Renee Coffey (Griffith, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to 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.

Mary Aldred (Monash, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It's a great privilege to rise to speak on this legislation, the Treasury Laws Amendment (Genetic Testing Protections in Life Insurance and Other Measures) Bill 2025, because it's an important piece of legislation. It's legislation that has been a long time in the making—too long—and it enjoys broad bipartisan support. In making my remarks, I'm going to acknowledge the work and great efforts of people like Dr Jane Tiller who have invested significant amounts of time, passion and expertise and a profound sense of equity and fairness in making sure that, this week, this bill gets to the start line and, I hope, through the Senate, the finish line as well.

The coalition is pleased to support this bill because it contains important reforms that Australians have been waiting for. They're sensible reforms. They're practical protections, they make sense and they make fairness around the use of genetic information in life insurance and improvements across our financial system. It's also a bill that highlights two consistent problems that have arisen at different times during the tenure of this government: reforms are delivered too slowly, and, even when there is broad agreement or bipartisan support, which the community hope for and expect from us as legislators on important issues like this, they take too long. The other point I wish to raise is about the scrutiny of public spending and where that is weakened and undermined.

I will deal with schedule 1 in my remarks, particularly around genetic protections, as they've been delayed despite years of bipartisan consensus and significant work by legal experts, ethicists, medical researchers and the broader community. This schedule prevents life insurers from using genetic-test results to deny or limit cover, ensuring Australians can access medical testing without fear or discrimination. Genetic testing can be life saving. It supports clinicians to prevent, diagnose and treat serious conditions, including hereditary diseases and cancer. No Australian should be discouraged from undertaking genetic testing because they fear it could affect their ability to obtain life insurance.

These reforms have strong bipartisan support and clear backing from clinicians, researchers and patient advocates. Indeed, they have enjoyed that support for years now, so the simple question is: why has it taken Labor so long to deliver this? In fact, the coalition had to drag Labor kicking and screaming to the start line for this legislation. In 2019, while in government, the coalition supported the introduction of an industry moratorium as an interim safeguard, with the clear expectation that legislation would follow. That meant, by the time of the 2022 election, there was broad agreement across industry, among clinicians and in the parliament that this legislation was needed, that its time had come and that the protections put forward were necessary and critical.

There's a broken promise by Labor, then, because we saw in September 2024 the then assistant treasurer Stephen Jones announce to much fanfare and lots of bells and whistles that Labor would be introducing legislation to ban genetic discrimination in life insurance. Great stuff—terrific and broadly supported! If only they had got on with the job and finished it! The announcement was widely welcomed, and it raised real expectations among ordinary Australians and the medical community. But, by the 2025 election, no legislation had even been introduced—no bill, no forward steps and no progress since that announcement, which had been made with bells and whistles, great fanfare, great media attention and with great acclaim and accolade for the government. Nothing was followed up.

Unfortunately, that is an analogy for a lot of serious stuff that we deal with in this parliament where there is a lot of fanfare and a lot of fuss but not a lot of follow-through. Australians were left waiting—and with real consequences. There was strong bipartisan support. There was no opposition. There was no reason why this legislation could not be introduced to the parliament in the previous term. We think about the consequences of that. We often talk in this place about unintended consequences, and we should have regard to that. I acknowledge that there are school students sitting above us, watching the proceedings in this chamber. We must give them hope and go about our work in this place with a real sense of purpose but also with a sense of priority. There could be no better example for wanting to expedite the process of this legislation in what we are discussing today.

The consequences of delay will now have, I think, an impact on generations of Australians yet to come, who really needed this legislation to come in earlier. People could have benefited from genetic testing, but they may have been discouraged from doing so because of the concerns about insurance discrimination, and there were very real concerns to be had about insurance discrimination, which is why we are debating and supporting the legislation before us today. Participation in medical research could well have been affected. We don't know, but we're fixing the problem now because the coalition supports these reforms, particularly around a sense of certainty and the need to prevent discrimination and to better support health outcomes overall.

There are many families in my electorate of Monash that have hereditary diseases, from cancer to heart disease, in their family. They want to make sure that they can get on top of these things early through the great benefits that genetic testing provides. But they should not have to expect—they should not fear—the discriminatory consequences of doing so. So this is very important legislation. The reality is this is a reform everybody agreed on from the start; except Australians were left waiting due to Labor's delays.

It's estimated that around 1½ million Australians undergo genetic testing every year. It's really important because the science around that helps promote and develop and implement preventive medicine and the developments that that is able to progress. However, some Australians have decided to refuse this testing that could potentially save their life because of financial concerns. I mentioned Dr Jane Tiller, who's a lawyer, genetic counsellor, public health researcher at Monash University—named after, of course, the great Sir John Monash, although it's not in my electorate! Dr Tiller has done some incredible work on this issue. I know she's in Canberra; I think she's in Parliament House today. I do want to acknowledge the very long time that she's spent on this issue and her helping as a really key person in getting it to this point of the legislative lens. I'd like to acknowledge Dr Tiller today.

Genomic research holds enormous promise for identifying genetic causes of disease and enabling earlier prevention and treatment. However, Dr Tiller recognises the fears around genetic discrimination in life insurance. Indeed, she's dedicated huge amounts of time and expertise to this very topic, and she notes that people's financial fears for themselves and their families are very valid. They do not want to disadvantage, particularly as we discuss so regularly right now, the cost-of-living crisis and the very real financial insecurity that people and families across Australia live with every day. These fears are entirely valid. In Australia, life insurers have historically been allowed to use genetic test results to deny coverage or to increase premiums. This has created a significant barrier to genomic research and clinical care. We don't know what we don't know. That is why research, clinical trials and clinical care are so very important.

I'm going to use a brave example: Meg Herrmann, a fit 25-year-old woman, who told the ABC that she underwent a preventative double mastectomy after genetic testing found she carried the BRCA2 mutation. Meg carried a 70 per cent lifetime risk of developing breast cancer—as well as making her more likely to develop ovarian, pancreatic and skin cancer. I really want to commend Meg for very bravely sharing her story so publicly. Meg underwent genetic testing after her mum was diagnosed with breast cancer. After undertaking the procedure, Meg's risk of contracting breast cancer reduced by 95 per cent, but her decision came at a cost to her financial future. As a person who was a BRCA2 gene carrier, Meg said she would never be able to 'take out more than $500,000 in life insurance cover'. As a reference point, this is about $240,000 lower than the median house price where she lives. Meg says:

… yet, a smoker can go on and ask for a higher level of cover—

in the example that she has given to the ABC. This is not fair and this is not right. She says:

They might pay a higher premium, but they can.

This is where the discrepancy in fairness, in justice, in an equity of outcome has been experienced by many Australians right across Australia.

I commend brave people like Meg for sharing their stories so vulnerably and so charitably. I commend researchers and advocates like Dr Jane Tiller. I think it is a great moment for this parliament at a time where we quite rightly have a very robust contest of ideas on a number of contentious issues—and this place should be a place of strong debate. But I think there are some topics where the community and the broader public want to see us come together as a parliament to champion an issue and to progress a cause that is worthy of support, and this bill does just that. I'm very pleased to be part of a coalition who has had a strong track record of supporting this issue, and I'm very pleased to commend this bill to the House.

Mary Doyle (Aston, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to 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.

Monique Ryan (Kooyong, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Genetic testing and genomic research are essential to improving prevention, care and treatment for individuals and their families and for reducing Australia's burden of chronic disease. The legislation before the House, the Treasury Laws Amendment (Genetic Testing Protections in Life Insurance and Other Measures) Bill 2025, prohibits life insurers from using genetic test results to discriminate against applicants when offering life insurance cover. It's a long-overdue reform which represents a significant shift in how genetic information can be used and misused outside clinical care. The legislation will help decouple decision-making in health from financial penalties and disincentives for individuals and their relatives.

For decades, concerns about insurance implications have contributed to hesitancy around genetic testing. Individuals at risk of hereditary conditions, like inherited cancer syndromes and neurodegenerative disorders, have often delayed or declined testing due to their fears that the results could affect future life insurance access or premiums. That issue was highlighted by the Australian Law Reform Commission back in 2003, when it recommended that improved safeguards should be applied to the insurance industry's use of genetic information for underwriting processes.

Removing insurance related barriers increases the likelihood that individuals will engage with genetic testing earlier, that they can act on those results sooner and that they can participate more fully in risk management, early treatment and clinical trials. Early identification of genetic risk also reduces the need for late stage interventions, and it will decrease hospital admissions. Genetic testing can also inform treatment of those people who've already been diagnosed with health conditions by predicting their response to medications, immunotherapies and other forms of treatment. Pharmacogenomics is increasingly improving targeting and the cost-effectiveness of prescribing.

It's important to note that de-identified, de-aggregated genetic data is valuable input for scientific and medical research. It can be used to identify vulnerable populations, to contribute to workforce planning and to guide cost allocation in health. But, for decades, many Australians have deferred or declined genetic testing because of their very reasonable fears that discrimination will be applied when they attempt to obtain life insurance.

In a 2019 study of nearly 1,500 Australians, more than 80 per cent expressed significant concern about potential insurance discrimination based on their genetic data. Another Australian study found that the proportion of participants who declined genetic testing more than doubled when they were informed of its potential impact upon their insurance eligibility. Those fears were reasonable. Sector research released in 2021 indicated that about 10 per cent of individuals who had disclosed genetic test results had their insurance cover offered on less favourable terms or declined, despite the life insurance industry introducing a mandatory standard in 2019 which theoretically restricted the use of predictive genetic test results in their underwriting.

Individuals should be able to receive optimal health care without the fear that it could compromise their ability to obtain life insurance cover on reasonable terms. That's why I support these reforms, which will remove that powerful disincentive and which will encourage more Australians to benefit from potentially life-changing genetic testing. For many Australians, that legislation will be transformative. The bill will operate by regulation, ensuring that the legislation can remain effective, even in the face of very rapidly evolving genetic testing technologies, and individuals can consent to use of their genetic information in underwriting so long as it does not disadvantage them.

I'm also pleased that the bill protects the rights of genetic relatives. A person doesn't require the consent of their relatives to undertake genetic testing, but, in the absence of adequate legal protections, a young person's ability to obtain life insurance could well be compromised by decisions made by relatives that they've never actually met. It's absolutely vital that, as legislators, we protect all individuals from the possible downstream economic and personal effects of the testing of a relative as best we can.

Sadly, we can't protect all Australians from the health impacts of such scenarios. I well remember diagnosing a child with juvenile Huntington's disease, a heartbreakingly sad condition, which led to the inevitable cascade diagnosis of numerous other family members. That was a horribly difficult experience for that family to have to go through.

It is disappointing, though, that this legislation does not apply retrospectively. The bill will apply only to existing life insurance contracts when those contracts are varied, reinstated or extended, but not to automatic contract extensions. While it may have very significant benefits for those people who are yet to obtain life insurance coverage, those who've already had penalties or other discriminatory terms imposed by life insurers will still be discriminated against. They've possibly already been paying higher premiums for years, and they'll now be faced with the choice of either extending an unfavourable deal or negotiating new coverage on possibly poorer terms because they're older. It's also worth noting that those people who have applications in progress now are not protected from adverse decisions until the bill commences six months after it receives royal assent.

It's my belief that the government should not abandon those who have already been subjected to the discriminatory practices that this legislation should prevent in the future. The government also has to be mindful that life insurance is a pooled arrangement. While risk is shared across millions of people, an increase in claims because of this legislation could well have pricing impacts. We need to ensure that life insurance remains affordable for all Australians.

The government must ensure that the impacts of this legislation on the cost of life insurance are closely considered in its statutory review of this legislation. It's particularly important that life insurance companies do not infer genetic test results based on other data points, for example, information about other aspects of an individual's medical care, such as risk surveillance activities, the medications that they're prescribed, their participation in preventative healthcare measures, their involvement in clinical trials and other direct methods. These protections have to be enshrined in the regulations that accompany this bill. I call on the Treasurer to ensure that that happens, and I foreshadow here careful examination of those regulations as they're developed to ensure that this occurs. I ask the government to review these regulations and the impact of this legislation in this very rapidly moving field after three years, not five as is currently foreshadowed in this bill.

Despite these concerns, there is broad consensus about the bill from advocacy, research and peak bodies, as well as across the superannuation and insurance industry. The bill has been a very long time coming, and I acknowledge the tireless work of the advocates who have pushed for it, particularly Dr Jane Tiller from the Public Health Genomics Program at Monash University, who has advocated for this legislation for years and whose work on a sentinel study of the life insurance moratorium found it inadequate to address and prevent genetic discrimination in life insurance.

As a doctor and a medical researcher—and possibly the only person ever lucky enough to hold a seat in this House, who has actually identified new genes and who has actually described new genetic diseases—I'm uniquely placed to attest to the importance of genetic testing as an invaluable tool in the prevention, early detection and treatment of serious diseases. I bring to the House's attention the remarkable recent progress on carrier and newborn genetic testing in Australia. Research studies like Mackenzie's Mission, which investigated ways to deliver a large-scale, more-than-1000-gene national reproductive genetic carrier screening program, found that such testing is generally well-received, it is widely adopted and it is cost effective. Mackenzie's Mission should be the basis for the design and the delivery of a national reproductive genetic carrier screening program, which should be available to all Australians who are considering having children.

I also bring to the House's attention the DNA Screen program, which represented a world-first initiative to increase the prevention and early detection of cancer and heart disease in adults through population DNA screening. That study targeted high-risk, medically actionable conditions in which effective interventions could manage risk and prevent disease. Those conditions in that study were hereditary breast and ovarian cancer, Lynch syndrome and familial hypercholesterolemia.

A landmark study recently published in the Lancet identified significant productivity gains from the implementation of targeted, population based genomic screening. There have been recent extraordinary advances in genomic-sequencing technology, which means that other conditions could easily be added to screening panels without a significant increase in test cost. But, for the moment, in this country, larger gene panels remain user pays, and that creates inequitable access to them. In 2023, carrier screening for cystic fibrosis, spinal muscular atrophy and fragile X syndrome was finally included under the MBS after decades of work by tired researchers like me.

Since that time, there has been huge uptake of this three-disease screen. In 2025, the screen was accessed by more than 123,000 of the 300,000 couples who are having babies in Australia. We should be developing, supporting and funding additional population programs for carrier testing and genetic screening, we should expand support under the MBS, and we should fund the genetic counselling and education required to support those programs so that Australians can make informed decisions about screening and so that they can be supported to navigate unexpected results. World-leading Australian medical research and clinical programs have demonstrated that these sorts of programs have real-world flexibility, and they are demonstrably cost effective.

I'd like to mention a former patient of mine who is now a constituent. Tom Strahan has Batten disease. It's a rare disorder which manifests with balance problems and seizures in early childhood. It used to be invariably fatal in childhood. After Tom was diagnosed at age 2, his parents found an enzyme replacement therapy trial in Italy and, with great effort and great resourcefulness, managed to get Tom onto that experimental treatment. That medication, Brineura, proved able to slow cognitive and motor decline in Batten disease, unexpectedly, by 80 per cent.

When the treatment was no longer available in Italy, Tom's parents, Kate and Antony, secured access for the medication in Melbourne. They had to fight for it. It wasn't, at the time, funded or approved here, but they prevailed. I can attest to the force of their natures in fighting for the wellbeing of their son at that time. It's now the case that all children with Batten disease in Victoria can access that treatment. It has radically changed their outcome and it has extended their life expectancy.

Newborn screening for Batten disease wasn't feasible when Tom was born, but it is now, and it would transform the lives of babies born with this and similar neurological and other conditions. Within a few years, babies found to have Batten disease on newborn screening could well be effectively cured within a few weeks with a single dose of gene therapy. All such treatments work best when they're given early. With proactive genetic diagnostics, we could be providing the very earliest possible access to such life-saving interventions for all Australian children.

As genetics increases its influence upon modern health care, policy changes like this one play a critical role in ensuring that scientific progress, particularly that made by world-leading Australian medical researchers, translates immediately and effectively into meaningful clinical benefit. Genetic testing is increasingly incorporated into everyday health care in Australia. By removing a key structural barrier to its implementation, this legislation reinforces the role of genetic information as a tool for empowerment to support earlier action, better planning and improved health outcomes across the lifespan. Given its importance, we should, as a nation with world-leading medical care and an outstanding research sector, be looking to more actively embrace new technologies in genetic diagnosis, and we should be providing their benefit to all Australians.

