Kevin Hogan (Page, National Party, Deputy Manager of Opposition Business in the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The coalition is going to support the Treasury Laws Amendment (Genetic Testing Protections in Life Insurance and Other Measures) Bill because it contains important reforms that Australians have been waiting for, including sensible protections around the use of genetic information in life insurance and improvements across our financial system. This bill also highlights a consistent problem with this government: reforms are delivered too slowly, even where there is broad agreement.

Genetic protections are being delayed despite years of consensus. Schedule 1 prevents life insurers from using genetic test results to deny or limit cover, ensuring Australians can access medical testing without fear of 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 had broad bipartisan support and strong backing from clinicians, researchers and patient advocates for years, so we encourage Labor to deliver these much more quickly.

The coalition has had to drag Labor kicking and screaming to this. 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. This meant that by the time of the 2022 election a broad consensus was already built. In September 2024, to much fanfare, Labor announced that they would be introducing legislation to ban genetic discrimination in life insurance. This announcement raised real expectations among Australians, but by the 2025 election no legislation had been introduced. That just shows that this has not been a priority.

With strong bipartisan support and no opposition, there is no reason why this legislation shouldn't have been introduced in the previous parliament, and there are consequences for this. People who could have benefit from this testing may have been discouraged from doing so because of concerns about insurance discrimination. Participation in medical research could have been affected. The problem is being fixed now, and we support these reforms. They provide certainty. They prevent discrimination. They support better health outcomes. As I said, the reality is that this has been agreed to for a long time.

Schedule 2 has relief for foreign financial service providers. This schedule provides long-overdue clarity for financial service providers operating in Australia. It will help ensure our markets remain open, competitive and connected to global financial expertise. Again, this is another bipartisan reform that has broad stakeholder support. We introduced legislation in 2022 and since then have been waiting for Labor to deliver this. These four years of delay—again, while there's been broad support—is not acceptable. They have real consequences as well: ongoing regulatory uncertainty, reduced confidence for international firms and risk to Australia's competitiveness as a financial services destination. Again, we support these changes and encourage the government to do them very quickly.

Schedule 3, on the multilateral development banks, changes how Australia funds its commitments to international financial institutions such as the World Bank, the Asian Development Bank and the International Monetary Fund. As a member of these banks, Australia contributes capital. There's a concerning shift towards open-ended financial commitments here. The bill introduces standing appropriations without a clear upper limit. This is concerning, and parliament should not be asked to sign blank cheques. While disallowance mechanisms exist, they are not a substitute for full parliamentary scrutiny. We understand there are some genuine administrative challenges with the current system, but we think these changes reflect a broader trend to reduce parliamentary scrutiny. While the coalition supports this schedule—as Australia must meet its international obligations—we encourage the government to resist additional pressure from new levies, including the Compensation Scheme of Last Resort, which would further increase the cost of staying in the profession. While there are some bad eggs, like in any profession, too often, government has painted all advisers with the same brush, but good financial advisers are the best tool at any Australian's disposal to protect themselves from bad advice.

The conclusion is that, ultimately, it's Australians that are paying the price of fewer advisers, higher fees and reduced access to affordable financial advice. When financial advice becomes too expensive to access, people don't stop seeking advice; they just look elsewhere, and they may get it from people who are not properly qualified. That's why the coalition commissioned the Michelle Levy Quality of Advice Review, and that review set out a clear pathway to simplify regulation, reduce costs and improve access to advice. Again, the government have stalled their response. So, again, the coalition supports this bill, but we're calling on the government to deliver the reforms outlined by Ms Michelle Levy to rebuild the adviser workforce, reduce the cost of advice and ensure every Australian can access affordable, high-quality financial advice.

Julie-Ann Campbell (Moreton, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Genetic testing saves lives. It supports medical practitioners to prevent, to diagnose, to treat and to monitor a range of cancers, cancer predisposition syndromes and other heritable conditions. Medical practice is moving forward in leaps and bounds. We know a lot more than we did a hundred years ago, we know a lot more than we did 10 years ago, and we know a lot more than we did one year ago. Genetic testing is one of the areas where this is the most prominent and, indeed, the most impactful. But, right now, too many Australians are delaying or avoiding genetic testing that could save their lives, not because their doctor hasn't recommended it but because they're afraid their life insurer could use the results against them. And that's what's core to this bill, the Treasury Laws Amendment (Genetic Testing Protections in Life Insurance and Other Measures) Bill 2025. This bill is about health. This bill is about making sure that Australians can be diagnosed as early as possible and that we remove every barrier we can to allow that to be a reality. Australians should never have to choose between their health and their ability to access affordable life insurance, and, with this bill, they won't have to.

