Sarah Witty (Melbourne, 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 bill asks a simple question: in a country as wealthy and as clever as ours, should anyone have to choose between knowledge that could save their life and the security of protecting their family? Our government is saying no. This bill delivers on the Albanese government's commitment to ban the use of adverse genetic test results in life insurance underwriting, changing the law so that Australians can engage with their own health care without fear of discrimination. This government is aligning the Insurance Contracts Act and the Disability Discrimination Act so our antidiscrimination framework keeps pace with modern science, because genetic testing saves lives.

Australians should never have to choose between their health and their financial security. People have been delaying or avoiding genetic testing and even avoiding participating in medical research because they are worried about how insurers might respond. This hesitation can mean a missed opportunity to prevent illness. It is a barrier to prevention, a barrier to early treatment and a barrier to scientific progress. The Albanese Labor government is removing that barrier. Schedule 1 implements a clear, scientifically led decision: life insurers will no longer be able to use an individual's adverse genetic test results to determine whether they can access cover or to set the terms of that cover. It is important to note that this bill does not interfere with insurance companies designing their policies. They will still be able to consider diagnosed conditions, symptoms and family medical history. It does not prevent individuals from volunteering genetic test results with written consent where doing so benefits them.

What it does do is end the practice of penalising someone for proactively seeking information about their own health. It ends a regime that has forced Australians into cruel calculations—'Should I stay in the dark and protect my insurance or seek knowledge and risk financial consequences?' This is not a fair choice; this is not a humane choice. This is not consistent with a country that believes in preventive health care. Genetic testing can identify risks for cancers, heart diseases and other inherited conditions long before symptoms appear. It allows doctors to monitor more closely, to intervene early, to prevent disease altogether. This is the frontier of modern medicine.

In my electorate of Melbourne, more than a hundred young people participated in a DNA screening study. Backed by Monash University, the study looks into preventive genetic testing. While attending an event with DNA Screen, I met Kara, a young woman from my community who did not want to wait for a health scare to take control of her future. She was told she was too young to worry. She chose to act anyway.

Through DNA screening, Kara discovered she carries the BRCA2 gene variant, putting her at higher risk of breast and ovarian cancer. That kind of news could stop you in your tracks. For Kara, it did the opposite. With the right support, she was connected to medical specialists. She now has a care plan, and she is being regularly monitored. She has options, she has time, she has control, and what could have been overwhelming became empowering.

However, the reality is that too many people are still held back from taking that step. The main reason people who signed up for DNA Screen ultimately decided not to participate was fear of genetic discrimination. It was fear, not science, not medicine, not cost. It was just fear. For decades, Australians have raised ethical concerns about genetic discrimination. They have asked why a test taken to prevent illness could be used to price them out of insurance protection. This bill answers that question. It tells Australians, especially those at high risk of inherited conditions, that their decision to undertake genetic testing will not jeopardise their ability to protect their families.

It does something else. It supports medical research. Treasury's analysis makes clear that concerns about life insurance have discouraged participation in clinical research. When people hold back from research, the full benefits of genetic science are not realised. That slows discovery, it stifles innovation, and it dims hope. By removing this barrier, we pave the way for greater participation in preventive genomic screening and stronger public health outcomes. This is what proactive governments look like. It looks ahead. It recognises that prevention is not just kinder; it is smarter. Investment in disease prevention reduces pressure on our healthcare system. It keeps people in work longer. It strengthens productivity. It lowers long-term costs. It is not just a health reform, it is an economic reform, and it is a structural reform. It will be backed with real action. The ban creates civil penalties and criminal offences for noncompliance and places enforcement authority with ASIC. Vulnerable Australians deserve more than good intentions. They deserve enforceable protections.

For Melbourne, this reform matters deeply. We are a city of students, researchers, health professionals and young families. We are home to world-class institutions like the Florey institute in Parkville, where this government announced over $40 million for the fight against motor neurone disease. In my electorate, we want to be at the forefront of genomic medicine. We want our young people to participate in research that advances global understanding. We want families to make health decisions based on evidence and trust. This bill will ensure they can.

This bill also speaks to something bigger. It speaks to what kind of government we choose to be. The Albanese government has been clear that health should never depend on wealth. We have reduced the cost of medicines. We have strengthened Medicare. We have invested in urgent care clinics. We have acted on women's health. And now we are ensuring that preventive genetic medicine is not undermined by financial fear. That is the story of our government—a government that backs prevention, a government that removes barriers, a government that puts people before profit.