In closing, I move amendments (1) to (3) circulated in my name:

That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:

"whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House:

(1) notes that:

(a) genetic testing and genomic research are essential to improving prevention, care and treatment and reducing Australia's chronic disease burden;

(b) Australia has made remarkable progress on carrier and newborn reproductive genetic testing;

(c) genomic sequencing technology means that conditions can be easily added to a screening panel without significant increases in test costs;

(d) world-leading Australian medical research has demonstrated that such programs have real-world feasibility and demonstrable cost-effectiveness; and

(e) pathology items 73451 and 73452, covering genetic carrier testing for spinal muscular atrophy, cystic fibrosis and fragile X syndrome, were welcome inclusions to the Medicare Benefits Schedule in November 2023;

(2) calls upon the Government to heed expert calls to expand the Medical Benefits Schedule to:

(a) develop, support, and fund population programs for carrier testing and genomic screening; and

(b) identify couples and individuals at high risk of medically actionable conditions before conception or disease onset; and

(3) further notes that the above measures, along with restrictions on the use of genetic testing by the insurance industry contained in this bill, will encourage a greater uptake of genetic testing.

I commend this bill to the House.

Lisa Chesters (Bendigo, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is the amendment seconded?

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

I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak.

Lisa Chesters (Bendigo, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question now is that the amendment be agreed to.

Louise Miller-Frost (Boothby, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Our modern health system is amazing. Our health system here in Australia, despite its challenges, is the best in the world. If you're sick or you're injured, you wouldn't want to be anywhere else. But no-one wants to be sick, and as in all things, prevention is better than cure. It's cheaper and more effective. So a lot of focus in the health system goes to health prevention, and if you can't prevent disease, then early intervention is next best.

One of the amazing areas of health that has advanced so much in recent years is genetic testing. We know that a number of conditions have a genetic link, either directly causal or in terms of susceptibility. So genetic testing, identifying an individual or a family's genetic susceptibility to conditions, enables them to make informed decisions about screening, preventive actions and treatments. We want people, particularly those who know they have a family history of a particular disease state, to get tested and be able to make those informed decisions so they can stay healthy or seek early treatment.

One of the barriers to this has been where life insurance companies have required individuals to disclose the results of genetic testing and have used this either to deny life insurance or to increase premiums, which is completely counterintuitive. Those people who know they have a susceptibility and are actively managing the risks to prevent the disease state from developing are, in fact, at lower risk of death or disability from that disease than those who have the genetic predisposition but don't know it and therefore aren't able to seek screening or early intervention. The Treasury Laws Amendment (Genetic Testing Protections in Life Insurance and Other Measures) Bill 2025 will ensure that any adverse findings as a result of a genetic test will not impinge on the determination of an individual's cover for life insurance. No-one should be dissuaded from potentially life-saving testing out of a fear of discrimination in life insurance products.

Australia lags globally on this issue. The UK, Canada, Europe, the US and New Zealand have all implemented some form of prohibition or ban. This bill seeks to rectify this blind spot in our current framework. Specifically, it bans life insurers from assessing eligibility for cover or the terms and conditions of the cover on the basis of the results of a genetic test, thereby ending the discriminatory practices of insurers who would, as is their job, prioritise their financial bottom line over people's health.

I'd like to pause here and thank Dr Jane Tiller from the public health and genomics unit at Monash University, who's been a consistent campaigner on this issue. Dr Tiller is very familiar to many of us here in the halls of parliament, as she's made her way around, making the case on a bipartisan basis, for a number of years—backed by data, backed by science and backed by compassion and a commitment to improving the health of Australians by encouraging them to get informed about their risks and to manage those risks.

A 2018 parliamentary inquiry into the life insurance industry recommended a ban on the use of genetic results in life insurance underwriting. In 2019, the life insurance industry introduced a partial, self-regulated moratorium, which prohibited the use of genomic testing results for underwriting policies above certain financial limits. But the moratorium did not provide confidence to Australians that the results would not be used against them, and we know that many people chose, and still choose, not to proceed with genetic testing as a result. The self-regulated moratorium had no government oversight and therefore failed to meet the expectations of the parliamentary inquiry. This legislation provides that confidence to Australians—that they can proceed with genetic and genomic testing without it impacting their ability to get life insurance and without it affecting their premiums.

This legislative amendment brings into alignment the Insurance Contracts Act 1984 and the Disability Discrimination Act 1992, ensuring that our antidiscrimination laws do not lag behind the medical science and ensuring that Australians with adverse genetic test results are protected in their dealings with life insurers, because this is as much a human rights issue as it is a medical one. No-one with a disability should be discriminated against, including those with genetic variations, and we want to encourage people to look after their health, including through preventive and early intervention measures, such as genomic screening.

The industry led moratorium in place since 2019 prescribes that companies will allow individuals to take out life insurance up to certain limits without having to disclose a genetic test. However, the report of Monash University's Australian Genetics and Life Insurance Moratorium: Monitoring the Effectiveness and Response, A-GLIMMER, finds that many individuals are still dissuaded from getting a genetic test for fear of discrimination in their life insurance policy and that, because the moratorium is industry self-regulated, there is little certainty for consumers. Currently, there is no government oversight of the industry led moratorium, and there's no review process for individuals to challenge insurers' decisions in the event that they may be influenced by genetic testing results. Ultimately, people are postponing or avoiding undergoing genetic testing in case it should negatively impact on their life insurance cover. Parents are reluctant to tell their children of any genetic condition and recommend testing in case it should impact their policy.

Genetic testing is crucial for determining whether an individual has a genetic disease or condition. Many common life-threatening illnesses are influenced by genetic factors: cancer, autoimmune diseases, degenerative diseases and many other conditions. Genetic testing allows individuals and their medical practitioners to plan for every contingency. Genetic and genomic health technology can be used to determine whether an individual is likely to develop genetic conditions later in life. The early identification of an increased risk of developing a condition empowers the individual and their treating team to make rational decisions to limit the risk. As in the well-known public health metaphor of the fence at the top of the cliff versus the ambulance at the bottom—where the relatively cheap preventive force of the fence at the top stops someone falling off the cliff and needing an expensive and potentially less effective ambulance service—genetic testing is that fence at the top of the cliff.

The Albanese Labor government is committed to the future of genetic testing and research for Australians, a health system and scientific frontier focusing on prevention and early intervention that is crucial for the health outcomes of all Australians. The government, through its Medical Research Future Fund Genomics Health Futures Mission, is investing $500.1 million in genomic medical research over 10 years from 2018-19. The Minister for Health and Ageing previously announced new listings on the MBS for a range of genetic tests valued at $148.5 million over the next four years. Additionally, the government is consulting with states and territories on the development of a nationally cohesive approach to medical genomics, including the establishment of a national genomics body. That life insurers should potentially hold genetic testing against individuals, and therefore put their health at risk, is indefensible. Australians should not have to be forced to choose between life and death when there are alternatives that can identify risks and enable treatments to be implemented.

Treasury analysis indicates that people are likely to avoid or delay genetic testing or to refuse to participate in medical research for fear they will be penalised by their insurer. Remarkably, life insurers do not need to provide reasons for their decision to charge higher premiums or to decline insurance. They do not need to advise if a genetic test may have been a factor. A life insurer's assessment of their financial risk may be at odds with the medical assessment of risk. Ironically, by discouraging consumers from accessing genetic testing and early intervention, they may in fact end up paying more as their consumers get sicker and die from conditions that may have been preventable if they'd been empowered to get that prevention.

This amendment puts an end to the exploitative and illogical practice. It protects individuals who have a high risk of a heritable condition from life insurers raising the premiums on their cover or even denying it. As a result, more Australians will be encouraged to undergo genetic testing without the looming anxiety of their life insurer potentially altering their cover, because of which Australians will be able to obtain preventive and earlier treatment, potentially saving thousands of lives and thousands of years of disability.

Australians will also be encouraged to participate in clinical research, which will help to advance new scientific medical developments and, ultimately, greater health outcomes. Genetic research is critical in improving the screening, early diagnosis and treatment of patients. Genetics and genomics are reshaping clinical practice and changing the way that we manage a range of heritable conditions, cancer predisposition syndromes and rare cancers. The ban will mean that individuals can give written consent to volunteer their genetic testing information to life insurers if they determine it is to their benefit, and life insurers are still able to use symptoms, diagnosis and family history to ensure that their policies are properly risk rated and underwritten.

In addition, these changes create both civil and criminal penalties for non-compliance and attribute the powers of enforcement and oversight to the Australian Securities and Investments Commission, ASIC, as per the government's commitment. These reforms are intended to bolster individuals rights and afford them protection when it comes to their healthcare decisions, recalibrating a health system that should be working for them, not against them.

It's an amendment that has been a decade in the making. I again pay particular tribute to Dr Jane Tiller, whose tireless campaigning over the last few years has now seen deserved success. I commend the bill to the House.

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

I rise to speak in support of the Treasury Laws Amendment (Genetic Testing Protections in Life Insurance and Other Measures) Bill 2025. The bill amends the Insurance Contracts Act 1984 to prohibit life insurers from requesting, using or relying on the results of an individual's genetic tests when deciding whether to offer life insurance cover or the terms and conditions of that cover, including pricing and exclusions. This applies to genetic tests undertaken for clinical care, for research participation or for personal or preventive reasons. Genetic discrimination in life insurance will also be unlawful under the Disability Discrimination Act.

Life insurance in Australia encompasses insurance policies covering death, total and permanent disability, trauma and critical illness, and income protection, salary continuation or business expenses. The bill allows consumers to voluntarily disclose favourable genetic test results if they choose; for example, where the results indicate reduced genetic risk. Insurers may consider such disclosures but cannot require them.

The field of genetics has great potential to improve medicine and public health through enabling diagnosis, prevention and early treatment of disease. However, to date in Australia, the life insurance industry has been legally allowed to use genetic test results in underwriting, leading to what has rightly been described as genetic discrimination. In 2018, a joint parliamentary committee inquiry into the life insurance industry recommended that Australia urgently implement a ban on the use of genetic test results in life insurance underwriting, similar to the moratorium that was operating in the United Kingdom since 2001. In 2019, the life insurance industry peak body, the Financial Services Council, or FSC, introduced a partial moratorium requiring applicants to disclose genetic test results only for policies above certain financial limits. The FSC moratorium has been industry self-regulated, with no government oversight.

To investigate the effectiveness of the FSC moratorium as a regulatory solution to genetic discrimination in Australian life insurance, the Commonwealth government funded the Australian Genetics and Life Insurance moratorium, monitoring the Effectiveness and Response Project, otherwise known as the A-GLIMMER project. This was funded from 2020 to 2023 through the genomics mission of the Medical Research Future Fund. The A-GLIMMER project reported that health professionals, consumers and researchers are all concerned about the life insurance industry's self-regulation of the FSC moratorium and its effectiveness. The majority of stakeholders expressed concern about the absence of any Australian government oversight, demonstrating that the FSC moratorium is inadequate to address and prevent genetic discrimination in life assurance insurance. The results are clear: 93 per cent of health professionals, 88 per cent of patients with experience of genetic testing, 78 per cent of the general public and 86 per cent of researchers agreed that legislation is required to regulate the use of genetic test results in life insurance underwriting. That is why we're here today.

Patient testimonies from the A-GLIMMER project present a stark illustration of how a fear of discrimination has deterred people from undertaking genetic testing. A 34-year-old female interviewee who has a high risk result for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer, stated, 'Even in my extended family, there's quite a few people who haven't done genetic testing because they don't want to be denied insurance cover. They're not getting regular scans. They're putting their health on the back foot because of all of this.' Another study participant, Frank, whose father had Huntington's disease, was penalised by his insurance company prior to undertaking genetic testing. He was penalised with a 200 per cent premium loading due to his family history of the disease. Despite Frank subsequently receiving genetic test results that showed he did not inherit the Huntington's disease variant and was not at risk of the disease, the insurer refused to remove the loading unless Frank made a new application. Frank took the insurer to the complaints tribunal and a settlement was reached. The insurer refunded Frank's loading from the date he informed them of his genetic result on the condition he withdrew the complaint. It is scenarios like Frank's that this bill will ensure no longer occur.

This bill has been shaped by an extraordinary coalition of more than 60 stakeholders across the medical, research, legal and consumer sectors, who came together to produce a unified voice to government. It includes the Australian Medical Association, the National Heart Foundation of Australia, Cancer Council Australia, the Human Genetics Society of Australasia, Breast Cancer Network Australia, Rare Voices Australia, Genetic Alliance Australia, the Lung Foundation Australia and the Australian Alliance for Indigenous Genomics, alongside leading research institutions like the Murdoch Children's Research Institute and the Centre for Population Genomics. Together, these stakeholders came to a powerful consensus that, without legislative intervention, genetic discrimination will continue to undermine both individual wellbeing and the future of health care in Australia. At the heart of their concern is the reality that Australians have been penalised simply for accessing information about their own health. Individuals who have undertaken genetic testing, often on the advice of their doctor and often to prevent or better manage serious disease, have faced higher premiums, exclusions or outright denial of life insurance. In many cases, these are people who are not unwell but who carry a genetic predisposition. This is discrimination not on the basis of current health but on the basis of potential future risk.

The stakeholders also highlight that discrimination is not always direct and can occur in more subtle but equally harmful ways. For example, insurers may infer genetic information from a person's medical care, surveillance programs or family history, effectively using proxies for genetic test results. Furthermore, stakeholders warn of emerging risks as genomic testing becomes more widespread. One such risk is the potential for insurers to offer so-called discounts to individuals who disclose low-risk genetic results. While framed as a benefit, this would in practice create a two-tiered system where those without favourable results are effectively penalised. This is precisely the kind of indirect discrimination this legislation must guard against.

A key concern raised by stakeholders deals with the imposition of penalties, loadings, exclusions and other adverse action in existing contracts. Many Australians have done the right thing—disclosing their genetic test results in good faith—and have paid the price through higher premiums or restricted cover over many years. At present, the ban only applies to decisions about entering into new life insurance contracts. It does not apply to the enforcement of unfair terms on people who already have contracts of insurance in place with discriminatory terms applied.

The Council of Australian Life Insurers 2024 submission to Treasury reported that a small number of applications have received adverse underwriting outcomes on the basis of genetic results—only 90 out of 1,674. On this basis, the impact of removing loadings or exclusions prospectively for those already insured who have been discriminated against should be negligible in the context of the entire insurance market. Given the additional premiums collected from many of these individuals by insurers in the past, it's not unreasonable to ask insurers to proactively rectify the discrimination applied and cease to discriminate prospectively against current clients in a way that is unlawful for new life insurance applications. This is not a suggestion that insurers should retrospectively refund premiums but only that penalties should be removed prospectively. Insurers should identify which individuals have received adverse underwriting outcomes on the basis of genetic test results and remove these loadings and exclusions from each of them from the date of the ban's commencement. This does not require completely new underwriting to be done but merely for adverse terms applied on the basis of genetic results to be removed.

It's clear this legislation is urgently needed. Without it, the system would continue to discourage preventative health care, penalise individuals for seeking medical advice and undermine public confidence in both the health system and the insurance sector. Implementing this legislation will remove one of the most significant barriers to genetic testing in Australia. It will give Australians the confidence to access potentially lifesaving information about their health without fear of financial penalty, and it will ensure that advances in genetic and genomic medicine—advances that have the potential to transform health care through earlier diagnosis, more precise treatment and better prevention—can be fully realised for the benefit of all Australians.

To ensure the law keeps pace with developments in genomics and insurance markets, the bill currently requires mandatory reviews every five years of the genetic testing ban. I support the independent member for Kooyong's proposed amendment to change this mandatory review period to every three years—this is a rapidly changing field of medicine.

In closing, this bill is about restoring fairness and trust. It ensures that Australians are not penalised for seeking to understand their own health, and that medical advice, not financial fear, guides decisions about genetic testing. It reflects years of advocacy and a clear consensus that the status quo is no longer acceptable. This legislation represents a critical step towards ending genetic discrimination in life insurance and unlocking the full potential of the genomic medicine in Australia. I commend this bill to the House.