This bill delivers four core outcomes. Firstly, it bans life insurers from using adverse genetic test results in their underwriting decisions. Next, it reduces licensing exemptions for certain foreign financial services providers. Thirdly, it modernises Australia's legislative framework for multilateral development banks. And, finally, it repeals the stage 2 financial adviser registration requirement.

Schedule 1 of this bill bans life insurers from using those adverse genetic test results in those underwriting decisions. From the date of commencement, an insurer will not be able to use your genetic test results to decide whether to offer you cover or to set the terms of that cover. This has a big impact.

This is a measure that is carefully designed. Individuals can still choose to volunteer their test results, with written consent, where it benefits them, and insurers can still use information about clinical diagnoses, symptoms and family medical history. That distinction matters because life insurance needs to be properly risk rated. This bill removes the chilling effect that genetic testing results have had on people's willingness to seek potentially life-saving information. The objective is straightforward: to provide certainty to individuals that undertaking genetic testing will not impact their ability to obtain life insurance cover or the terms and conditions of that cover.

For too long, the industry relied on a voluntary moratorium. In June 2023, Monash University published the final report from the A-GLIMMER study—the Australian genetics and life insurance moratorium: monitoring the effectiveness and response. The report was unequivocal: the moratorium was inadequate to address and prevent genetic discrimination in life insurance. It recommended a legislative model of prohibition, and that is exactly what this bill does and delivers. The ban makes amendments to the Insurance Contracts Act 1984 and related amendments to the Disability Discrimination Act 1992, aligning our antidiscrimination laws with the ban. It also creates civil penalties of up to $1.65 million and criminal offences for non-compliance enforced by ASIC. These are not token penalties; they are a clear signal that the government is serious about this change. If someone seeks to circumvent them, they will feel the full force of penalties and the law. To make sure these protections keep pace with advances in medical science, the bill requires five-yearly reviews of the operation of the provisions to be tabled in parliament.

This ban is underpinned by extensive stakeholder engagement and consultation. The government consulted closely with genetics research organisations, patient advocates, the life insurance industry and the medical community throughout the design of the measure and draft legislation. This is a reform that the community has asked for, that the evidence has supported and that the industry has accepted.

Schedule 2 of the bill introduces licensing exemptions for certain foreign financial service providers who operate in Australia's wholesale and professional investor markets. Currently, foreign financial services providers must hold an Australian financial services licence or rely on temporary relief instruments issued by ASIC. This bill elevates those arrangements to primary law, giving industry certainty and improving regulatory oversight—oversight that we know is needed in this space. There are three carefully targeted exemptions: the comparable regulator exemption, the professional investor exemption and the market maker exemption. They benefit Australian superannuation funds, institutional investors and businesses by giving them access to a greater range of international investments, specialised global financial advice and new sources of financing.

The bill also introduces a fast-track licensing pathway for foreign financial services providers already regulated by comparable overseas regimes. This removes the need to go through the full fit-and-proper person assessment when applying for an Australian licence to service wholesale clients, and it reduces duplication without compromising market integrity. As the minister has stated, this improves outcomes for millions of Australians, as these services are commonly used by superannuation funds and institutional investors, among other financial firms.

Schedule 3 modernises Australia's legislative framework for our participation in multilateral development banks and the International Monetary Fund. These amendments provide a more flexible and efficient appropriations framework, including provisions to support the government's commitments announced in the 2024-25 MYEFO process, and this covers the purchase of US$150 million in hybrid capital from the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development. It also enables the purchase of US$200 million in guarantees through the Asian Development Bank's Innovative Finance Facility for Climate in Asia and the Pacific. Multilateral development banks are rapidly evolving in their financing models in response to the G20's calls for more innovative instruments to address global development financing gaps, and, without a flexible legislative framework, Australia risks falling behind in its ability to participate in these arrangements.

Crucially, new financial obligations under this framework will remain subject to parliamentary scrutiny through disallowable legislative instruments. Transparency and oversight are maintained. What changes is that the legislative burden of routine, non-controversial transactions is reduced, freeing up Treasury officials to focus on substantive decisions, not administrative process.

Finally, schedule 4 repeals the stage 2 financial adviser registration requirement, which would have required individual advisers to register themselves annually with ASIC from 1 July 2026. Stage 1 registration, which already requires Australian financial services licensees to register their authorised advisers with ASIC, achieves the objective of a functioning and effective disciplinary system. The Financial Services and Credit Panel already has the authority to take necessary action against financial advisers where required, including suspending or cancelling registration. Stage 2 would result in added cost and administrative burden, including bespoke IT infrastructure, without meaningfully enhancing consumer protection. Not proceeding with it is the right call, and it's consistent with the government's broader commitment to reducing regulatory burden on advisers where that regulation does not enhance consumer protection. Deputy Speaker, you would have seen in this place and in the other place work being done to ensure that consumers are protected around a range of policy initiatives. This does not impact on that.

