal offences, of non-compliance, regulated by ASIC. This reform removes a real barrier to preventive health and medical research, it encourages early detection, it encourages participation and, ultimately, it saves lives.

Schedule 2 will ensure that Australia remains competitive and globally connected. It introduces three targeted exemptions from the requirement to hold an Australian financial services licence for certain foreign financial services providers—the comparable regulator exemption, the professional investor exemption and the market maker exemption. It also streamlines the licensing process where firms are already regulated by comparable overseas authorities. Why does this matter? It matters because our local economy is deeply connected to global markets. Australians work in many fields: banking and financial services, retail, health care, education, advanced manufacturing, small businesses and professional services amongst others. Our superannuation funds, which represent the retirement savings of hardworking Australians, rely on access to international markets to diversify investments and to secure returns. These reforms will help ensure Australian businesses and investors can access specialised global expertise and new sources of capital, while maintaining regulatory oversight and market integrity. It is about getting the balance right—maintaining strong safeguards whilst reducing unnecessary red tape.

Schedule 3 futureproofs Australia's legislative framework for multilateral development banks and the International Monetary Fund. These institutions are evolving rapidly, developing innovative financial instruments to meet development and climate financing gaps. The amendments ensure that Australia can continue to participate effectively, including in hybrid capital and guarantee arrangements without requiring repeated legislative change for routine transactions that parliament has already endorsed. In regard to global stability, climate resilience and responsive international engagement, this ensures Australia remains a constructive and influential global partner. At the same time, transparency is strengthened through requirements to notify parliament of new financial obligations via disallowable legislative instruments. This is modernisation without diminishing oversight.

Finally, schedule 4 delivers on the government's commitment not to proceed with stage 2 of the financial adviser registration process. The existing stage 1 system already requires AFS licensees to register advisers with ASIC. The Financial Services and Credit Panel has strong disciplinary powers, including suspension or cancellation. Proceeding with stage 2 would have required new IT infrastructure and imposed annual registration requirements from 1 July 2026, adding cost and regulatory burden without enhancing consumer protection. For many small financial advice practices which serve families and retirees, unnecessary red tape ultimately increases costs for clients. This amendment removes duplication while preserving accountability.

This bill is about fairness in health, confidence in financial markets, modernisation of international engagement and sensible regulatory reform. This bill means greater confidence for people to pursue genetic testing without fear, stronger access to global investment opportunities, responsible participation in international financial institutions and reduced regulatory burden where it does not serve consumers. Our government is getting on with the job—removing barriers, modernising systems and putting Australians first. I commend this bill to the House.

See this speech in context