Matt Gregg (Deakin, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Genetic testing saves lives. More participation in genetic testing means better prevention, earlier treatment, stronger health outcomes and advances in scientific knowledge that benefit all Australians. But, for too long, many Australians have been discouraged from seeking genetic testing due to a fear of being penalised by insurers, and that is what we're fixing with the Treasury Laws Amendment (Genetic Testing Protections in Life Insurance and Other Measures) Bill 2025. We are changing the law to put the health of Australians first, banning life insurers from using someone's adverse genetic test results—or information in their DNA highlighting a potential risk—to determine whether or not they get cover or to set the terms of that insurance cover. This ban has been carefully designed, ensuring that individuals can still volunteer their test results, with written consent if it's of benefit to them, and insurers can still use symptoms, diagnoses and family history to ensure policies remain properly risk rated—an essential feature of insurance.

Genetic testing saves lives through the prevention of disease in very high risk people, and there are more of them than most people realise. The DNA screen study at Monash University tested 10,000 Australians from ages 18 to 40 for high genetic risk of preventable cancer and heart disease, finding that one in 50, two per cent, at high risk. Those people were able to access preventive measures, such as surgery, surveillance and medication. Young Australians want preventive genetic information. The DNA screen study was extremely popular, with tens of thousands of young people registering their interest in participating in the study. In my electorate of Deakin, at least 66 young people participated in DNA Screen. One of those people was found to be at a high genetic risk and has now been able to access preventive health care.

Unfortunately, there were many people who signed up for the DNA screen who decided not to participate because of genetic discrimination in life insurance. For decades, this has been an impossible decision for many Australians, who have had to choose between genetic testing that could save their lives and the potential financial implications for life insurance. I think of that one person in Deakin, who now has access to preventive health care, and how many more people would be accessing potentially life-saving health care if they didn't have to worry about the impacts to the cost of their life insurance. This bill will end that fear and enable Australians to make decisions about genetic testing and genetic research without worrying about their life insurance. This legislation will address the most significant barrier to testing for Australians and pave the way for greater investment into preventive genomic screening.

It's pretty common for politicians and policy wonks to talk about how much more effective we are when we invest to prevent a problem from occurring in the first place than when we try to patch things up afterwards. Often this is because, dollar for dollar, we get much more value from early intervention. With the bill before us today, we're not just saving money by reducing the need for complex and expensive treatments; we're saving lives. With the bill before us today, our government is implementing a clear policy. Life insurers will no longer be able to use an individual's adverse genetic testing results to determine whether they can get cover or to set the terms of that cover.

I want to recognise the efforts of my friend the Assistant Treasurer in this space. Getting to this point, where we have a bill with broad support, took a lot of effort, conversations and consultation. Those efforts have led us to this point and I believe they will lead to longer, happier, more fulfilling lives for many Australians. This bill ensures our anti-discrimination laws keep pace with modern science. We are aligning the Insurance Contracts Act and the Disability Discrimination Act so that Australians have certainty and protection, not fear and confusion, when making decisions about their health.

Australians should not have to choose between their health and their ability to access affordable life insurance. Under the current legal framework, vulnerable Australians have been delaying or avoiding genetic testing because they're worried about being penalised by insurers. We're fixing that. Treasury's analysis is clear. People are holding back from essential testing, or even from participating in medical research, because of the actions of life insurance companies. That means that not only are the current laws discouraging vulnerable people from seeking information about their own health; they're holding back advances in medical knowledge and technology that could help thousands, or even millions, of people. That is not good enough and that is why the government is stepping in to make sure the system works for people, not against them.

Banning life insurers using someone's adverse genetic test results to determine whether they can get coverage restores certainty. It tells Australians, especially those at higher risk of heritable conditions, that their decision to undertake genetic testing will not jeopardise their access to life insurance or force them into more expensive or restrictive policies. These reforms will support greater uptake of genetic testing and participation in medical research. That means better prevention, earlier treatment, stronger public health outcomes and advances in scientific knowledge that benefit all Australians.

Importantly, this ban has teeth. This reform establishes civil and criminal penalties and places enforcement authority with ASIC, which ensures these new protections are backed by strong oversight. Vulnerable Australians deserve a system that supports their health decisions, not one that punishes them. I'm proud that we are moving our system in that direction with this bill.

I'll go through the details of schedule 1 of the bill, which implements the government's decision to ban life insurers from using information about an individual's genetic testing results to inform the offer of life insurance cover or the terms and conditions of the cover that is offered. The ban makes amendments to the Insurance Contracts Act 1984 to implement the ban and related amendments to the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 to align Australia's antidiscrimination laws with the ban, just ensuring all the different bits of legislation work together.

Genetic testing can help save lives, supporting medical practitioners to prevent, treat and monitor a range of cancers, cancer predisposition syndromes and other heritable conditions. Medical research that involves genetic testing contributes to scientific advancement, which can lead to significant individual and public health benefits, such as identifying new risk factors for future illness and testing new therapies for diseases.

Treasury analysis shows the current life insurance framework has caused individuals to not undergo or to delay genetic testing, including participating in clinical research­, due to concerns that this may impact the ability to afford life insurance. That means the full benefits of genetic testing—saving lives and improving the quality of life for individuals and advancing medical knowledge and technology—are not being realised. This ban will lead to an increase in genetic testing and therefore extensive individual, public health and scientific benefits.

As I flagged earlier, the ban will not prevent individuals from volunteering genetic testing results with written consent and the use of these volunteered results in underwriting where this would not adversely impact the insurance offer or policy terms. The ban will not limit the existing ability of life insurers to access and use certain information for underwriting life insurance, including existing symptoms, diagnoses of diseases and obviously the individual's family history—again, very standard in insurance. This is necessary to ensure that life insurance can continue to be properly risk rated and underwritten, whilst still achieving the aim of providing protection over genetic testing results.

While I wanted to focus my remarks today on the banning of genetic testing and life insurance, as other speakers have done, I think it would be remiss of me not to speak briefly about the other components of this important bill. Schedule 2 of this bill removes unnecessary barriers for well regulated overseas financial firms operating here in Australia. It recognises that, if a company is already bound by laws overseas that are equivalent to ours in Australia, there really is no need to duplicate processes unnecessarily when we know those outcomes can already be achieved. It's focused on maintaining protections around overseas financial products where they're needed most—everyday consumers—while providing more flexibility where those using the services are sophisticated institutions like superannuation funds, banks and large corporations and at the same time making sure that our system continues to provide robust protection for individual consumers. It's there to facilitate more competition. It's there to ensure that the financial regulation is more efficient, more competitive and better connected globally to enable Australians to have a diverse array of investments and to attract investment here in Australia—so, many benefits economically.

Schedule 3 of the bill modernises the legislative framework around multilateral development banks and the International Monetary Fund, reducing the administrative and legislative burden of Australia's commitments. It effectively standardises and streamlines these arrangements—clearer rules for funding, contributions and future commitments—providing one clean modern framework instead of a messy patchwork like what we're seeing right now. The law around the funding of these institutions is incredibly complex, fragmented and really outdated, so these are very important reforms in schedule 3 as well. They're consistent with our support for international institutions and the G20's call for multilateral development banks to develop and support innovative financial instruments. It also includes provisions standardising appropriations, effectively meaning the way they are spent. It means that if money is required, it can be spent as long as it meets certain criteria, and those are then published in an instrument which comes to the parliament providing oversight. Effectively, it is a disallowable instrument to spend money, which the parliament can come in and debate, block or whatever it wants to do. But it does mean that the regular functioning of government can continue in a clear, simple and streamlined way consistent with the obligations we as a country have already entered.

Schedule 4 of the bill implements the government's commitment to no longer proceed with stage 2 of the registration process for financial advisers established by the Better Advice Act. That might sound very bland and very unexciting, which is understandable. Effectively, a few years ago, following the royal commission into banks, there was legislation brought in by the Morrison government which created a two-step registration process for financial advisers: stage 1, which already requires financial advisers to be registered with ASIC via their Australian Financial Services licensee—in other words, their employer registers them together; and stage 2, which was in the bill to be implemented later, also required individual advisers to register themselves individually. The reason given for that at the time was so that they could be reminded of the importance of their legal obligations, but it's now essentially a political consensus that that just adds another layer of regulation without achieving any public policy goal. This bill doesn't abolish adviser registration in any way. What it does is keep stage 1 while abolishing stage 2. All advisers are still registered officially. It just means there isn't now two registrations that individual advisers have to go through. So that is another efficiency and really just cutting red tape.

In conclusion, all parts of this bill are important, but, most importantly, we're removing the barrier for vulnerable Australians seeking more information about their own health. This is good for those individuals, good for our healthcare system and good for our society. I commend this bill to the House.

Zali Steggall (Warringah, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Treasury Laws Amendment (Genetic Testing Protections in Life Insurance and Other Measures) Bill 2025. I support stronger legal protections against genetic discrimination in life insurance, and I support a legislative ban, not continued reliance on industry self-regulation. At the heart of this debate is a very simple principle: Australians should not be punished for seeking information about their own health and genetic predisposition. If a person undertakes genetic testing to better understand their risk of disease, that should be recognised as responsible, forward-looking health care but not be used as a basis for making insurance harder to access or to afford, because that then disincentivises. It means that Australians will not go and get the testing they should because of the fear of not being able to then have life insurance. It's why the issue goes not only to insurance settings but also to fairness, access to preventative care and public trust.

For too long, the existing framework has created the wrong incentive. People have been left worrying that following medical advice, undertaking testing or participating in research could jeopardise their financial security. That's a profound policy failure. Genetic testing can help people act early, manage risk, make informed decisions, access preventative care and, in some cases, save lives. I have previously supported serious consideration of a legislative ban in this area, and I continue to take the view that legislation, not industry self-regulation, is the appropriate response when we are talking about life-and-death situations for so many Australians. The government's decision to legislate is therefore an important step, and it reflects years of advocacy, consultation and multipartisan work.

Ultimately, the reform is about giving Australians confidence that seeking potentially lifesaving information for themselves and sometimes their families because it will impact their kids and other aspects will not later be used against them in preventing them from accessing insurance. In Warringah, I have had a huge amount of correspondence on this issue from residents in the community urging me to support an expansion of genetic screening for disease prevention in adults—in particular, for those with predispositions to cancer and heart disease—and to understand that genetic aspect and how it can then impact children or prospective children. We have amazing organisations like the Fragile X Association, which is founded and based in Warringah. All of these areas rely on continued support for genetic testing. It is so important. Warringah residents want more funding and enacted protections for this critical issue to ensure that genetic testing does occur and has support.

Concerns about genetic discrimination in insurance are not new. For some time, patients, clinicians, researchers and advocates have warned that the use of predictive genetic test results in life insurance can deter people from getting tested and undermine confidence in both the health system and the insurance system. That concern was formally recognised in 2018 when the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services examined the life insurance industry and raised concerns that the use of genetic tests results was adversely affecting participation in health research involving genetic testing. In response, the Financial Services Council introduced an industry moratorium in 2019. That moratorium was presented as an answer, but, in practice, it was only a partial and temporary fix. It fell short in several important aspects.

First, it relied on industry self-regulation, rather than protections enacted in law. That matters because public confidence is weaker when the industry is, effectively, left to supervise itself. And, in practical experience, that was found to be wanting. Second, it only protected people from having their genetic test results used against them up to certain insurance limits. For many families seeking a realistic level of cover to protect dependents, service a mortgage or maintain financial stability, those limits were too narrow. And, third, it did not resolve the broader problem of uncertainty. In the absence of legislated safeguards, people were still left unsure about their rights, the durability of the protections and what remedy they had if something went wrong. In other words, the industry led moratorium was better than nothing, but it's not the same as an evidence-based preventative public health policy.

Crucially, research and consultation since then have shown that the self-regulatory model did not solve the core problem. Evidence showed that people continued to delay or avoid clinical genetic testing because of their concerns about life insurance, and that goes to the heart of the policy failure. Predictive genetic testing is becoming increasingly useful in modern medicine, but too many people have feared that obtaining that information could later be used against them when applying for life insurance, trauma cover, total and permanent disability cover or income protection, and that's the wrong incentive structure. We should be encouraging Australians to access early testing where appropriate. We should be encouraging Australians to participate in research that advances knowledge and improves care. The existing framework applies quite a chilling effect on both.

By late 2023, Treasury had released a consultation paper on the use of genetic testing results in life insurance underwriting. By that point, there was already a significant body of evidence showing that the existing arrangements were not delivering confidence, clarity or fairness. The question was no longer whether there was a problem; the question was whether parliament and the government were prepared to address it properly. In 2024-25, the government moved towards legislation to prohibit the use of adverse, predictive genetic test results in life insurance underwriting. That was the right step, and it marked an important shift from temporary self-regulation to a clearer statutory framework.

I do welcome the government's move to legislate in this area. Moving from consultation and self-regulation to legislation is a meaningful and necessary step. Legislation provides greater certainty, strengthens public confidence and makes clear that it is parliament, not the industry alone, that sets the boundaries of what is fair. That shift matters because it's not a marginal issue. It sits at the intersection of health, financial security, consumer confidence and scientific progress. If we get this right, we remove a barrier to testing, early intervention and research participation. The stakes of the debate are high not just for insurance law but for the broader direction of preventative health policy in Australia. We want to make sure Australians are participating in research and are going to access testing early.

The bill addresses a central and pressing issue, but broader questions remain about fairness, antidiscrimination protections and how other forms of health or family information are treated in underwriting. In that sense, the bill is important but targeted. It addresses one specific problem—the use of protected genetic information in life insurance underwriting, including predictive genetic information—but it does not on its own address the problem of discrimination in insurance law. That means broader discrimination issues can remain. Even with this reform, insurers can still rely on other kinds of information in underwriting, such as diagnosis, symptoms and family medical history.

It's important to recognise that life insurance sits within a special exception under antidiscrimination law. So banning genetic test results does not automatically eliminate every unfair or differential outcome in underwriting, and that's why this bill should be seen as a major and welcome reform but not the final chapter. Parliament should support it while remaining alert to the broader question of fairness, loopholes, enforcement and consumer redress in life insurance. Legislation is important, but consumers too must understand their rights and have confidence that those rights can be meaningfully protected.

This bill is an overdue and necessary step that should be understood as part of a broader task: building a life insurance framework that is fairer, more transparent and better aligned with modern medicine. Ultimately, it's about whether Australians can seek potentially life-saving information about their health and the possible health implications of their children, without fearing that the consequences will follow them into the insurance market. And that's why I support this legislative ban on genetic discrimination in life insurance. This is about fairness, public trust and access to preventive care. It's about making sure that Australians are not deterred from testing, early intervention or research participation because they fear financial disadvantage. It's very important that we understand that but that more can still be done.

I welcome this bill and I urge the government to continue ensuring that discrimination when it comes to life insurance is addressed in all its forms.

Jerome Laxale (Bennelong, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This is an important day and this is an important piece of legislation. And, as with most bits of legislation like this, there's been a lot of work behind the scenes by a lot of people. There are plenty who need to be acknowledged for this moment, and I'll just name a few here as we debate this bill.

Krystal Barter, who's a fierce advocate for genetic testing protections—she's a friend and someone I know who does not quit until she's achieved her goal. Eve Olsson was a Lynch syndrome advocate who shared her story and her experience publicly to help achieve this reform that the government is proposing today. Kara Ryan, one of the DNA Screen participants who work so closely with Monash University, used her experience as reason for this reform to progress. Then, of course, there's Dr Jane Tiller. There wouldn't be too many members of parliament that haven't met or sat with Dr Jane Tiller over the years, talking about not only her role in the Monash testing but also her role in advocating for this bill. I've met her at least 10 times in my time in this place and I'm sure she's been meeting many other members to get to today. Of course, we have our former assistant treasurer Stephen Jones, who started this process and importantly committed a re-elected Labor government to this reform, and the current assistant treasurer, the member for Fraser, who finished the job and introduced this really important piece of legislation here today—because genetic testing saves lives.

We're at a point in medicine, and with technological advancement, where we can identify risks before disease develops. But, like most things, our laws haven't kept up to date with the fast-moving pace of technology. The scientific and medical breakthroughs that will allow Australians to act early to avoid disease and to live longer, healthier lives are available to us right now. Yet, for too long, public policy has lagged behind scientific capability. This bill seeks to address that. For decades, Australians have had the worry of a terrible choice—the choice between genetic testing that could save their lives and prevent illness and the potential financial implications for their life insurance.

This was the key reason why the people who did initially sign up to a really important study, the DNA Screen led by Dr Jane Tiller at Monash University, didn't participate when they realised this choice that they had to make because of the genetic discrimination in life insurance. In the cost-of-living pressures we all seem to face, every financial decisions that Australians make matters, particularly when it comes to their health and their wellbeing. I'm supporting this bill because no Australian should be forced to choose between knowledge that could save their lives and the financial security of their family.