This bill brings together four very practical, well-considered reforms, but the one that will be felt most in communities like Moreton on Brisbane's south side is the ban on the use of adverse genetic test results in life insurance. As I said at the front of this speech, this part of the bill is fundamentally about health. It's about making sure that people understand and have no barriers to accessing testing that may help save their lives, and it's part of the commitment that this Labor government has made to health in so many different ways. Ordinarily, we talk about the commitment to affordable and accessible health care, whether that be through $25 caps on PBS medicines, through the creation of urgent care clinics or through making more bulk-billing in our local communities. But this is important too, because it means that people can have the confidence to go and get those tests. It means that their families know that their loved ones can go and get those tests and that it will not be a burden in terms of their life insurance.

For years, advocates have campaigned for this change. Researchers have documented the harm of the status quo. That's why the status quo is changing today. Families have had to make difficult decisions about their health because of the fear of financial penalties, and this government is delivering the protections people were promised and fixing a problem that those opposite ignored for a decade. Medical practice is moving forward in leaps and in bounds. The law must keep pace, and, with this bill, it will. I commend the bill to the House.

Tim Wilson (Goldstein, Liberal Party, Shadow Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Treasury Laws Amendment (Genetic Testing Protections in Life Insurance and Other Measures) Bill 2025 is incredibly important legislation. It is a baseline test for whether or not we want an Australia that is free from discrimination based on people's life circumstances and, because we have life insurance policies, whether they make judgement calls about people based on their genetic make-up.

It's actually quite a straightforward bill in one sense. The oddity is: why did it take this long? This is not a new issue. It is not one that has not been raised in parliament before. It is not one that has not been raised as a consequence of the design of financial products. We have known for a long time that there has been a question about genetic testing and the impact it has on people's capacity to access life insurance policies. In fact, the industry has moved forward on this issue. The parliament has regularly discussed this issue. There has only been one group who have been neanderthalic in their response, and it has, of course, been the current Labor government. So we support this legislation, because, finally, they are doing something. Finally, we are actually getting action, after four years, to stop medical testing being a pathway to deny access to life insurance.

When you think about it, so many Australians, not knowing what the future holds—and none of us know what tomorrow holds, let alone today—take out life insurance policies because they simply want to be in a position to be able to support their families, beyond their current life, if, unfortunately, the worst happens, particularly with themselves and their families. Of course, while every family is different and every family has a different economic make-up, life insurance policies heavily go towards those who are principal financial contributors to the household to make sure that people have confidence in the future. But, by providing a pathway for genetic testing for life insurance, what you can end up with is people being excluded from being able to access a pool of insurance to give them protection—and that is the whole point of insurance. Insurance is a pool to mitigate risk. Risk can range from people's genetic make-up to the circumstances they face, the workplaces they work in and, of course, other factors that put or pose risks to their overall wellbeing. So it is a simple expectation that life insurance operates in a non-discriminatory way, when we know full well that people face different circumstances within their lives—and they're specifically seeking insurance to protect things like their livelihood, their income and their capacity to support their family in light of that.

So why did it take this government so long to be able to progress it? In 2019, when we were in government, we started the whole process to have this conversation. What it meant was that, by the time we got to the 2022 election, there was broad agreement across the sector, from the life insurance industry themselves. And, in September 2024, the old—remember him, the Assistant Treasurer, Stephen Jones? I'm not sure I'm going to say that I'm going to miss him, but let's put that to one side. I think he's off at the OECD these days. I don't know what he's doing there; you can't run interference for industry super funds there. The then assistant treasurer, Stephen Jones, announced, to much fanfare—you know when they do that, when Labor get up and they announce with trumpets and songs and their own people what a wonderful job they're going to do?—that they were going to, finally, ban genetic testing.

Well, September 2024 is a fair way from where we are now, presently. But they did nothing, as a consequence. That announcement was widely welcomed and raised real expectations among Australians and the medical community—but never let the opportunity to stall, to do nothing, pass this government, which marks its success not on what it achieves for the Australian people. This government marks its success by the number of days bums sit on those seats over there, the number of days that the Prime Minister can do things like humiliate the Treasurer of the country, the extent to which the Prime Minister can occupy C1 but not actually deliver for the Australian people. That is not a good pathway for governing this country. But we are all left waiting while the Minister for Energy and Climate Change lets the country run out of oil, the Treasurer pours debt-petrol on the inflation fire, and as for the Prime Minister—well, when somebody can tell me what he's doing, I'd love to hear it.