It is also important to reflect more fully on the broader architecture of this bill. Schedule 2 provides targeted licensing exemptions for foreign financial service providers where they are already subject to comparable regulation in trusted jurisdictions. This is not deregulation for its own sake; it recognises that Australian businesses operate in a global marketplace and that access to international capital strengthens our economy. Australians' retirement savings system is one of the largest pools of capital in the world. Access to global markets helps deliver stronger returns, builds competition and opens up new sources of investment for Australian businesses. In my electorate of Melbourne, home of some of the country's largest super funds and asset management firms, this creates stronger connections to global markets and more opportunities to grow Australian savings. At the same time, the reform maintains appropriate oversight, balancing openness with integrity.

Schedule 3 speaks to Australia's role beyond our shores. It modernises and futureproofs the legislative framework that governs our participation in mutual development banks. These institutions are evolving rapidly, particularly in response to climate change and shifting global economic pressures. Australia is not a superpower; we are something else. We are a middle power with influence. We are a trusted partner in the Australian Pacific. We are a country that builds bridges and brings nations together. Through our work with these department banks and funds, Australia supports infrastructure, climate resilience and economic stability across our region. Australia has agreed to participate in hybrid capital and guarantee arrangements that expand the lending capacity of these institutions. These amendments ensure our domestic legislation can accommodate such innovative financial tools without repeated technical, legislative change. They reduce administrative burden while preserving transparency, including parliamentary notifications of new financial obligations.

This is responsible internationalism in practice—Australia showing up, Australia investing in regional stability, Australia using its place as a middle power to shape solutions that no country can deliver alone. When our region is stronger, more resilient and more prosperous, Australia benefits too. Together, schedules 2 and 3 show that government understands both the domestic and international dimensions of economic policy. This is a government that strengthens our financial system at home while reinforcing Australia's leadership role abroad.

Schedule 4 reflects something equally important: this government knows when to step in and when to step back. The previous framework proposed a second layer of financial adviser registration that would have required individual advisers to undertake additional annual processes supported by new and costly IT systems. The current system already provides strong oversight. Advisers are registered, misconduct can be investigated, and registrations can be suspended or cancelled. Accountability is there, which means what was proposed was extra process, not extra protection. Many financial advisers are small business operators. They employ staff. They serve families. They guide Australians through some of the most important financial decisions of their lives. They should spend their time supporting clients, not navigating unnecessary bureaucracy. This government is serious about reducing regulatory burden where it does not serve a clear public purpose. We will strengthen rules where consumers need protection. Schedule 4 delivers practical reform and reflects the government's focus on substance over symbolism.

These are sensible, measured reforms, but the moral centre of this bill sits with schedule 1. Australians deserve certainty when they seek knowledge about their bodies. We are living through a revolution in medicine. Genomic sequencing is faster, cheaper and more precise. It is changing what is possible. We can find risk before disease takes hold. We can step in earlier. We can guide treatment. We can give people time—time to act, time to plan, time to protect the people they love. This changes lives. It takes someone out of the dark and puts them back in control. But policy must keep up. Antidiscrimination law must keep up. Insurance law must keep up. Regulation must keep up. This bill ensures they do.

There will be some who argue that this interferes with market practice. I say this: markets exist to serve people, not the other way round. Penalising someone for taking a test that could prevent disease crosses a line. We are drawing that line today.

When I think about this reform, I think about Kara, about a young woman who chose not to wait. She now has a plan. She has the support. She has time. This reform is also about the thousands of Australians who will now step forward to participate in research without fear, about families who will make decisions in consultation with doctors, not insurers. And I think of what this reform says about us. It says we trust people with the truth and place control of their health in their hands. It says that we act early, giving people a real chance to change their future. It says we stand beside Australians when it matters most with care, strength and certainty.

We promised to ban the use of adverse genetic test results in life insurance. We are delivering on that promise. This parliament has a choice. We can cling to outdated frameworks that force people into silence or hesitation, or we can embrace a future where science advances, prevention expands and fairness underpins our laws. For the people of Melbourne, for families across this country, for every young person considering a test that could change their future, I know whose side I am on. I commend this bill to the House.

See this speech in context