As I said, people were holding back from getting DNA screening, either through this big trial that Monash University conducted or just getting it done privately themselves because of the impact it may have on their life insurance. Life insurers, operating for profit, have had free rein over how they screen and how they can accept, deny or increase the costs of people's life insurance—insurance that people deserve. Treasury analysis has shown that the current life insurance framework has caused individuals to delay or, in some cases, not even undergo genetic testing because of the potential impact on their insurance affordability. It also put pressure on the research, and that's particularly concerning because we're not going to get improvements to health, or improvements to science or technology without research.

Monash University's DNA Screen struggled to get people to participate due to the impact of the current system. We need Australians to participate in medical research where it benefits our country and our economy. This bill seeks to address that anomaly and that unfairness. It ensures that Australians can get fair access to life insurance cover and that they are not discouraged from undertaking genetic testing. It's about a fair go, it's about better medical research, and, ultimately, it's about better health care, which is, to be honest, what all Labor governments are about.

In short, we're banning life insurers from factoring in the results of anyone's genetic testing when deciding whether or not to offer that life insurance and how to price that life insurance. Schedule 1 of this bill implements the government's decision to ban life insurers from using information about an individual's genetic testing to inform the offer of life insurance cover or the terms and conditions of the cover that is offered. The ban makes amendments to the Insurance Contracts Act 1984 to implement the ban and related amendments to the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 to align Australia's antidiscrimination laws with the ban. The objective of the amendments to these acts is to provide certainty to individuals that undertaking genetic testing—including through participation in health and medical research—will not impact their ability to obtain life insurance cover or the terms of that cover. It's intended that the ban will lead to increased uptake of genetic testing and provide extensive individual, public health, scientific and research benefits. The ban will not prevent individuals from volunteering genetic testing results with written consent and the use of these volunteered results in underwriting where this would not adversely impact the insurance offer or policy terms. The ban will not limit the existing ability of life insurers to access and use certain information for underwriting life insurance, including the existence of signs, symptoms or diagnoses of diseases, or individuals' family medical history.

This legislation and the clarifications within it are necessary to ensure that life insurance can continue to be properly risk rated and underwritten while still achieving the aim that we seek to address—and that's to provide protection over genetic test results—because genetic testing is only going to become more cost effective and more prevalent in our health system, and we need to make sure that these protections exist. It will create civil penalties and criminal offences for noncompliance and will be regulated by ASIC because we're changing the law to put people's health above insurer profit margins, and that's the right thing to do.

In my electorate of Bennelong, we've already seen firsthand the impact that genetic testing can have. Through the well-documented and spoken-about Monash DNA screen study, at least 80 young people from Bennelong participated in this kind of testing, and it's young people, in particular, that I think will benefit the most from broadly available genetic testing. Nearly 40 per cent of people in Bennelong are aged between 18 and 40. The sooner that they can get results from genetic testing, the sooner they can address anything that's identified. One participant in the Monash DNA screen study was identified as being at high risk of heart attack due to genetically high cholesterol, something they would not have known had they not got a genetic test. Because of that early detection, they are now accessing preventive health care that will literally save their life.

This legislation is about enabling people to get access to genetic testing without the issue of it affecting their life insurance premium. Just like that participant from Bennelong, all Australians deserve fair access to life insurance without being penalised for the preventive steps they take in getting genetic testing. Without these reforms, that same individual could have faced higher premiums or been denied cover altogether, simply for taking responsible action. If they hadn't, they would have been at risk.

These amendments ensure that our antidiscrimination laws and modern science work hand in hand with each other. Australians deserve certainty and protection, not fear and confusion, when making decisions about their health. We are here to tell all Australians that, following the passage of this bill, their decision to undertake genetic testing will not risk their access to life insurance. The bill addresses the most significant testing barrier for Australians and will pave the way for greater investment into preventive genome screening.

This fits in with our government's healthcare agenda. It's another way that we're strengthening Medicare and ensuring better health outcomes for all Australians. Across the spectrum, we're reducing costs for Australians because we believe that everybody deserves quality access to affordable health care. This is just one part of our health reform agenda, building on cheaper medicines, which have already saved Australians over $35 million. We've got bulk-billing GPs increasing in numbers across the country. In Bennelong, you'll be very pleased to know that we've gone from nine fully bulk-billed clinics up to 18, doubling the bulk-billing GP clinics in Bennelong, because of this Labor government. We've invested heavily in urgent care clinics across the country, with two servicing Bennelong—one in Top Ryde and a very recently opened new urgent care clinic in Chatswood that I had the pleasure of visiting only last week.

This is a health system that is complex but that needs to be agile. It needs multiple avenues to fix it and bring it up to standard after nine years of deliberate neglect by the former government. That's exactly what this government is doing, having been re-elected in 2025.

For too long, Australians have been holding themselves back from life-saving genetic testing because of fear created by the way that the system was set up. It wasn't a system that worked for people. I believe no-one should be discouraged from seeking life-saving information because of how it might be used against them. These amendments remove that fear and replace it with certainty. They remove a real barrier to preventive health care and will ensure that Australians can make decisions about their health without worrying about the financial consequences.

These reforms will have great impacts across Australia, particularly for younger Australians—those who have a history of illness within their family. The bill will support greater participation in genetic testing, which will, hopefully, also bring the cost of genetic testing down. It will strengthen public health outcomes as we learn more from increased participation in scientific research, and it will drive continued progress in health care in this country.

Amendments like these are what good governments do. It has been a long journey to get here but one that this government—starting under former assistant treasurer Jones and now introduced into the House by the Assistant Treasurer—is doing in consultation with advocates, insurers and the health community. This legislation will fix problems, remove barriers, back Australians to look after their own health and encourage them to do so. Australians should never have to choose between their health and their financial security, and with this legislation—when it passes through this parliament—they'll no longer have to. I commend it to the House.

Alice Jordan-Baird (Gorton, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Today I rise to support the Treasury Laws Amendment (Genetic Testing Protections in Life Insurance and Other Measures) Bill 2025, which was introduced by the Assistant Treasurer, and I commend him for doing so. This amendment to the Insurance Contracts Act 1984 is a significant one because genetic testing can save lives. Genetic testing supports medical practitioners to prevent illnesses, diagnose conditions earlier, and treat and monitor a range of cancers, cancer predisposition syndromes and other heritable conditions sooner. It plays a critical role in monitoring all of this. For many Australians, one major thing has stood in the way of getting tested for and treating conditions early, and that's the concern that life insurers will use that information against them. That's not right—and, what's more, it takes one easy fix, and that fix is this bill in front of us.

This bill bans life insurers from taking information from an individual's genetic testing into account when deciding whether to offer life insurance cover or when making decisions about the terms and conditions of that cover. It's about protecting Australians, making things fairer for Australians and giving Australians confidence—confidence to get tested, confidence to look after their health and confidence that doing the right thing won't come back to bite them.

Medical science is moving forward quickly, and genetic testing is one of the most important and impactful advances we've seen. But our laws have simply not kept pace. Under previous arrangements, people could be penalised for genetic information that is completely outside of their control, something they were born with and did not choose. Some Australians delayed testing or avoided it altogether out of fear it would affect their access to life insurance. That fear has real consequences for people's health. This legislation is addressing this problem. In practical terms, it bans life insurers from using adverse genetic test results when making decisions about life insurance contracts entered into after the commencement of this bill. Put simply, if someone chooses to undergo genetic testing to protect their health, that information cannot be used against them when they apply for life insurance. That is a significant reform, and it will make a real difference. It allows people to focus on their health without worrying that they will be financially punished for doing so. It removes a barrier that never should have existed in the first place.

I want to take a moment to pay tribute to my colleague the wonderful member for Macnamara, Josh Burns, who has led the charge for these reforms within government along with his constituent and close friend Dr Jane Tiller. Josh represents the largest Jewish community in Victoria, which is highly predisposed to genetic disorders. One in 40 Ashkenazi Jews carry the BRCA gene mutation, which can lead to higher risk of breast, ovarian, prostate, pancreatic and skin cancers—that's 10 times higher than for the general population. Back in 2023, Josh hosted a roundtable with Dr Jane Miller; the Assistant Treasurer at the time, Stephen Jones; and a group of advocates and women directly impacted by these reforms. These were women who had done everything right. They had taken the responsible step of getting tested, discovered they carried the BRCA gene and, in many cases, undergone preventive surgery to reduce their risk, only to find themselves penalised by life insurers. Many other Jewish Australians have avoided genetic testing altogether to avoid paying higher premiums, leaving genetic disorders which could have cost them their lives undetected. Thanks to this bill and to Josh's advocacy, that would no longer be the case. It is also thanks in no small way to the research of Dr Jane Tiller and her team at Monash University. She is someone who has dedicated her career to public health research and to increasing equitable access to genomic medicine for public health outcomes. She's passionate about this because she knows that genetic testing saves lives through the prevention of disease in very high risk people. She knows that there are more high-risk Australians than most people realise.

Recently, Monash University, led by Dr Tiller, conducted a DNA screen study which tested 10,000 18- to 40-year-old Australians for high genetic risk of preventable cancer and heart disease. They found that one in 50 Australians—two per cent—were at high risk of preventable cancer and heart diseases. Now, don't be misled; one in 50 Australians is still a lot of Australians. In my friend the member for Macnamara's electorate, at least 67 young people participated in the DNA screen. Four young people were found to be at high genetic risk—two of breast, ovarian and prostate cancer, one of bowel cancer and one of a heart attack due to genetic high cholesterol. In my electorate of Gorton, 39 young people participated and three were found to be at high genetic risk—two of breast, ovarian and prostate cancer and one of heart attack due to genetic high cholesterol.

I want to be clear: we're talking about preventable diseases—diseases which have life-altering consequences if detected early. So, when those participants in the electorate of Macnamara and in my electorate of Gorton, alongside other participants in the study, found they were at high risk of these preventable genetic diseases, they were able to access preventive measures such as surgery, surveillance and medication. For them, this study was very possibly life changing. Now, that is incredible.

While this study was life altering for these individuals, it also highlighted a severe fault in our healthcare system—the thing that is the most significant barrier to testing for Australians. The main reason people who signed up for the DNA screening ultimately decided not to participate was genetic discrimination in life insurance. This isn't new. For decades, this has been a significant ethical concern for Australians, who have had to choose between genetic testing that could save their lives and potential financial implications for their life insurance.

This is not how the system should work. Life insurers should not be able to discriminate like this. Life insurers should not be able to act as a barrier to Australians accessing preventable health care. This bill will end that discrimination. It will end that fear and it will enable Australians to make decisions about genetic testing and genetic research without worrying about life insurance. Here, we are addressing the most significant barrier to testing for Australians, and we are paving the way for greater investment in preventive genomic screening, because preventive healthcare matters. Investing in preventive health is a proven way of increasing national productivity, reducing health system spending and keeping Australians out of hospital. Preventive health takes the burden off our hospital systems and off our public spending. While there's plenty of research that tells us of the benefits of investing more broadly in the prevention of diseases in adults through DNA screening, until we pass this bill, Australians cannot have confidence that they can get tested without consequences. This bill is an opportunity to invest more broadly in prevention of disease in adults through DNA screening without people having to worry about insurance concerns. It sends a clear message that you should not have to choose between your health and your financial security.

This legislation restores balance between individuals and large insurance corporations, and it puts people back at the centre of the system. For communities like Gorton, this matters. We are a young and diverse community in Melbourne's western suburbs, with many families already facing financial and cost-of-living pressures. The median age of people in Gorton is 35 years old, and young Australians want preventive genetic information. The DNA Screen study was extremely popular amongst young people, with tens of thousands of young people registering their interest in participating for the study, and young people found that genetic testing has significant benefits for their futures. Around 22 per cent of people in my electorate of Gorton are living with at least one long-term health condition. That means reforms like this are not abstract or theoretical; they affect real people in our communities. This legislation helps reduce one of those barriers by giving people confidence that getting genetic testing will not come at a personal cost.

This reform follows extensive consultation with community members, medical practitioners, genetic researchers and the insurance industry. The DNA Screen study hopes to expand its testing to 100,000 people, which would identify thousands more at-risk people who would not have to worry about life insurance discrimination. It's a step towards a screening program to use genomics to prevent disease. We must move into an era of using genomics to prevent and get ahead of disease. Published modelling indicates that this screening is cost-effective, with associated productivity gains in the billions of dollars.

This bill has broad support across parliament, and it fits squarely within Labor's broader agenda. We have invested more than ever before in the health of Australians. With record investments in Medicare, we are bringing bulk-billing back and strengthening as we do so. In my electorate of Gorton, 72 per cent of clinics are now fully bulk-billed. We've brought cost-of-living relief to Australians by lowering the cost of PBS listed medicines to just $25, and we've increased access to health care by expanding those lists of medicines on the PBS. We've opened new urgent care clinics across the country, including in Melton and Sunshine near my electorate. We're rolling out 1800MEDICARE, a new 24/7 service families can access from home whenever they need it. This is a state-of-the-art expansion of telehealth.

We're growing Australia's health workforce with the largest GP training program in Australian history, and we're investing landmark commitments in women's health. For too long, women's health issues have not been adequately addressed. We're working to reverse decades of neglect to women's health, with $573.3 million to deliver more choice, lower costs and better health care for women. We're introducing the first new contraceptive pills added to the PBS in 30 years—Yaz, Yasmin and Slinda. We're introducing the first new menopause treatments on the PBS in 20 years—Estrogel, Estrogel Pro and Prometrium. We're ensuring there's better access to IUDs and birth control implants as well. This comes alongside the opening of 22 endometriosis and pelvic pain clinics, with another 11 to be opening soon.

Thanks to these initiatives, Australian women and their families will save thousands of dollars on health related costs across their lifetimes. This is what happens when we elect women: women's issues become at the forefront of the government's agenda. On this side of the House, we're committed to tangible cost-of-living relief and health outcomes for Australians. Labor built Medicare, and we will always protect it. This is all because the Albanese Labor government is ensuring that accessible health care for all Australians remains a priority. No-one should be discouraged from looking after their health—and, with this legislation, they won't be. Life insurers will not have the power to stop Australians from getting tested early and treated early for their genetic conditions. On that note, I commend this bill to the House.

Barnaby Joyce (New England, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

One of the biggest issues in genetic testing is that, under an insurance process, it allows the insurer to remove any sense of risk. You don't have the risk if you remove all the high-risk components. The whole purpose of insurance is to have a pool of people in which you include low risk and high risk for the general betterment that those of a higher risk have a form of cover. If we allow genetic testing in and to go unchecked, then any person who has latency towards cancer, latency towards respiratory disease or heart attacks will of course be treated just like a person who is a smoker. They'll say, 'I don't really have an interest in insuring you, because I make more money out of this group.'

I want to bring attention to something else that's in regard to genetic testing and the protections in life insurance. I'll talk about genetic testing and protection in life. What we have—and we've seen more of, as I refer to a study by Edith Cowan University—is people, especially with non-invasive prenatal testing, who are testing for the sex of a child below 10 weeks. We've had an unreasonable increase—the general ratio is about 105 boys to 100 girls. That's generally where it is. But what we're seeing in some sections is 134 boys to 100 girls, as people have a preference to move towards the abortion of girls so that—

Terry Young (Longman, Liberal National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! I call the minister.

Andrew Leigh (Fenner, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Productivity, Competition, Charities and Treasury) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The honourable member is straying well beyond the bill. I would ask you to ask him to return his comments to the legislation before the House, not opining on every matter under the sun.

Terry Young (Longman, Liberal National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have been listening closely to the member. I'm going to see where this leads. He is specifically talking about medical issues, and we are talking about health insurance here. I'm happy to let the member proceed, but I'll watch him, and, if he gets off course, I'll redirect him.

Barnaby Joyce (New England, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I always understand the sensitivities that I raise. It's actually a United Nations issue. They're trying to deal with this. Even at the United Nations level, they see this as a serious problem. The last report from the United Nations said that we're down 200 million girls. I thought that might have rung a bell somewhere. I can understand if that's not a concern for the honourable member opposite, but it is to the United Nations. The reason is the capacity for people to actually utilise this and for insurance to cover this, even in regards to how it works vis-a-vis Medicare.