Australians have been left waiting with the consequences of this bill while we have sat here patiently waiting for change. Now we have legislation delivered from on high, and now we have a pathway to vote for it. And what happened? It was a shock. The coalition said: 'Yes, actually we believe in this. What's taken you so long?' The cute observations of the assistant minister on the other side of the chamber are particularly entertaining.

I'm sorry, are you a minister? I don't know. You never quite know where everybody is these days. The minister on the other side of the table has been interjecting, 'What took you so long?' I'm not sure if you noticed, Minister, but you're sitting on that side of the table. You're in government. I'm quite happy if you want to forgo that. But the reality is you did not—

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

Order!

Tim Wilson (Goldstein, Liberal Party, Shadow Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You are in government. You have a responsibility to deliver. I am quite happy to pick up the legislative agenda on your behalf and run it, if the minister or the assistant minister doesn't want to. You'll be happy to as well, won't you?

Cameron Caldwell (Fadden, Liberal National Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Housing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Absolutely, let's jump over there.

Tim Wilson (Goldstein, Liberal Party, Shadow Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We'd all be quite happy to jump over and define the future of this nation, rather than just wait patiently for the Prime Minister to—

Exactly, it's not clear.

But here we are. Labor's delays have had consequences. There haven't been changes to the legislation. We are now changing that legislation. We support these reforms for simple reasons: they provide certainty, they prevent discrimination and they support better health outcomes for Australians. It's really important because, under this government, there has been so much confusion around financial services. I know this isn't necessarily a topic that keeps everybody awake at night, but financial services are so important for the strength, endurance and capacity of Australians to be empowered to live out their best lives. And what we've consistently seen under the government is they have completely mishandled financial services. This includes the problems of financial advice, which is also a subject of this bill, all the way through to, of course, doing anything they can to fatten the pig of industry super along the way.

You've got to hand it to the Labor Party. The Labor Party do understand who it is they're elected to serve; it's just not the Australian people. Once upon a time, the Labor Party were elected to serve blue-collar workers, but they don't really seem to care about them anymore. They were then elected to serve public servants, but, even when public servants wages started to outstrip private sector wages, they're weren't actually that interested in serving public servants anymore. These days, the primary purpose of the Labor Party is to serve organised capital. It's not organised workers; it's organised capital and particularly industry super funds. As we mentioned before, the former assistant treasurer has gone off to the OECD—he was probably paid off to go there so that the Labor Party could avoid having to continue dealing with him—but I imagine industry super is not that happy about it because they've lost one of their biggest advocates in this parliament.

Labor exists now to advocate for the case of organised capital to create slush funds that ultimately they influence and control. If you look at financial advice, their approach is: 'Well, how do we give all this power to industry super funds? We don't really care what the impact is on workers—people who've saved or sacrificed. It just means that we can suffocate everybody else and stop them from doing anything else to be financially independent.'

I absolutely believe in making sure that we have Australians who are financially independent, and you do that by making sure Australians have choice, agency and ownership over their future—they're not merely beaten into submission by the Labor Party to go into a select number of funds. The Labor Party pool capital, they get marketing expenses and they shower it upon themselves for their campaigning activities so that they can send members to this parliament. They can then garnish the wages of more Australians—

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

Order!

Tim Wilson (Goldstein, Liberal Party, Shadow Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

which they can then pull into those funds and undermine the very foundations of Australians. Financial advice—

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

I have a point of order.

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

Yes?

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

Might you draw the speaker's attention back to the topic of the bill?

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

Well, I've been listening intently over your interjections, and I think that he's staying pretty relevant to the topic, so he can continue on.

Tim Wilson (Goldstein, Liberal Party, Shadow Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Deputy Speaker! This is clearly an opportunity to point out to the minister that schedule 4 of this bill is about financial adviser registration. Clearly, the government not only is delayed; they don't even understand the bill they're trying to pass through parliament. I'll give the minister the benefit of the doubt. We do on the opposition side. We understand what the point of this bill is. I can tell you that the one thing that is the point of this bill is not to shovel more money into the hands of capital pools and organised capital simply so it can be showered on marketing expenses for the Labor Party and then go on to their campaign coffers, amongst other things, so they can then be in a position to give money to organised crime through the CFMEU-Labor cartel. I know Labor members, every time I raise this, are appalled at raising—I can tell you not a single financial adviser in this nation is going to say, 'The best pathway forward for Australians to get ahead is to give your money to organisations that then empower a government to hand money to organised crime through the CFMEU-Labor cartel.' That would be anathema to financial advice, but that is the law in Victoria and that is the law in this country right now. And that is the law that the members of the government want to make the case for.

