Sophie Scamps (Mackellar, Independent) Share this | Hansard source

by leave—I move amendments (1) and (2) as circulated in my name together:

(1) Schedule 1, item 3, page 5 (lines 22 and 23), omit "Regulations made for the purposes of this subsection have effect despite anything else in this section.".

(2) Schedule 1, item 3, page 6 (lines 26 to 28), omit "Regulations made for the purposes of this subsection have effect despite anything else in this section.".

I rise to speak in support of the Treasury Laws Amendment (Genetic Testing Protections in Life Insurance and Other Measures) Bill 2025. This legislation establishes a statutory ban on insurers using the results of genetic tests when offering or pricing life insurance.

While I strongly support this bill, I will be moving two amendments to strengthen it. These amendments respond to concerns raised by the Australian Human Rights Commission regarding sections 33E(2) and 33F(5) of the bill. As currently drafted, these sections allow regulations to override the definitions of key terms, such as 'genetic testing' and 'protected genetic information'. Specifically, the provisions state that the regulations 'have effect despite anything else in this section'. This means that regulations could, in effect, redefine what constitutes protected genetic information, even if that contradicts the definitions set out in the legislation itself. This creates a risk that the scope of protections could be narrowed in the future. In doing so, it dilutes the strength and certainty of the ban. It is not appropriate for regulations to have the power to limit or expand the meaning of terms that are so central to the operation of the legislation.

While the explanatory memorandum suggests that this flexibility is needed to keep pace with advances in medicine, the Australian Human Rights Commission asserts that this is not sufficient justification for such an extensive delegation of power. They argue that substantial changes to the meaning of prescribed terms should only be done through legislative processes and appropriate scrutiny. My proposed amendments remove from sections 33E(2) and 33F(5) the words:

Regulations made for the purposes of this subsection have effect despite anything else in this section.

This will safeguard against any future narrowing of the protections in this bill, whilst still allowing the legislation to evolve appropriately through proper legislative processes.

This bill is the culmination of years of advocacy from medical professionals, researchers and consumer advocates who have consistently called for change. For too long, Australians have faced what has rightly been described as genetic discrimination in life insurance, where the results of a genetic test, often undertaken to better understand or prevent disease, could be used against them. The Australian Medical Association and Monash University's Public Health Genomics unit have cited research that shows that fear of insurance discrimination has deterred many at-risk people from having potentially life-saving genetic testing. The Human Genetics Society of Australasia has highlighted that patients have delayed or declined testing even when there is a strong family history of serious disease. The Public Health Association of Australia has pointed to broader public health implications, noting that reduced uptake of testing limits opportunities for early intervention and prevention. Consumer groups, including the Cancer Council Australia, have emphasised the very real human cost of missing the chance for early detection because they fear being penalised financially. This bill responds directly to those concerns and has been welcomed by the Council of Australian Life Insurers as giving Australians more certainty and empowering them towards better health outcomes. I'd like to acknowledge and thank the Assistant Treasurer for his very constructive engagement with the sector in developing this legislation.

In closing, this bill represents an important step forward for fairness, for public health and for the future of personalised medicine in Australia, and I commend these amendments and the bill to the House.

See this speech in context