It is incredibly pertinent as to what is happening in regards to genetic testing and testing for issues that sway away from the natural predisposition of the balance of traits. If you test and find that someone has a prevalence to cancer and therefore remove them as somebody you wish to cover, then you are not doing the appropriate thing in covering risk. If you find people who have a heart disease and remove them from the people you ensure, then the predisposition sways what the purpose of insurance is. Likewise, if you use genetic testing—and it is genetic testing—to determine the sex, especially in non-invasive prenatal testing, you're changing the natural dynamic which is completely at odds with what people are trying to do with the equality of the sexes. You're changing it in the most profound way.

This is something that should be part of the scope. If we want to comply with where the United Nations is heading with this, then we have to be brave enough to acknowledge this. We are seeing now, even in Australia that what they call the sex ratio for births, in some demographics in Australia, has gone to 1.39 when it should be around 1.05. If we concur with this, then we concur with the belief that girls are not as important as boys, and I hope that that wouldn't be the case. I put it to the honourable member opposite—if he disagrees with that, he's welcome to stand and say so.

This study by Edith Cowan University has brought once more to light the whole gamut of this new world we're in with genetic testing. Genetic testing has to have some ring-roads put around it. If it doesn't, it will become incredibly Orwellian in terms of the type of world that we want to create. Of course, the attributes being tested for don't stop with people's predisposition for wanting male children, because that's where it generally moves towards—male. It also comes to other attributes that people wish to select for, and they can do it by genetic testing. They can do it for eye colour. They can do it for height. They can do it for whether a person has the propensity to become obese. All these things become part of this rather dark and perverse new form of eugenics in trying to create a new form of humankind—one that fits our ideal model for what we believe to be the perfect human being. It's completely wrong. It's a very bad thing.

Steve Georganas (Adelaide, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The member for New England will resume his seat. A point of order?

Andrew Leigh (Fenner, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Productivity, Competition, Charities and Treasury) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It's on relevance. We are in the realm of Dennis Denuto's 'vibe of the thing'. The member for New England is not addressing the question of genetic testing, discrimination and life insurance. He's seen the words 'genetic testing'—

Steve Georganas (Adelaide, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am listening carefully. I ask the member to resume his seat. The member for New England has the call, and I ask him to stay relevant.

Barnaby Joyce (New England, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you very much. On relevance, he seemed very upset about genetic testing. This is genetic testing. He then said the word 'discrimination'. I couldn't be more profoundly relevant to the issue of discrimination, in its most exact form, than with precisely what I'm talking about. I don't know whether the member finds it offensive or what the issue is, but you can't stand up and say it's got nothing to do with genetic testing, when it absolutely has, and it's got nothing to do with discrimination, when it is most profoundly attached to discrimination. And to belittle it by making a reference to Dennis Denuto—that is profoundly insulting and, I thought, quite below you, but anyway.

In closing, it is incredibly important, when we see this, that we bring it before the chamber and before the Australian people. The Australian people understand that, as we've seen here in a classic example, they will immediately try to shut you down. They will immediately try to put a shackle on this discussion because it doesn't suit their views of what they want. On this, I will side with the United Nations. He thinks it's some right-wing conspiracy. I've been reading this report, and it's hardly a right-wing conspiracy; it's a complete expression of a concern that the world has, which we are now also seeing in Australia. If the member believes that it's not an issue that 200 million girls are just not there because of people's preference for boys over girls, then I don't know when he became so lost in his own compass.

Rowan Holzberger (Forde, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise in support of the Treasury Laws Amendment (Genetic Testing Protections in Life Insurance and Other Measures) Bill 2025. I just can't let pass that the member for New England mentioned 105 males born, but, he said, 'Sometimes'—in a good season—'you have more, sometimes less.' Anyway, he's left the chamber, so I don't feel the need to continue that.

When I was elected, I made a commitment in Forde to listen to the community, to fight for what I hear and to deliver on what the community wants. To that end, I came across a woman called Jess Short, who lives in Waterford West. Jess has a rare condition called osteopathia striata with cranial sclerosis. It is a rare disease. Jess is somebody who is a fierce advocate for people with that condition, but she is also a fierce advocate for people with rare diseases. As part of working with Jess, we held a community forum on rare diseases in Forde last week. From that, it has emerged how significant rare diseases are in our community. Even though each has a propensity in the community of about five in 10,000, collectively there's something like 7.8 per cent of the Australian population living with a rare disease, which means around 13½ thousand people in Forde.

I'd like to read out a bit about Jess. Jess was unofficially diagnosed when she was around 12 years old. When she later sought a formal diagnosis, she says that she was told she couldn't have children and that that advice was delivered without much empathy. Six weeks later, it was confirmed that she did in fact have the condition. Much of Jess's childhood was spent in and out of hospital, and, by the age of 18, she'd undergone more than 30 surgeries, including hernia surgery, jaw surgery, cleft palate repair and the removal of tonsils that had grown so large they affected her breathing. As Jess put it to me, with a bit of humour, 'Let's just say I've had a lot of anaesthetic.' Thirty surgeries before the age of 18! But what really struck me about Jess when we spoke wasn't just the number of surgeries; it was how hard it can be for people with rare diseases to navigate the health system. Jess says there is often no clear place to go. Because the condition is rare, patients can struggle to access a multidisciplinary team. She told me that there's very little transition care between childhood and adult services, meaning people can suddenly find themselves trying to navigate a system on their own.

Jess isn't interested in blaming anyone. What she wants is something better for the future. She wants to advocate for people with rare diseases. She knows children with the same condition who are not getting the help they need, and she wants to help connect families and push for a system that works. And that's exactly why we held a forum last week. It was very well attended by the community, and there was a lot of participation and discussion online and in emails I received. I very much want to take the opportunity during this debate to shout out to Jess Short, who is a remarkable individual and a fierce advocate for people with these conditions.

Arising out of the forum was an email I got last Friday, a couple of days after the forum, from another legend in our community, Kerri Meulman of Ormeau Hills. She is also a fierce advocate. I spoke to her today, and she's very happy for me to read out what she wrote to me. In this email, she advocates for the treatment she receives to be included on the PBS. There a couple of things I'll say on that at the end, but I think this really gives us an insight into what it means to have genetic testing to determine your condition. She said:

Thank you for the opportunity for the session! Unfortunately after treatment and dealing with the M1 carpark for 2hours trying to get to treatment this morning, I was unable to attend in person.

She said she started listening to it, though, and wanted to put what she thought in writing:

So thank you for the opportunity to have a voice!!

A little about my rare disease—I was diagnosed in 2023 with a rare cancer—gallbladder cancer, luckily found after going to make my regular blood donation and for them to tell me my iron levels were too low, go see my GP. Long story short, I have been through a couple of surgeries, oral chemotherapy, then more intensive chemotherapy and immunotherapy when the cancer spread in 2024 all through the public system. I do have private health but the call was taken that under the public system I would be in more of an umbrella situation.

Last year, my cancer metastasised again—and thanks to genomic sequencing, targeted treatment Enhertu was recommended as my best hope to beat this once and for all. Two pathways only were available—a clinical trial or private treatment. I tested for the clinical trial based out of Blacktown Hospital in Sydney, however my tumors were considered too small to qualify. Really I was a number to the trials people.

By the time my tumors had progressed further, there was no spot available on the trial.

So private was only available to me. Luckily for me, at a very young age, my financial advisor had set me up with a raft of insurances one of which I am now using to pay for the $10,000 it costs me for every second treatment, which I will have every three weeks for the next 2 years of my life. The treatment is working—I am 6 cycles in and there are no signs of tumors now. I literally had this news today, which is amazing and very exciting for someone told they had 12months to live.

But do you know, the same protein that Enhertu is targeting in breast cancer patients, if I had breast cancer, I would have access to this drug at $31.30 each cycle. The national breast cancer foundation advocated for this drug for the 1,700 patients each year who have this same sequencing and need of targeted treatment through Enhertu, for this drug to be on the PBS. The power of a powerful advocate for a recognised disease. But I am left out of this as a rare cancer battler.

Now Rare Cancers does what it can—rare cancers themselves as a combined cancer are the 3rd largest cancer group in Australia. But there are multitude of needs not one high profile group.

And nor do I have access to a cancer care nurse. I did under the public system at Gold Coast University Hospital—that cancer care nurse was there to answer questions but was a reactive support service, not an advocate or a support person for myself and my family. I have had to seek out, resource and upskill myself in medical terms and knowledge bases, as I am sure you are hearing, because there is really no one out there who can do it for me.

What stands out from Kerri Meulman's email is that, first, my contribution to this debate would be insignificantly small in comparison to the contribution that she is able to make to this debate, and so it is in her words that I think we sum up exactly what is going on here. The second is that, quite potentially, the private insurance which she has relied on to save her life would have been denied her—her condition would have been excluded—had insurance companies been able to use earlier test results to make that exclusion. The third thing that I'd say is that she's right to be advocating for the PBS. I feel amazingly privileged that I can be a voice for people in my community in this place. The Minister for Health and Ageing made the point today that, since we were elected, we've listed more than 400 new medicines on the PBS. Just as an example, he said that we listed a medication called Ultomiris this month, which treats a relatively rare condition called myasthenia gravis, which impacts only about 3,000 Australians but impacts those 3,000 Australians profoundly.

We as a society are living in a time where treatments are coming onto the market at an unprecedented pace, every single month, and these treatments are often specifically targeted to the genetic testing, which is identified through that test result. By the way, Kerri climbed Mount Kosciuszko last year to raise $2,600 for Cancer Australia. It is people like Kerri and Jess Short that inspire me to get up here and talk about what it means to protect their right to health insurance through the law.

The difference between going through genetic testing and going through a normal route of diagnosis—and there was a study done there—is, potentially, that going through the normal route is extremely frustrating. It can take up to five to seven years, and it can cost anywhere from $10,000 to $40,000. The alternative, through genetic testing, is that it can take weeks or, at most, months, and can cost anywhere from $1,000 to $7,000. Apart from the impact this has on the individual, the impact this has on the economy as a whole and on the productivity of the economy as well as the cost of the health system has got to be profound.

In the last three minutes of my contribution, I will come specifically to why this legislation is so important. In some ways, you'd think that it goes without saying that it should be illegal and unlawful for insurance companies to use genetic testing against somebody to deny cover. But the fact is, in the community, there is a perception that the insurance companies will do just that; I don't know where people get the idea that insurance companies are untrustworthy! It is essential that people have confidence that they can undertake getting that diagnosis without fear of being excluded from insurance cover. In the most severe way possible, criminalising it as an offence, not just making it a civil penalty, truly sends a message to insurance companies to do the right thing and, with that, to give people in the community confidence that they can get the cover they need.

It is through that process and philosophy that I have in Forde to listen to our community, to fight for our community and to deliver for our community—this is a great example of being able to identify an issue which is much bigger than I would have ever thought before. As Kerri said, cumulatively, rare cancers put together are the third-most common type of cancer. That rare diseases are not rare, even though it may affect five in 10,000 Australians—when you put it all together, there are probably 13,500 people in Forde alone who are suffering from a rare disease. It is by listening to the community and fighting for the community—and, I should say, doing what little I can to help people like Jess and Kerri fight—that we as a parliament can deliver. That's what this legislation does. It delivers certainty to people to go and get the diagnosis and undertake the testing that will potentially not just save their life but give them a quality of life they wouldn't have had otherwise. I commend the bill to the House.

Allegra Spender (Wentworth, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Treasury Laws Amendment (Genetic Testing Protections in Life Insurance and Other Measures) Bill 2025 and express my support for this bill. I commend the Assistant Treasurer for bringing forward this bill. It legislates important changes, two of which I've been advocating for some time.

This bill includes four key provisions. Firstly, schedule 1 limits the use of genetic testing by life insurers. Schedule 2 creates licensing exemptions for foreign financial institutions, including international market makers. Schedule 3 standardises the legislative framework for Australia's involvement with multilateral development banks and schedule 4 removes the requirement for stage 2 registration of the better advice act.

To start on life insurance, schedule 1 of this bill is a long overdue outcome of Australians seeking preventive health care. Preventive health care is the future of health in Australia, and we need to be encouraging more, not fewer, people seeking potentially life-saving genetic testing. They should not have to avoid this sort of testing based on the concern that the information they obtain could potentially be used against them by insurers who would seek to exclude people from insurance products. This bill would introduce formal protection against life insurers accessing and using genetic information for determining life insurance product eligibility and premiums. This is very welcome and this is so important.

But to be honest, we have been slow to act on this. In 2003, the Australian Law Reform Commission first recommended that the life insurance industry needed safeguards around the use of genetic testing—that is, 23 years ago. In 2018, a joint parliamentary inquiry into the life insurance industry recommended a moratorium on the use of genetic testing results in life insurance. In 2019, the life insurance industry introduced a partial industry-led moratorium to set policy limits. While I commend the industry for taking the first step, it's overdue that Australia committed to the change. I wrote to the Assistant Treasurer about this issue back in 2023 and again in 2025, when I was contacted by members of my community and also by others, particularly Dr Jane Tiller from Monash University, who has been a leading light in this area. I think the point is that we have come to the right conclusion. I welcome this bill. I support this bill, and I would also say that parliament needs to work at a greater speed than we currently do when issues are raised with us over a long period of time. I also recognise the Council of Australian Life Insurance, CALI, for getting behind some of these changes. It is really important that the life insurance industry is working with these changes as opposed to trying to fight them.

The additional component of the bill that I'd like to talk to in particular is the market makers bill. Some sensible changes, particularly the foreign financial services provider legislation in schedule 2, will provide certain exemptions to foreign financial service providers from licensing requirements under the Corporations Act, including for market makers and providers under comparable regimes. This is a commonsense change. This issue was actually raised with me at a pop-up office in Kings Cross by a constituent who was concerned last year with the uncertainty around this legislation and the need for action to be taken here, so I welcome the government's action on this. I'm really proud to have been advocating really loudly and proudly on this issue, and I think that this is an appropriate resolution.

Finally, schedule 4 of the bill follows through on the government's commitment to scrap the proposed phase 2 of the better advice reforms from 2021, which would make advisers undertake duplicated licensing arrangements every year, set to commence in July 2026. The financial advice profession is in such a decline that it is becoming prohibitively expensive to obtain financial advice, and those who need it are least able to afford it. We need to be doing all that we can to bring more financial advisers into the system, having lost thousands of them in the last few years. So I welcome any legislation that provides appropriate safeguards but that makes it easier and reduces some of the duplicate red tape for financial advisers. So thank you to the government and the ministers for action on these bills, and I commend this bill to the House.

Andrew Leigh (Fenner, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Productivity, Competition, Charities and Treasury) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Ian has familial hypercholesterolaemia, a condition which leads to high cholesterol levels and the risk of heart attack at an early age. He's on cholesterol-lowering medication which controls his cholesterol levels, and when he applied for life insurance, those levels were similar to or lower than the general population. But because he had a genetic result, he had a loading placed on his premium. 'Ian' is a pseudonym, but the story is very real and it's a story that's being repeated across a host of different contexts.

A 2021 survey by the Association of Superannuation Funds of Australia found that around 10 per cent of individuals who disclosed a genetic test result had insurance cover offered on less favourable terms or had cover declined. Other countries have long banned insurers from discriminating based on genetic information. The UK has had a ban in place since 2001, but in Australia many people are deterred from getting genetic testing because of the fear that it might drive up the cost of getting life insurance. They're having to choose between looking after their health and looking after their financial security.

This is a particular problem given how great the improvements have been in genetic testing over recent decades. The cost of sequencing a full genome has gone from millions of dollars and many years down to hundreds of dollars and minutes. The ability of those genetic screens to detect conditions has significantly improved. The Royal College of Pathologists has found that 95 per cent of people carry at least one genetic variant that affects their response to commonly prescribed drugs, and the Australian Medical Association says that genetic testing has 'the capacity to rapidly transform health care in Australia'.

The ability of life insurers to distinguish between applicants based on genetic history can have implications for particular ethnic groups. For example, Jewish people are 10 times more likely than the general population to have a high-risk variant of the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes, which significantly increase risk of breast, ovarian and prostate cancers. The ability of life insurers to discriminate based on genetic tests effectively places a larger burden on Jewish Australians. I commend the work that has been done by Jane Tiller and fellow researchers, and indeed some of the examples that I've quoted have been drawn from the A-GLIMMER final stakeholder report, of 2023. As others in the debate have noted, this has been an issue of long standing. I commend the former assistant treasurer Stephen Jones and the current assistant treasurer, Daniel Mulino, for their work in bringing these reforms to the parliament.