We're supporting this bill because it doesn't actually entrench that power. We're supporting this bill because we actually believe that Australians should be empowered to live out their best lives. We're supporting this bill because we believe that life insurance should be there to pool capital and to mitigate risk and that people shouldn't be discriminated against based on their pre-existing or genetic conditions that are factors beyond themselves. But, more importantly, we're supporting this bill because we desperately want to give a reprieve to those financial advisers out there that Labor would actually really deep down like to outlaw and just throw into industry super funds. We're supporting them to be able to give financial advice to Australians. So, whether you're wealthy or you're just starting out on the ladder of opportunity, you can afford financial advice. So you can be in a position to make strategic decisions for your long-term future. And, most importantly, so that Australians can get ahead, so they don't go on then and just get financial advice from those whose recommendation is, 'Throw your money into funds the Labor Party owns so they can use it for marketing expenses and so they can campaign to sit in this chamber so they can then pass laws and appropriation bills to hand money to organised crime through the CFMEU-Labor cartel.'

Carina Garland (Chisholm, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That was quite an extraordinary performance. I'm not sure who it was for. There were a few moments there, I must admit, when I thought that I'd entered the chamber with the wrong piece of legislation before me because the tirade that we just heard really bears no resemblance to what we are being asked to consider today. I do think it's a real shame that that was the case. It is a shame that the speaker just before me is incapable of acting in good faith where there is broad agreement in the chamber here today and incapable of cooperating in the best interests of Australians. But, as they say, when people show you who they are, believe them. And I think we've seen that today from the shadow Treasurer.

I'm a bit gobsmacked too that, on the Treasury Laws Amendment (Genetic Testing Protections in Life Insurance and Other Measures) Bill 2025, where we're talking about something like access to care in the health system, there was very little respect and consideration paid to those people who have been advocates for these changes in life insurance. I think it was very disrespectful, frankly, the carry on we saw from the previous speaker. And I want to apologise on behalf of the parliament to those advocates who've worked in this area for so long that their voices were seen as secondary in this conversation. I've got some stories I'd like to share of some people who've participated in studies and who've advocated very strongly for the bill before us today, and I want to make sure that their voices are heard and that they're treated with the respect that frankly everyone in this parliament owes those Australians.

Our party, the Labor Party, is, of course, the party of universal health care, where Australians can access the care they need without having to worry about the cost. That principle has guided every major health reform we've pursued as the Albanese Labor government, reflecting a simple belief that health care is not a privilege but a right. It reflects our commitment to equity, to fairness and to ensuring no Australian is held back and no-one is left behind. It reflects our understanding that a strong health system is the foundation of a strong, thriving society. It's not just about money; it's about the consequences and costs that arise when Australians delay seeking early diagnosis and treatment, which is why access is so important. When care is delayed, conditions worsen. When diagnosis is postponed, outcomes, unfortunately, deteriorate. When treatment comes too late, the consequences can be irreversible. This is something that affects not just individuals but families, communities and generations.

Genetic research is critical to improving the screening, early diagnosis and treatment of Australian patients. We are living in an age of extraordinary medical advancement, with many advancements being made right here in Australia and, I know, in my own electorate of Chisholm. At the centre of that transformation is genetics. Genetics and genomics are reshaping clinical practice and changing the way we prevent, diagnose, treat and monitor a range of heritable conditions, cancer predisposition syndromes and rare cancers. This means we're enabling earlier detection and more targeted treatment, giving Australians the knowledge they need to make informed decisions about their health. With innovation, though, must come protection. With progress must come safeguards. With new knowledge must come confidence.

We know that some people, unfortunately, have been wary of undergoing genetic testing. They're postponing it or avoiding it altogether because of the perceived risks to their privacy and, significantly, to their ability to access financial products such as life insurance. This is deeply concerning because when Australians avoid testing they're not just avoiding information; they're missing opportunities for early intervention, missing opportunities to protect their health and, sadly, in some cases, missing opportunities that could save their lives. No-one should be dissuaded from potentially life-saving testing out of fear of discrimination in life insurance.

This bill before us today is about fairness, and it's long overdue. No Australian should ever be punished for seeking to understand their own health. They should never face a penalty for taking proactive steps to protect themselves and their families. Australia lags other countries on this issue, with prohibitions or bans already in place in the United Kingdom, Canada, parts of Europe, the United States and New Zealand. But this bill changes that. This bill brings Australia into line with global best practice. It provides certainty, clarity and protection.