This bill aligns the Insurance Contracts Act and the Disability Discrimination Act so Australians have certainty and protection, not fear and confusion, when they're making decisions about their health. Genetic testing saves lives, and we have more and more examples of tests which are revealing genetic variants. I mentioned before the BRCA1 and BRCA2 variants. There is also the PALB2 variant, which raises the risk of prostate and breast cancer in men. The presence of large datasets linked to genetic information is improving the quality of the information that can be gleaned from genetic testing every day. In coming years, we can expect the cost of genetic testing to fall and the information provided by genetic testing to improve. We can expect that getting a genetic test will be more valuable in determining your risks of cancer, your risks of having an adverse reaction to particular drugs and your risk of passing on a disease to your children.

It is important that Australians are able to take advantage of these advances in science and not be held back for fear that getting a genetic test will drive up the cost of life insurance. This ban will restore certainty. It tells Australians, especially those at higher risk of heritable conditions, that their decision to undertake genetic testing won't jeopardise their access to life insurance or force them into more expensive or restricting policies. Better uptake of genetic testing also improves medical research, and that means better prevention, earlier treatment, stronger public health outcomes and advances in scientific knowledge. Right now, people are being deterred from taking part in genetic tests as part of scientific research for fear that, if those results are revealed to them, they will then be obligated to reveal them to potential life insurers and therefore pay more.

Under this bill, individuals will still be able to volunteer their test results with written consent where it benefits them, and insurers can still use symptoms, diagnoses and family history to ensure policies remain properly risk rated. The value of being able to volunteer test results was highlighted, in Dr Tiller's A-GLIMMER Final stakeholder report, by the case of Frank, whose father had Huntington's disease and who had a 200 per cent premium loading applied to his policy due to his family history. But he had a genetic test result showing that he did not inherit the Huntington's disease variant and so was not at risk of Huntington's disease. He had to take the insurance company to the complaints tribunal in order to finally reach a settlement. Under the bill that is before the House, it will be possible for people like Frank—a pseudonym, of course—to take forward the sorts of genetic tests that benefit them.

We are acting on behalf of vulnerable Australians. The most affluent can get away without buying life insurance, but vulnerable Australians often feel a need to purchase life insurance in order to forestall the risk that their family are left adversely affected by the economic consequences of their death. This bill will ensure a greater sense of equity and protect some of the most vulnerable in our community. It will be good for medical research, and that is why it enjoys the backing of so many medical research companies. It will be good for health, which is why it enjoys the backing of so many medical advocacy bodies, such as the Australian Medical Association and the Royal Australian College of General Practitioners. It will bring peace of mind to Australians who want to go and find out more about their genetic history, either through curious inquiry or because they are keen to see what genetic testing reveals about them and how they can help their own health and that of their families. I commend the bill to the House.

Trish Cook (Bullwinkel, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Today I rise to speak on the Treasury Laws Amendment (Genetic Testing Protections in Life Insurance and Other Measures) Bill 2025. This bill is a significant piece of legislation. It's about fairness, modernisation and the fundamental health of every Australian. At its core, this bill delivers on a clear commitment to ban the use of adverse genetic testing results in life insurance. We are protecting Australians from being discriminated against simply because they took a proactive step to understand their own health.

I approach this bill not just as a member of parliament but through the lens of my career as a registered nurse and midwife. Throughout my years in clinical practice, I've stood at the bedside of patients facing the most daunting diagnoses imaginable, and I recently submitted my doctoral research focusing on the experiences of patients receiving medical treatments, specifically the impact of chemotherapy and immunotherapy infusions delivered in the home. I have seen firsthand the physical, emotional and financial toll that cancer treatment can take on an individual and their family. When we talk about preventive health, we aren't just using a policy buzzword. We're talking about the difference between a patient undergoing a pre-emptive life-saving procedure and, alternatively, enduring the gruelling, exhausting cycles of chemotherapy and immunotherapy because a condition may have been caught late. I know the cost of the latter, and not just the cost to the Medicare system and the health system but the human cost. Genetic testing is at the frontier of preventive health. It allows us to move from the reactive healthcare model to a proactive one. But, for that to work, patients must feel secure and feel safe to access the technology.

This is why the story of Zoe, a young woman from my home state of Western Australia, is so vital. Zoe's mother was diagnosed with stage 3 breast cancer at only 39 years of age and passed away only 18 months thereafter. Zoe, knowing her family history, did the responsible thing. She sought a DNA test through the public system, but, unfortunately, did not qualify under the rigid criteria. However, she was selected for a DNA screen trial, a groundbreaking initiative led by Monash University. That trial confirmed that she did, indeed, carry the high-risk breast cancer gene. Armed with that knowledge, Zoe underwent a double mastectomy. She took control. She prevented the experience that her mother suffered, and she probably saved her own life.

But here is the tragedy: many Australians in Zoe's position choose not to take that test. It's not because they're afraid of the needle. They're afraid of the insurance company. Their fear is that a positive result will mean that they can never get a mortgage, they'll never be able to protect their children's future or they will be priced out of the peace of mind that life insurance provides. As a nurse, it breaks my heart to think that a patient would decline a life-saving map of their own DNA because of a corporate profit margin.

This bill ends that fear. Schedule 1 ends genetic discrimination. For too long, a shadow has hung over the consultation rooms of genetic counsellors and over the laboratories of our great medical research institutions. That shadow is the fear of not being eligible for life insurance. Under the current framework, vulnerable Australians have been faced with a difficult choice: do I take a genetic test that may save my life by identifying a predisposition to cancer or heart disease or do I protect my family's financial future by ensuring that I can still access affordable life insurance? In a First World nation like Australia, no-one should ever have to make that choice.

Here is the evidence for change. Treasury's analysis on this matter is clinical and it's clear. The status quo is failing. People are holding back from essential testing. They are delaying life-saving screenings, and they are even withdrawing from groundbreaking medical research because they're terrified of being penalised by the insurer for a bad result. When people avoid testing, we lose the chance for early intervention. We lose the chance for prevention. When people avoid research, our scientific progress stalls. This government is stepping in to ensure that the system works for people, not against them.

How does the ban work? Schedule 1 implements the government's decision to ban life insurers from using genetic-testing results to inform the offer or terms of their cover. We are amending the Insurance Contracts Act 1984 and the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 to ensure that our laws keep pace with modern science. This ban is robust and fair. Integrity of underwriting means that insurers can still use signs, symptoms or family medical history to conduct risk-rate policies which are appropriate, but the hidden code of our DNA is protected. Patients can still volunteer results if it helps them—for example, if they do not carry the family mutation. There is also strict enforcement. The bill creates civil and criminal penalties for noncompliance that are regulated by ASIC. We're not just asking the industry to do better; we're requiring it to.

In schedule 2, supporting global investment, we are streamlining our financial markets by introducing licensing exemptions for foreign financial service providers. By reducing red tape for comparable regulators and professional investors, we're encouraging global capital to flow to Australia. For our superannuation and retirement industry, this means better access to international markets and lower costs through increased competition. It's about making Australia a more sophisticated, competitive financial hub.

Schedule 3 is about modernising international finance. It modernises our engagement with the multilateral development banks and the International Monetary Fund. In our region, these institutions are at the forefront of climate resilience and infrastructure. By providing a more flexible legislative framework for transactions, like our support for the World Bank and the Asian Development Bank, we will ensure Australia remains a leader in regional development. We've ensured transparency remains paramount and any new financial obligations must be notified to government.

Schedule 4 reduces the burden for financial advisers. It removes the redundant stage 2 registration of financial advisers. As a researcher, I'm a firm believer in efficient systems. We already have a functioning disciplinary system forcing individual advisers to register annually with ASIC, and this would add another unnecessary administrative burden and cost. We want advisers focused on helping Australians plan for their future, not navigating bureaucratic hurdles that offer no additional consumer protection.

In conclusion, it's people over products. As a nurse, I've always believed that prevention is better than cure. As a PhD candidate, I understand that the data tells us the same thing. And, as the member for Bullwinkel, I know my community expects us to put health ahead of insurance industry loopholes. For 10 years, those opposite ignored the genetic underclass. They allowed this system to persist, where Australians were punished for being proactive about their health. The Labor Albanese government is fixing that. We're telling every Australian: your DNA belongs to you, not your insurer. We are choosing science, we are choosing prevention and we are choosing people. I commend this bill to the House.

Matt Keogh (Burt, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Veterans’ Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Officially, they are called 'in-valids'. They are the healthy ill. They don't actually have anything yet—they may never have. But, since few of the preconditions can be cured or reversed, it is easier to treat them as if they were already sick. This is a quote from the film Gattaca, nearly a quarter of a century ago, that might describe an imaginary future world, but discrimination on the grounds of genetic status, very sadly, is not science fiction.

In my first parliamentary term, I was part of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services, and one of our inquiries was into the life insurance industry. The terms of reference for this inquiry went to the need for further reform and improved oversight of the life insurance industry; the benefits and risks to consumers of the different elements of the life insurance market; whether entities were engaging in unethical practices to avoid meeting claims; and possible reform and oversight of the industry. Throughout the inquiry, concerns were raised about privacy and genetic discrimination relating to genetic testing in health care, and to this end I want to pay particular tribute to Jane Tiller and the great advocacy work that she has been doing, prior to that inquiry and ever since, to ensure that legislation like this can come to fruition today.

At the completion of the inquiry, there were a number of recommendations—9.1 to 9.4—that went to this issue, recommending that the Financial Services Council, in consultation with the Australian Genetic Non-Discrimination Working Group, assess the consumer impact of imposing a moratorium on life insurers using predictive genetic information unless the consumer provides genetic information to a life insurer to demonstrate that they are not at risk of developing a disease. Despite this work on a moratorium—and, in some ways, because of it and the self-regulatory approach—a legislative approach is needed. Some of us are not surprised.

Fast-forward eight or so years and we now have this legislation before the parliament—legislation that our government committed to in its first term. During the course of this debate, those opposite have tried to take issue with the fact that we announced this legislation a year or so ago and we're bringing it forward now, but they had five years, after the committee that I was a member of provided its report to the then government, in which they did nothing. So I find it a bit rich that they now complain about us having taken action to progress this legislation during our first term in government.

Genetic testing saves lives through getting in early and preventing disease. This bill delivers on the Albanese government's commitment to ban the use of adverse genetic test results in life insurance. We're protecting Australians from being discriminated against for playing an active role in their own health care. Life insurers will no longer be able to use an individual's adverse genetic test results to determine whether they can get cover or to set terms for that cover. We are changing the law to put people's health needs ahead of insurers' profit margins. Genetic testing does save lives, and Australians should not have to choose between their health and their ability to access life insurance. This bill will make sure that we're keeping people well for longer.

Under the current law, Australians have been delaying or avoiding genetic testing because they are worried about being penalised by insurers or being refused insurance, including through superannuation, or facing exorbitant premiums. We are fixing that. The passage of this legislation ensures Australians', especially those at high risk of inherited conditions, decision to undertake genetic testing that may enable them to undergo treatment that could save their life, or indeed demonstrate that they will not have that condition, will not jeopardise access to life insurance or force them into more expensive or restrictive policies. This includes conditions like breast cancer.

Genetic testing can be used to identify a fault or a mutation in the BRCA genes, which increase the risk of developing breast and ovarian cancer within a family. This testing can help individuals make decisions about how to reduce their risk of breast cancer and what sort of surgery you might want if you have been diagnosed. Unfortunately, the statistics bear out what my oncologist friends tell me. They have to warn patients that results may have to be disclosed to life insurers, and it may negatively affect their ability to be insured. This results in many, despite family history, not getting tested when they should so that they can make their own properly informed life decisions.

Our intention is that these reforms will support greater uptake of genetic testing and thereby save lives. It will also mean more Australians will be willing to participate in much-needed genetic research to save many more lives in the future, without the risk of becoming uninsurable. That means better prevention, earlier treatment, stronger public health outcomes and advances in scientific knowledge that benefit every Australian.

Although genetic testing is on the rise, a recent study from Monash University saw more than half of people who signed up to participate then subsequently discontinued their involvement in the study because of concerns around accessing affordable insurance. In this DNA screening study, some 10,000 Australians between the ages of 18 and 40 were assessed for their risks of preventable cancer and heart disease. Seventy-three of those were from my community of Burt in Perth's south-east. They found that one in 50, or two per cent, of those tested are at high risk. This information armed these individuals with the knowledge to be able to then do something about it. They were able to access preventive treatments and early interventions, and make lifestyle changes that would benefit them in the long run. But more than half of potential participants who had the opportunity to be armed with this information lost out, unable to prioritise their own health due to a fear of hip-pocket pain or risk to their family's long-term financial security.

Australians have had to choose between genetic testing that could save their life and potential financial implications for their life insurance. This bill will end that discrimination and that fear, and enable Australians to make decisions about genetic testing and genetic research without worrying about life insurance. These amendments ensure our antidiscrimination laws keep pace with modern science. We are aligning the Insurance Contracts Act and the Disability Discrimination Act so Australians have certainty and protection rather than fear and confusion when making decisions about their health. We shouldn't have to be relying on oncologists and medical professionals to advise of the need to seek further financial advice at a time of dealing critically with one's health.

This reform has real consequences for non-compliance as well. It establishes civil and criminal penalties and places enforcement authority with ASIC, which ensures these protections are backed by strong oversight. We are acting because vulnerable Australians deserve a system that supports their health decisions, not one that punishes them. This will have positive outcomes in the long run for our economy too.

We're getting ahead of disease. By treating people early and enhancing prevention, people are well for longer. This enhances productivity in the billions. People will be able to work and contribute to our economy for longer because they will be well. It will also mean we are able to continue to undertake great advances in medical science by having people able to participate in research.

The Albanese government is delivering these protections so that people can take charge of their own health, fixing a problem those opposite ignored despite the pleas from the committee of which I was a member. This bill does many other things in other schedules. I support all of them, and I commend the bill to the House.

Tania Lawrence (Hasluck, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Sometimes the law has to play catch-up with developments in science. Way back in the 1950s, science fiction writers like Alfred Bester in his novel The Demolished Man grappled with the idea that human potential might one day be biologically measured and then used to restrict people's lives. Science fiction is full of warnings about how knowledge and power can be misused.

Genetic testing, once the stuff of science fiction, is no longer theoretical. It is a part of modern healthcare, helping Australians understand their risks, take preventive action and, in many cases, save their lives or the lives of their children. But the rules governing how that information can be used have to keep up, and, because of that, Australians have been forced into an unacceptable position, weighing their health against their financial security. I'm glad to say that this is what this bill, Treasury Laws Amendment (Genetic Testing Protections in Life Insurance and Other Measures) Bill 2025, fixes.

In this place in 2024, I reflected on how genetic screening being so new can feel confronting, even unsettling, but also how it represents a profound opportunity for prevention and care when handled responsibly. This legislation supports people in their use of this technology because the evidence is clear. Treasury analysis shows Australians are delaying or avoiding genetic testing due to concerns about life insurance. Participation in research has also been affected. The departmental advice is backed by public reporting and independent research. For example, coverage of Monash University's DNA screening program highlighted that a significant proportion of participants withdrew or hesitated because of fears about insurance consequences. As reported by ABC News, concerns about life insurance were a key reason some Australians chose not to proceed with potentially life-saving testing.

That is squarely our business because, when people avoid testing, they miss the chance for early intervention, scientific progress is slowed, and health outcomes are worse. I have met with Dr Jane Tiller a number of times over the past three years to discuss the real-world impact of genetic discrimination and the urgent need for reform. Those meetings are the sort of meetings I like to have—ones that are grounded in evidence and experience. Doctor Tiller's work, particularly through the Australian Genetics and Life Insurance Moratorium: Monitoring the Effectiveness and Response, A-GLIMMER, report has shown that genetic discrimination is not hypothetical. It is occurring, and it is influencing behaviour.

Dr Tiller found that Australians were very variously declining or delaying clinical genetic testing due to fears about potential insurance discrimination. She also found that there was a general lack of knowledge in the community around whether life insurance companies were legally allowed to use genetic test results in underwriting, and that there was strong support for the proposal that government should introduce legislation to protect genetic test results and almost no opposition to that proposal. Some of the comments recorded in the studies are revealing. One respondent said:

… at the moment it is better to be in the dark …

Another admitted:

It has caused family members to hold off on very important gene testing …

A third stated:

… if I'm aware of my genetic condition and keep up with my screening, I don't think I should be discriminated against. I should be rewarded for being proactive …

This really is the nub. We all know that, in relation to any disease, early diagnosis is crucial. Dr Tiller and her group underline their work by reference to 'Shona', whose screening betrays a predisposition to breast cancer. With screening and treatment, her prospects are good. Without it, they are much worse and, at the same time, much more likely to occasion high costs to an insurer. It is simply the case that, when people choose not to know out of fear, we have a failure of the system to support healthy decisions.