This bill amends the Insurance Contracts Act 1984 to ban life insurers from taking into account 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. It bans the use of adverse genetic test results in life insurance underwriting and applies to life insurance contract decisions made on or after the date of commencement. This ensures that the protection is forward-looking. It ensures that Australians can engage with genetic testing with confidence, and it ensures that the system is fair.

This legislation has broad support across the parliament—or I thought it did, before we heard the previous speaker—and has been a long time coming, spanning multiple parliaments. This should not be a partisan issue. This should not be an opportunity for cheap performances and political points. This is a national issue about making sure all Australians can get the health care they need when they need it. This reflects years of work, consultation and advocacy, and it demonstrates what can be achieved if we decide to work together as representatives and legislators.

In response to a 2018 parliamentary committee report, the Financial Services Council introduced a genetics moratorium to address disincentives to undertaking genetic testing. In 2023, following years of research advocacy, Monash University—which happens to be my former university, in our local area—played a leading role in this space with the A-GLIMMER report, published in June 2023 by Jane Tiller, measuring the impact of the moratorium. I want at this point to thank Dr Tiller for her extraordinary work in this space. She has done so much. I've met with her a couple of times to talk about this, and I'm really pleased that we're able to see this bill before the House today.

Her research provided critical evidence, insight into behaviour and highlighted the real-world consequences of policy gaps. Dr Tiller's report and subsequent genetic testing studies show that more than half of the participants who stopped their involvement in testing did so because of concerns about accessing affordable insurance. That's an incredible number. This is not a marginal issue. This is a systemic problem and one that absolutely demands the action we're taking today. Every Australian should have every opportunity to receive the care that they need. We cannot accept a system where fear overrides health or where financial concerns override medical advice, and we cannot accept a system that discourages prevention.

One participant in the research was Ben. Ben didn't have any significant family history of cancer, but he took part in a genetic testing study. The results showed he carries a PALB2 variant, which raises the risk of prostate and breast cancer in men. This information was important not only for him but also for his female relatives, who now know that they face high risks of breast and ovarian cancer and have begun the process of getting tested. Learning about these elevated risks has motivated Ben to adopt risk-reducing strategies, and I thank Ben for his advocacy and participation in this work. Ben's story is powerful. It shows the value of knowledge. It shows the ripple effects of testing, and it shows how one decision can benefit not just an individual but an entire family.

Dr Tiller called for an amendment to the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 to prohibit the use of genetic or genomic testing results to discriminate between applicants for risk rated insurance. This bill responds to that call. We want people to get tested and to use this knowledge to improve their health and better manage any underlying conditions they may have. We want Australians to feel empowered in every regard. We want them to be informed and to be supported.

In 2024-25, the government subsidised more than 600,000 genetic and genomic tests under Medicare, totalling over $160 million in benefits. This reflects growing demand. It reflects growing awareness, and it reflects a central role that genetics now play in modern medicine. This represents a growth of approximately 85 per cent in the annual number of Medicare funded genetic and genomic tests between the years of 2019-20 and 2024-25. This growth will continue, and, as it does, our policy framework must keep pace.

If a person wishes to voluntarily provide their test results to an insurer, they may do so. However, there are strong consumer protections to ensure that any disclosure is deliberate and properly authorised. An insurer cannot use volunteered test results to produce a less favourable insurance outcome than would have applied had the results not been disclosed. This is a critical safeguard. It ensures that disclosure cannot be used against individuals, and it reinforces fairness in the system. The intention of this bill is to reduce the number of Australians delaying or forgoing genetic testing due to concerns about the possible impact on their life insurance, because when we remove fear, participation increases. When participation increases, outcomes improve, and when outcomes improve, lives are saved. The ban is not intended to remove a life insurer's ability to obtain and use other information necessary to effectively risk assess and underwrite insurance policies. However, insurers must continue to comply with the reasonableness requirements of the Disability Discrimination Act.

This reform will not increase the cost of life or other insurance products. As life insurers remain able to effectively risk rate policies, there is no threat of the industry taking on unacceptable risks that would increase pay-outs and drive up premiums. What this bill does is create a new strict liability offence and a civil penalty provision for breaches of the ban, with ASIC assigned regulatory responsibility for monitoring and enforcement, because enforcement matters, accountability matters and strong oversight ensures confidence in the system. Whether ASIC chooses to pursue criminal sanctions or a civil penalty will depend on the facts of each case. The ban covers life cover, total and permanent disability insurance, trauma insurance and income protection insurance and will come into effect six months after receiving royal assent.