The Australian Medical Association has publicly supported reform, stating that no-one should avoid a potentially life-saving test because they fear it could be used against them. That position has been widely reported, including in coverage by the Guardian, which highlighted the medical community's concern that insurance settings were undermining preventive health care. Similarly, reporting in the Sydney Morning Herald drew attention to the experiences of Australians who declined or delayed testing because of uncertainty about how results might be used by insurers.

Back in August 2023, Duchenne Australia held an event here in the parliament. Duchenne muscular dystrophy, or DMD, is the biggest genetic killer of boys. Early diagnosis and treatment can make a world of difference to a child's life, as treatment can slow down deterioration. We need to have a legislative framework that supports those families. I acknowledge my colleague the member for Macnamara, who brought a motion to the parliament then to help raise this awareness.

The current legal framework has been holding Australia back. This bill responds directly to that reality. It introduces a clear and enforceable ban on the use of adverse genetic test results in life insurance underwriting. It amends the Insurance Contracts Act 1984 and aligns with the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 so that our legal protections reflect modern science and community expectations. It provides certainty that Australians can engage with their health care without fear of financial penalty.

It is also important to be clear about what this reform does not do. It does not prevent insurers from assessing risk altogether. They will continue to rely on clinical diagnosis, symptoms and family history. The fundamentals of underwriting remain intact. This bill removes a specific and harmful practice: the use of predictive genetic information in a way that discourages people from protecting their health—not overreach, just targeted and proportionate reform.

In my earlier contribution in this place, I spoke about families who have benefited from genetic screening and were able to take preventive action because they had access to critical information. This is what this technology enables. But, under the previous framework, the same information could affect access to life insurance, so people hesitated. They questioned whether it was safe or not to know. As Dr Tiller's research has demonstrated, even the perception of disadvantage can be enough to deter people from acting. By removing this barrier, we will enable Australians to make decisions based solely on their health, not fear of material disadvantage. It will be good for individuals but will also support greater participation in research and strengthen the foundations of a more preventive healthcare system. When more Australians engage with genetic testing, we improve our understanding of disease, we enhance our ability to develop targeted treatments and we build a stronger and more resilient health system.

The legislation has civil and criminal penalties for breaches, with oversight by ASIC. Laws must evolve alongside our knowledge. Genetic science has advanced rapidly. Our understanding of prevention and personalised medicine has grown. It is our responsibility to ensure Australians can benefit from those advances without unintended harm.

I spoke about the changes being based squarely on the evidence of harm created by the current laws. This legislation also reflects something fundamental about fairness. Fairness is at the heart of Labor policy. Australians believe in a fair go. They believe that people should not be penalised for taking responsible steps to protect their health. I agree, and I commend the bill to the House.

Tom French (Moore, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak in support of the Treasury Laws Amendment (Genetic Testing Protections in Life Insurance and Other Measures) Bill 2025. This is a bill about fairness, about modern medicine and about ensuring that Australians are not punished for taking responsibility for their own health.

Before I turn to the detail of this legislation, I just want to begin with something personal. When I was 25, I went for what I thought was a routine pre-employment medical. I was about to start my electrical apprenticeship, and I felt fine. I was working hard in building a career, and, like most young people, I was not thinking much about my health beyond getting through the week. That medical changed my life. A urine test picked up something that did not look right. That led to further investigations, and ultimately I was diagnosed with chronic kidney disease. I did not feel sick. I did not have symptoms that had prompted me to go see a doctor, and, without that test, I would not have known. If I had not known, I would not have been able to manage it, I would not have been able to slow its progression and I would not have been able to make decisions that have allowed me to live a full life, build a career, start a family and stand here today. That is the power of early detection. That is the power of information, and that is exactly what this bill is about—ensuring Australians are not discouraged from accessing that information.

The issue this bill addresses is straightforward. For too long, Australians have faced a quiet but very real disincentive to engage in genetic testing, not because they don't want to know, not because they don't value their own health, but because they fear what that knowledge might mean for their ability to obtain life insurance. The evidence before this parliament is clear. Australians have delayed or declined potential life-saving genetic tests because of concerns that adverse results could be used against them in insurance underwriting. That is not a hypothetical concern. It is a documented behavioural response. It is, in effect, a system that penalises prevention, and that is a system that cannot stand in a modern healthcare environment.

This bill responds to that problem in a targeted and proportionate way. Schedule 1 amends the Insurance Contracts Act 1984 to prohibit life insurers from using what is defined as 'protected genetic information' in underwriting decisions. That includes whether a person has undergone genetic testing, whether they have been advised to do so and the results of any such testing. The effect is clear: an insurer cannot refuse cover, vary terms or increase premiums based on predictive genetic information.

The bill also introduces enforcement mechanisms. It creates both a strict liability offence and a significant civil penalty for breaches, with regulatory oversight vested in ASIC. This is not guidance. This is not a voluntary code. It is enforceable law. And that shift from industry led restraint to legislative certainty is critical. It means that individuals no longer need to rely on policy settings that can be altered, withdrawn or interpreted inconsistently. It means that rights are clearly defined, enforceable and capable of being relied on in practice, not merely in theory.

It is important to be precise about what this bill does and what it does not do. It does not dismantle risk based insurance. Insurers will still be able to assess risk based on clinically diagnosed conditions, medical history and other relevant factors. What this bill does is draw a clear boundary. It says that predictive genetic information—information about what might happen in the future—cannot be used to deny Australians access to life insurance. That is a rational distinction. It recognises that genetic predisposition is not the same as a diagnosed condition, and it ensures that individuals are not treated as if they are already unwell simply because of what their genes might suggest. In legal terms, this reflects a careful balancing of competing interests. It preserves the principle of risk assessment while removing the category of information that is inherently uncertain, highly sensitive and not determinative of actual health outcomes.

It is also necessary to acknowledge why legislative intervention is required. The current system relies heavily on an industry moratorium. That moratorium was a step forward, but it has not resolved the underlying problem. It applies only within certain policy limits. It relies on industry compliance rather than statutory obligation, and it has been the subject of confusion among consumers and health professionals alike. For many Australians, the question has remained unclear: if I get tested, will this affect my ability to obtain life insurance? Where that question cannot be answered with certainty, the rational response is caution, and in this context, caution means delay or avoidance of testing. That is precisely the outcome this bill seeks to correct.

This reform is not occurring in isolation. It reflects a broader shift in how we think about data, privacy and fairness in the 21st century. Genetic information is deeply personal. It is not just about an individual; it can have implications for families, future generations and communities. Unlike many forms of information, it is not something a person chooses; it is something they are born with. That is why it demands a higher level of protection. This bill recognises that. It acknowledges that, while insurers have legitimate interests in assessing risk, there must be limits on how that risk is assessed. There are certain types of information, particularly genetic information, that should not be used to determine access to essential financial products, and that balance is carefully struck.

The public health implications of this reform are significant. Genetic testing is an increasingly important part of preventive health care. It allows individuals to identify risks early. It enables clinicians to tailor interventions. It supports participation in research that benefits the broader community. There is also a broader public health dimension to this reform. Genetic testing is not just about individual outcomes; it is about collective benefit. When more Australians undertake genetic testing, we improve early detection, enable more targeted treatment, strengthen our understanding of disease and accelerate medical research. But that only happens if people feel safe to participate. If people are opting out, if they are declining tests or if they are withdrawing from studies because of insurance concerns, then we are all worse off. This bill removes that disincentive. It supports greater participation in genetic testing and research. It aligns our regulatory settings with our healthcare ambitions.

I want to return briefly to my own circumstances. When I was diagnosed with chronic kidney disease, it did not just affect me; it affected my family. It raised questions about genetic predisposition. It raised questions about what it might mean for my boys. That is where this bill becomes even more important, because the question is not just whether we should be protected; it's whether our kids should be protected—it's whether, in the future, they should be penalised if, out of an abundance of caution, on medical advice or to participate in research, they choose to undergo genetic testing. The answer, in my view, is unequivocally no. They should not face higher premiums. They should not be denied cover. They should not be put in a position where understanding their own health becomes a financial liability. This bill ensures that they will not be.

We're also at the point in medical history where genetic knowledge is increasingly actionable. In the case of kidney disease, there are now emerging treatments and new medications that can significantly slow disease progression and, in some cases, prevent kidney failure. That changes the equation entirely. A genetic predisposition is no longer a fixed destiny. It is information that can guide intervention. It is information that can improve outcomes. It allows clinicians to act earlier and with greater precision. But, again, that only matters if people are willing to access that information. This bill supports that shift from reactive health care to preventive health care.

I want to acknowledge the work of Kidney Health Australia and its ambition to end dialysis by 2050. That is an ambitious goal, but it is not unrealistic. It is grounded in early detection, better management and advances in treatment. It reflects a broader shift in health care from managing failure to preventing it. Genetic testing has a role to play in that future. It allows for earlier identification risk, it enables earlier intervention and ultimately it can reduce the number of Australians who progress to end-stage kidney disease. This bill supports that objective. It aligns financial settings with health outcomes. I also want to acknowledge the outstanding advocacy of Dr Jane Tiller, from Monash University, who has helped bring this issue out of the margins and into the national spotlight.

There is also an economic dimension to this reform. A system that discourages detection is, in the long run, more costly. It increases pressure on the healthcare system. It reduces workforce participation. It shifts costs from prevention into crisis management. By contrast, a system that supports early detection is more efficient. It keeps people healthier for longer, it reduces long-term costs and it supports productivity. This bill is consistent with that approach.

One of the most important features of this bill is the certainty that it provides. The existing industry moratorium has not delivered that certainty. It has been limited in scope. It has been poorly understood and has left too much discretion in the hands of insurers. This bill replaces that with a clear legislated framework. It gives Australians confidence that the rules are fixed, enforceable and fair.

In closing, this bill is about trust—trust that Australians can engage with modern medicine without fear of financial penalty, trust that their most personal information will be treated with care and respect, and trust that our systems, both health and financial, are working in their best interests. By passing this bill, we reinforce that trust. We send a clear signal that fairness matters, that privacy matters and that the wellbeing of Australians, both physical and financial, matters. This bill is, at its core, about removing a false choice. Australians should not have to choose between their health and their financial security. They should not have to choose between knowledge and protection. They should not have to choose between participating in modern medicine and participating in the financial system. This bill ensures they do not have to make that choice. It is a measured reform, it is a necessary reform and it is a reform that reflects both the realities of modern medicine and the expectations of a fair society. For those reasons, I commend the bill to the House.

Dan Repacholi (Hunter, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Treasury Laws Amendment (Genetic Testing Protections in Life Insurance and Other Measures) Bill 2025. This is an important bill. It's a bill about fairness, it's a bill about trust and, above all, it's a bill about making sure Australians can make decisions about their health without fear. At its heart, this legislation delivers on a clear commitment. We said we would stop life insurers from using genetic testing results against Australians. This bill does exactly that. Genetic testing saves lives. It allows doctors to identify serious risks early. It allows people to take preventive action. It allows families to understand their health and plan for the future as well. But, for too long, Australians have faced an unacceptable choice: do they take a genetic test that could protect their health, or do they avoid testing because they're worried it will affect their ability to get life insurance? That's not a choice anyone should have to make.

This bill removes that fear. Schedule 1 of the bill amends the Insurance Contracts Act 1984 to ban life insurers from using genetic test results when deciding whether to offer cover or what terms to offer. It's clear and it's a simple rule: your genetic test results cannot be used against you. This reform ensures Australians are not punished for taking proactive steps to manage their health.

Treasury analysis has shown that people are delaying or avoiding genetic testing because of concerns about life insurance. Some are even avoiding participation in medical research. That's a loss for individuals. it's a loss for families and it's a loss for our entire health system. We cannot allow fear to stand in the way of life-saving care, and this bill fixes that. It ensures that, when somebody is considering a genetic test, their focus can be on their health, not on how their insurer might respond. It aligns our laws with modern science. It brings the Insurance Contracts Act into step with the Disability Discrimination Act. It provides clarity, certainty and protection.

This reform has been carefully designed. It does not prevent insurers from using clinical information. They can still consider diagnosed conditions. They can still consider symptoms. They can still consider family medical history. This is important because it ensures that life insurance remains properly risk rated. What we're doing is drawing a fair line. We're saying that predictive genetic information should not be used to disadvantage people. We're protecting Australians from discrimination while maintaining a functional insurance system. There are also strong enforcement mechanisms. Breaches of this ban will attract civil penalties and criminal offences. The Australian Securities and Investments Commission will oversee the enforcement of these rules. These protections are real, they are backed by law, and they will be upheld.

There is broad support for this reform. Genetics researchers support it. Patient advocacy groups support it. Even the life insurance industry supports it. That tells us something important. It tells us that this is the right reform at the right time. And it's not just about removing harm; it's about unlocking opportunity. We should see this reform as part of a broader shift towards prevention in health care. We're entering a new era—an era where we can prevent disease instead of simply treating it. This bill helps Australia move into that era.

Prevention is not only better for individuals; it's much better for the entire system. When diseases are identified early or avoided altogether, we reduce pressures on hospitals, reduce long-term treatment costs and improve quality of life. Families avoid the trauma of late diagnosis. Communities remain stronger because people stay healthier and active for longer. This is the kind of reform that delivers benefits well beyond the individual.

I want to highlight the real-world impact of genetic testing. The DNA screen study at Monash University tested 10,000 Australians aged between 18 and 40 for genetic risks of preventable cancers and heart disease. The results were striking. One in 50 participants were found to be at high genetic risk. That's two per cent of those tested. That's a significant number of Australians. These individuals were then able to take preventive action: they accessed surgery; they undertook regular surveillance; they began medication. These are the life-saving interventions.

Young Australians want this information. The DNA screen study was oversubscribed. Tens of thousands of people expressed interest in it. But there was a problem. The main reason many people chose not to participate was fear of genetic discrimination in life insurance. That's deeply concerning. It means people were walking away from potentially life-saving knowledge because of financial fear. This bill removes that fear and that barrier. It also sends a powerful signal to researchers and clinicians. It tells them that Australia supports innovation in medical science and that we're willing to remove outdated barriers that hold this progress back. When participation in research increases, discoveries accelerate, new treatments are developed, and lives are improved.

We can also think about the families who carry inherited conditions that are not yet visible. A patient who knows there's a history of heart disease may hesitate to test their children. A young adult may delay testing for a cancer predisposition. Under the old system, that hesitation was understandable. Under this new framework, that hesitation should no longer exist. People can act early, seek advice and take control of their future without second-guessing the financial consequences.

Consider also regional and rural Australians, who often face higher barriers to accessing specialist care. For them, early knowledge can be even more critical. Genetic testing can guide limited healthcare resources more effectively and help avoid late-stage illnesses that require complex treatment far from home. Removing insurance fears makes these benefits more accessible across the country.

Let me offer another example. A young couple planning to start a family may choose to undertake genetic carrier screening. This test can identify whether they're at risk of passing on a serious inherited condition to one of their children. Under the previous setting, some couples hesitated, worried that even the act of testing could affect their financial security. That hesitation could delay important decisions about family planning and early medical care. Under this bill, that couple can proceed with confidence. They can seek the advice, understand their risks and make a more informed decision about the future of their family without fear of insurance consequences.

In my electorate in the Hunter, we have already seen the impact of genetic testing. At least 30 young people participated in a DNA Screen study. Three were identified as being a high genetic risk. A young woman was found to be at high risk for breast and ovarian cancer. Two young men were found to be at high risk of bowel cancer. Because of testing, they were able to take action early. That is what prevention looks like, and that is what this bill supports.

This reform will pave the way for expansion in genetic screening. The DNA Screen study aims to expand to 100,000 participants. That would identify thousands more Australians at risk and, importantly, those Australians would no longer have to worry about insurance discrimination. This is how we build a healthier nation. Modelling shows that population-level genomic screening could deliver productivity gains in the order of billions of dollars. This is not just good health policy; this is good economic policy. Prevention reduces long-term healthcare costs. It keeps people in the workforce. It strengthens families and communities. This bill is an important step toward that future.

I now turn to schedule 2 of the bill. This schedule deals with licensing exemptions for foreign financial services providers. It introduces three exemptions from the requirement to hold an Australian financial services licence. The first is the comparable regulator exemption. This applies to providers that already regulate in jurisdictions with comparable standards. The second is the professional investor exemption. This allows providers to offer services to Australian professional investors without a licence. The third is the market maker exemption. This applies to providers making markets in certain derivatives.

These reforms are about balance. They maintain the integrity of our financial system while reducing unnecessary regulatory burden. They ensure Australian businesses and investors can access a broader range of financial products and services. They support competition, they support investment, and they support economic growth. Importantly, these measures elevate existing relief, which has been provided through ASIC instruments, into primary legislation. This provides greater certainty and stronger oversight. There has been strong support for these measures from industry stakeholders. There is no expected opposition. This is sensible and practical reform.

Schedule 3 of this bill deals with multilateral development banks and the International Monetary Fund. It modernises and streamlines the legislative framework governing Australia's participation in these institutions. These institutions are evolving. They are developing new financial models. They are responding to global challenges. Australia must be able to respond as well. This schedule provides a valid appropriation to meet commitments made in the 2024-25 Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook. It supports investment and institutions like the World Bank and the Asian Development Bank. It also reduces administrative burden by allowing routine decisions to be delegated where appropriate. These changes will make Australia a more agile and effective participant in the global financial system. They will allow us to meet our obligations effectively. They will support international efforts to address development challenges. There is no expected stakeholder opposition to these measures.

Schedule 4 repeals stage 2 financial adviser registration. Under existing arrangements, financial advisers are already registered through their licence. There is already a functioning disciplinary system in place, and the proposed stage 2 would have required individual advisers to register annually with ASIC. This would have created additional red tape without improving consumer protection. This bill removes an unnecessary burden. It ensures regulation remains effective but not excessive. It supports financial advisers while maintaining strong standards. Again, there is broad stakeholder support for this measure. Taken together, this bill delivers practical reforms across several areas, but, at its core, it's about people. It's about ensuring Australians are not penalised for taking care of their health, ensuring our laws keep pace with science and building a system that works for the community.

For decades, genetic discrimination in life insurance has been a concern. Australians have worried about that information and about how their DNA could be used against them. The fear has real consequences. It has discouraged testing, and that really matters—just the same as trust matters in this as well. When people trust the system, they engage with the system. They get tested, they participate in research and they seek early treatment. That leads to better outcomes for everyone. This bill is also forward looking. It recognises that genomics will play an increasing role in healthcare into the future. I'm looking forward to seeing what Australians can do with this and what we can do with this as a government to make sure that no Australian has to choose between their health or their financial security.

Sarah Witty (Melbourne, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to 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.

Mike Freelander (Macarthur, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Melbourne. The question is that the amendment be agreed to, and I call the Assistant Minister for Citizenship, Customs and Multicultural Affairs and Assistant Minister for International Education. I'm pleased to see you're so eager to speak on this bill.

Julian Hill (Bruce, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Citizenship, Customs and Multicultural Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Deputy Speaker. I am very eager to speak on this bill. I strongly support the Treasury Laws Amendment (Genetic Testing Protections in Life Insurance and Other Measures) Bill 2025, which will ban the use of genetic test results in life insurance.

It's been a long time coming, and I give an enormous and very warm shout-out to Dr Jane Tiller. She is irrepressible, with her intellect and her charm and her steadfast advocacy; no-one can avoid Jane. She first graced my office, I think, in late 2023 or early 2024, and her work has led to this. I have no hesitation in saying this.

I've campaigned for this bill also—with Jane and more broadly for a long time—and I want to acknowledge my daughter. As part of the campaign, a couple of years ago, she spoke up in an ABC article. I was actually overseas at the time. She rang me and said, 'Dad, they've asked me to do TV.' I thought, 'Oh my God, TV.' But the interview was amazing. I was incredibly proud of her. She told her story with grace—

Mike Freelander (Macarthur, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

She did.

Julian Hill (Bruce, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Citizenship, Customs and Multicultural Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

and determination. She batted away the tricky questions. She was exemplary.

It's because of her personal experience. My daughter almost died in 2017, when we were in Sri Lanka. Eventually, we figured out she had a 64-centimetre blood clot in her leg. She was in the ICU, and they saved her. We worked out, through tests and interrogation, that it was a combination of an off-label contraceptive pill and an undetected minor genetic mutation—a Factor V Leiden, which is very common—and, unfortunately, the same GP who put her on the pill also, at the same consultation, knew she was going on long-haul flights the next week to Europe, so it was a triple whammy. She's okay now, but there's lifelong damage. She's on blood thinners—a pretty heavy dose—for the rest of her life, high-risk pregnancy and all that stuff, and she pays through the nose for travel insurance, health insurance and all the rest of it.

I went to get tested, which was part of the advice after this happened, and I was absolutely floored. I went to the GP, who referred me to the haematologist, I think it was, and he said: 'Well, don't get tested. It'll stuff up all your insurance.' I was stunned by that, which first got me to understand this issue. The risk, he said, was for my life insurance, my income protection insurance and potentially even travel insurance. When my dad died when I was four, it was only because he had life insurance that the family survived. Mum could pay off the house. We didn't have much but we had the house.

Successive governments have been promoting genetic testing and educating people on genetic health, and the advances in modern medicine are incredible. It is the way of the future. Part of investing in medical research is empowering individuals and encouraging them to get genetically tested where they can, where they have the opportunity, where they can afford it and so on. Deputy Speaker Freelander, as a senior medical professional, will know this far better than the rest of us. Increasingly, personalised medicine targeting interventions for disease or prevention based on your genetic heritage, your genetic lottery in life, is the way of the future. But we had this peculiar situation where on one hand we encouraged that yet, on the other hand, the insurance systems settings actively discriminated against some people who discovered through no fault of their own, not through a lifestyle decision, not through a personal choice that they'd made—just the lottery of life; that's just genetics; you can't change it—that they were then discriminated against.

It was through a Commonwealth funded research project that Dr Tiller found empirically that consumers were putting off genetic testing because they were worried they would be denied insurance. I understand that; it was my experience. Jane said in an article a long time ago, 'Every time someone considers whether they want to have a genetic test or wants to be part of genetic research, we have to tell them the life insurance implications if they're signing up to that.' We found that the majority of people across all of those stakeholder groups believed that legislation was required. And she was right. This full legislative ban, which we've been arguing for, will bring Australia into line with, say, Canada, which made the switch in 2017, and the world didn't end there.

The government wants all Australians to take control of their health. I say to people: if you have the opportunity to get to do the testing, people should feel free to do that and feel safe to do that or to participate in medical research, as the previous speaker said, without them thinking, 'It's going to deny me life insurance cover or cost me forever.' I don't want any Australian to have to regret understanding their own heritage and health and trying to do things that enable them to live a longer, happier, healthier life. My daughter in that article said she argued very strongly for this change, and I know she's very pleased about it. She still struggles to get travel insurance when she goes overseas and so on, but knows from our family story the importance of it.

On a related matter, I also just want to remark on the other part of her story, which does have implications potentially for insurance if things go wrong, which is around the contraceptive pill prescribing. There's been a series of recent moves by state governments across the country to allow pharmacists to prescribe contraceptive pills. It's risky, but it also may raise insurance concerns, as I said, when things go wrong—and they will. I just want to state my view clearly. As contraceptive pills pose extra risks for people with genetic conditions like my daughter's, state governments can decide, are deciding, to ignore medical advice and ignore the advice of the TGA if they wish and allow pharmacists to prescribe contraceptive pills. They can do that. The pharmacy lobby has long advocated this, and I've got a lot of time for our community pharmacy model. I have an enormous amount of time for the skill and professionalism and education of our community pharmacists and for the Pharmacy Guild for the work that they do. But I do disagree on this aspect firmly.

My home state of Victoria is the latest state to announce that they will allow this. I fear that the rest, the last holdouts, will fall like dominoes soon. Since Victoria announced it, because people do the Google search and realise I've spoken on these issues for a long time, I've been contacted by many GPs, advocates and others who are concerned. There's been some media reporting, but I just want to record very clearly so there's no misunderstanding. I've made no public comments on this but, given this bill and the interest, I just want to read into Hansard my response, which I sent to GP Dr Stephanie Hammond, which succinctly explains my view—don't be scared; it's one page. It said: 'Thank you for your letter and for taking the time to raise this. I was also surprised, to say the least, to see this announcement by a state government against the advice of relevant medical colleges. I spent a lot of time some years ago after my daughter almost died of a DVT connected to an off-label prescription of Diane-35 researching these issues. While I'm not a medical professional, I did read a lot of journal articles and engaged widely to advocate for various policy and system improvements, some of which we got. There is a good case for repeat prescriptions to be issued by pharmacists for appropriate on-label contraceptive medications once a patient is stable on a drug, possibly with periodic clinical oversight. But having asked some basic questions, I share your concern about aspects of the model as announced. One broad issue is that there are many other options for contraception aside from the pill, both for women and men. Many of these are less risky than women's contraceptive pills, and it's not clear whether pharmacists will or could be trained to provide a full consultation on contraceptive options in an appropriate private room setting. I understand there are some overseas models whereby pharmacists can prescribe, but in a multidisciplinary setting and where a script that is issued, then it is filled elsewhere to avoid any commercial benefit or conflict of interest through profiting from dispensing a medication. Complications are more likely on most medications—not all, of course, but most—to arise in the first few weeks or months of taking a pill, a new medication, and screening for risk factors other than blood pressure, such as genetic and family history and weight and so on would seem sensible. Going to a pharmacy for a first prescription for a contraceptive pill seems a terribly risky thing to do and I'd strongly suggest to anyone in my life who asked, woman or man, to go and see a doctor for contraceptive advice and an initial prescription of the pill, if that is the preferred option. Thank you again for raising this.'

I do make that distinction: for appropriate pills once there has been some clinical consultation, I think there's an enormously strong case for repeat prescriptions to be available through pharmacists. It's convenient; it can save pressure on the medical system and so on. But my concern is deeply held and genuine, and I know it's held by other colleagues, including Dr Michelle Ananda-Rajah, who is a member of this House and who is now a senator for the state of Victoria, has made public comments as well.

I note the Victorian government has doubled down on its decision to allow first-time prescriptions. I just want to keep emphasising that distinction. I think some of their plan has a lot of merit, but this first-time prescription thing is risky and it's dangerous. My old, dear friend—actually, I shouldn't call her old, because it means I'm old, and we've just been around a long time—of 30 years, Premier Jacinta Allan, in response to media criticism in which my letter to Dr Stefanie Hammond had appeared in the media—it's not a comment that I gave—stated:

I'm not going to let vested interests and old-fashioned ways of thinking—and middle-aged white men—decide when and where women should get the healthcare they need.

Mike Freelander (Macarthur, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

At least she said 'middle-aged'.

Julian Hill (Bruce, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Citizenship, Customs and Multicultural Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Indeed, yes, that's right. You could argue it leaves you out, but I'm not going there, Deputy Speaker.

David Littleproud (Maranoa, National Party, Shadow Minister for Agriculture) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Whoa, reflection on the chair.

Julian Hill (Bruce, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Citizenship, Customs and Multicultural Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Well, friendly reflection. While I don't think we need to reach for gender based insults, stereotypes or pejoratives, I've certainly never argued middle-aged white men ought to determine such policy. But the experience of my daughter, someone who would be directly impacted by this policy, is more relevant than any older politician, regardless of their gender.

I'd also note Senator Michelle Ananda-Rajah's comments where she raised very strong and sensible concerns that there are more effective forms of contraception these days. The pill, I think, is about 92 per cent effective—so, eight in 100 cases, there's the baby. I won't tell the story of how my daughter was conceived in the Hansard, but it had something to do with the pill. If you take one every second day, it's not very effective. That's a tip for young players. But we were on holiday. There you go. I told the story. The world needed to know that. Ninety-nine per cent of IUDs are effective. So there are other safer mechanisms out there. It's not for me or any politician to say to young women or, indeed, young couples and young men, if they want to pursue male contraceptives, what the right option is, but I passionately believe it is the safest thing to do for Australians to ensure that there's a proper medical consultation where people consider all the options and we don't have the commercial conflict of interest of a pharmacist writing a script and then profiting from dispensing the script. I say that very genuinely.

The Commonwealth has announced, as the dominos have fallen, that the government will ensure concessions are available to support pharmacy prescribing of contraceptive pills, and that is a logical position. There is little else you can do once the states have decided to do this but extend the concessions for concession patients. I mean, it's just a ridiculous situation that you'd be paying full price for people who should be getting a concession with a valid prescription.

I'll just conclude on this. I know it was done in good faith; I really do, but I do encourage all of the states and territories that are looking at this or intending first-time prescriptions to restrict it to repeat prescriptions only. This is an area to make haste slowly, if I can say that myself. I'll give the member for Calwell the choice of whether he wants me to add further contributions to the Hansard or give him the five minutes now.

Basem Abdo (Calwell, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I was really enjoying the assistant minister's contribution, so apologies for taking up some of his time. I rise to speak in support of this bill and particularly the reforms contained in schedule 1, which will prohibit life insurers from using genetic test results to discriminate against Australians seeking life insurance. At its heart, this reform is about something very simple. It's about fairness. Australians believe deeply in the idea of a fair go. We believe people should not be penalised for things beyond their control. We believe that the benefits of modern science should improve lives, not create new barriers or new forms of discrimination.

Until now, the rapid advance of genetic science has outpaced our laws. Genetic testing is transforming modern medicine. It enables earlier detection of risk, identification of inherited conditions and more personalised treatments, often helping prevent illness or managing it far more effectively. As the Assistant Treasurer said when introducing this bill to the House:

Genetic testing can help save lives, supporting medical practitioners to prevent, treat and monitor a range of cancers, cancer predisposition syndromes and other heritable conditions.

These are not abstract benefits. They are real improvements in people's health and wellbeing.

Genetic testing can identify the inherited risks of cancers, heart disease and other serious conditions long before symptoms appear. With that knowledge, people can undertake monitoring, preventive treatment, lifestyle changes and medical interventions that significantly reduce their risk. In other words, genetic testing gives people the power to act early to protect their health and the wellbeing of their families.

The uncomfortable truth is that many Australians have been hesitant to take advantage of these life-saving technologies. The question is: why? It's because they fear that what they learn about their genetic risks might be used against them when applying for life insurance. For years, researchers, doctors and patient advocates have warned about this problem, and the evidence backs this up.

A recent genetic testing study conducted by Monash University found that more than half of the participants who withdrew from the study did so because they were concerned about the impact genetic testing might have on their ability to access affordable insurance. Think about that for a moment. People were participating in medical research—research that could improve their own health outcomes and potentially save the lives of others—and yet many felt compelled to walk away because they were worried that knowledge about their own DNA might come with financial risk. That is not how a modern health system should work.

One of the participants in that study was Ben. Ben did not have a significant family history of cancer, but he chose to take part in a genetic testing study. The results revealed that he carries a genetic variant, which increases the risk of prostate and breast cancer found amongst men. That information proved to be critically important not only for Ben but for his family. His female relatives were able to undergo testing, understand their own risks and take preventive action. Ben himself has begun adopting strategies to reduce his risk and monitor his health. In other words, genetic testing did exactly what modern medicine intended it to do. It gave a person and their family the information they needed to take control of their own health. The fact that Ben's story comes from a research study where many participants withdrew because of insurance concerns tells us something deeply troubling. Too many Australians are still being forced to make a choice between protecting their health and protecting their financial security. That is a choice nobody should have to make. That is the problem this legislation seeks to address.

This reform has also been the subject of extensive consultation, research and evidence. The government did not arrive at this legislation lightly. For years, there has been growing concern from researchers, clinicians, patient groups and the broader community about the impact of insurance practices on genetic testing. A parliamentary inquiry into the life insurance industry raised the issue as far back as 2018, warning that the use of genetic test results in insurance underwriting was discouraging Australians from participating in research and even in undertaking clinically recommended testing. In response, the industry introduced a voluntary moratorium in 2019, but it was always understood that this arrangement would need to be monitored carefully. Treasury subsequently released a national consultation paper to examine the issue in detail and seek views from stakeholders across medicine, research, the insurance sector and the community.

The evidence that emerged from that consultation was clear. Australians continue to report difficulties accessing insurance after genetic testing, and some avoided testing altogether for fear of financial consequences. Stakeholders also raised concerns about the moratorium and had a lack of confidence in its consistent application. In other words, the voluntary system and the effectiveness of industry—

Debate interrupted.