No-one should be dissuaded from potentially life-saving testing out of fear of discrimination in life insurance. That's the core message of this bill. It's a message that deserves to be repeated. Australians should never have to choose between protecting their health and protecting their family's financial future. That's the choice that this bill removes, and this reform really does matter.

I once again thank Dr Jane Tiller, author of the Monash report, for her ongoing advocacy in this area as well as Minister Mulino, former minister Stephen Jones and colleagues across this parliament and previous parliaments who have contributed to this important reform. This is a testament to what can be achieved through persistence and collaboration and in doing what is right. I commend the bill to the House.

Kate Chaney (Curtin, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise today to speak to schedule 1 of the Treasury Laws Amendment (Genetic Testing Protections in Life Insurance and Other Measures) Bill 2025. I want to begin by acknowledging the work that's gone into bringing this bill before the parliament. This is an area that has been discussed, consulted on and called for over many years, and I welcome the fact that we're now delivering clear, legislated protections for Australians.

Schedule 1 bans life insurers from requesting or using a person's genetic test results when making decisions about life insurance. It replaces a voluntary industry moratorium with a clear legal rule, backed by enforcement and review. It allows insurers to continue to rely on clinically diagnosed conditions and family medical history, but draws a firm line around predictive genetic information which reflects risk rather than illness. Just as importantly, it gives people certainty that choosing to undertake genetic testing will not jeopardise their access to financial security.

This reform matters, because fear of insurance discrimination has been preventing people from accessing potentially life-saving genetic testing and participating in medical research. No-one should have to choose between protecting their health and protecting their financial future. Many of us on the crossbench have been raising this issue for some time through letters to government, questions in parliament and collaboration with health experts, researchers and consumer advocates. We've pushed for legislation because the evidence was clear a voluntary framework is not enough. This bill reflects that evidence, and it reflects the overwhelming consensus from the medical community, consumer groups and, importantly, the insurance industry itself. This is what good evidence based policymaking looks like.

Schedule 1 is a sensible, proportionate reform that strengthens privacy, supports public health and removes the barrier to early diagnosis and prevention. It shows that when parliament listens carefully, works collaboratively and follows the evidence, we can deliver reforms that make a real difference to people's lives. I commend the government for bringing this forward, and I commend schedule 1 of the bill to the House.

Michael McCormack (Riverina, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Treasury Laws Amendment (Genetic Testing Protections in Life Insurance and Other Measures) Bill 2025 is an important piece of legislation. It truly is. What I do question is why it has taken this long to be brought before the House. The coalition, as is often the case, had to drag Labor kicking and screaming to this point.

The government does need criticism for delaying implementation of this vital bill, which contains long overdue protections around the use of genetic information in life insurance, which is in schedule 1; relief for foreign financial services providers, which is in schedule 2; and financial adviser registration requirements, which is in schedule 4. But there's also the point about weakening scrutiny by introducing new funding arrangements for multilateral development banks, which is part of schedule 3.

I appreciate that there has been stakeholder negotiation. All too often we find with any bill Labor introduces that, first of all, it's too little, too late. There's procrastination. But so often we hear from stakeholder groups that they have not been able to put their case to the government and that there has been little or no consultation. At least these organisations are supportive of the bill: the Financial Services Council, the Council of Australian Life Insurers, the Australian Financial Markets Association, the Financial Advice Association Australia and Chartered Accountants Australia and New Zealand. That support is to be encouraged because a bill which contains these sorts of measures needs proper input.

In 2019, whilst in government, the Liberals and Nationals coalition supported the introduction of an industry moratorium as a temporary or interim safeguard with the expectation that legislation would follow. By the time the May 2022 election came around, there was broad agreement across industry, clinician stakeholders and the parliament that legislated protections were needed. Of course, a number of things happened after 2019, not least of which was COVID-19, that put great difficulties on a number of things. Move on to September 2024, when the coalition was no longer in government—more's the pity—the then assistant treasurer, the former member for Whitlam, the immediate past member for that electorate, announced to great fanfare that Labor would be introducing legislation to ban—forbid—genetic discrimination in life insurance. That announcement was widely welcomed, and it raised genuine and real expectations amongst Australians and the medical community, as previous speakers have noted, that people should not be discriminated against because they go and get medical checks for hereditary illnesses or diseases or the like. But by the 2025 election, no legislation had been introduced, none. These reforms, it seems, were simply not a priority for Labor. Labor came to office in May 2022 promising to be more transparent, promising that it would get on with the job that it said it would do. But we know, in so many areas of endeavour that are so important to Australians, that Labor has failed, and this is another of them.

Australians were left waiting and wondering and the delay has had genuine consequences. Delaying a bill such as this does have an impact in the community, in all of our communities. The people we represent, ordinary everyday Australians, expect better and expect this place to just get on with the job. I know the wheels of parliamentary process, just like the wheels of law and legalese and justice, turn very slowly at times but they don't have to turn this slowly. We just heard from the Teal member for Curtin. With strong bipartisan support—refer back to what I said when we were in government in 2019—and with no opposition, there is no reason why this legislation could not have been introduced in the previous term—no reason, none whatsoever.

Labor's delay was not without effects, not without consequences and, as I said, they are real consequences. People who could have benefited from genetic testing may have been discouraged because of concerns about insurance discrimination. That is not being melodramatic; it is not too far fetched. That is a genuine concern. It was a real fear amongst people who could have, would have or possibly did delay the genetic testing that would have gotten the important medical results they needed for their own peace of mind and for the sake of their own health. Labor kicked this into the long grass.

As I said, when there is procrastination and the government delays, as it so often does, there are genuine impacts in our communities across Australia. We have to be better than this—we do—particularly when there is bipartisan support, and when it seems you're not going to get pushback from the crossbench, and when it's just perfunctory legislation, or it seems that way. When the Senate will agree, the parliament will concur and royal assent will be given, I ask: Why the hold-up? Why the delay? What we're talking about is people's lives. What we're dealing with here is people's health. It's not good enough. We've got to be better. The government has to pull its socks up; it really does.

The coalition supports these reforms, as we always did. We back them because they provide that certainty that is needed. They do prevent discrimination. I genuinely, in my heart of hearts, would've thought that avoiding discrimination would've been one of the hallmarks of a Labor government. It seems that, whilst it might be, the delays are questionable. The coalition backs these reforms because they support better health outcomes.

When I came into parliament in 2010, I was told that, if you had a healthy community, you had a happy community and things would go along pretty well. We've got a cost-of-living crisis at the moment, but health is everything. Yes, people are finding it difficult to pay their bills and, yes, every time they open their energy bill, every time they go to the supermarket and, goodness gracious, every time they go to the petrol station now they almost need to extend their mortgage, but if they're healthy, at least they're going to be happy. This bill supports better health outcomes, and that's why the coalition backs it. It's why Labor should've introduced it much, much earlier than right now. The reality is that this was a reform everyone agreed on, yet Australians were left waiting due to Labor's delays, and we don't know why.

In schedule 2, where there's relief for foreign financial service providers, the coalition acted and Labor delayed; that's a simple fact. This schedule provides long-overdue clarity for foreign financial service providers operating here in this country. It will assist in ensuring our market remains open, competitive and connected to global financial expertise, and let's face it—there are some xenophobic people in this place; we all know who they are and what they're about—we do live in a situation where we are very much part and parcel of international global financial markets.

In this particular schedule, schedule 2, we see more evidence of how slow this government has been on this particular bill. This legislation is another bipartisan reform that has broad stakeholder support. The coalition introduced this legislation in 2022, and since then industry has been waiting for Labor to deliver. It's been four years—four long years—of delay from this government for reforms that have across-the-board support. At the same time, Labor will look to rush through controversial new taxes, as they did with the super tax. These delays have led to ongoing regulatory uncertainty, reduced confidence for international firms, which is a shame, and risks to Australia's competitiveness as a financial services destination. We don't want that, and we can't afford that; we simply can't.

The third schedule deals with multilateral development banks. As I said, we are at times very much at the whim of international global uncertainty and the financial markets and how they're shaped by other bigger players in this area. We are a competitive force, and we need to ensure that anything to do with this and other bills has that taken into accord and account.

The bill introduces standing appropriations without a clear upper limit, meaning funding can be committed by the government without the same level of parliamentary approval each time. You can look at that a couple of ways. One of the situations that we've got at the moment is uncapped limits, it seems, on the National Disability Insurance Scheme. That is having all sorts of consequences for employment, because a lot of people are acting as carers when they would otherwise be engaging in other services in our community, services that are now being left way behind—I refer to child care and aged care—under the guise of the NDIS, which is this all-encompassing monster. I'm sure that every single one of our electorate offices is being bombarded with complaints about NDIS issues at the moment. And this, in this particular bill, is concerning.

The parliament should not be asked to sign blank cheques. All too often, particularly under this government, we have seen this parliament just push through legislation, and it seems as though the debt situation is just getting out of control. Nobody is caring, nobody is monitoring, and we do not want a situation with the NDIS similar to that where it just gets out of control.

I can remember Morris Iemma, who was a Labor state premier, was concerned about the health aspects of the New South Wales budget getting out of control. He said so, bravely. It was necessary to rein it in not to cut costs at the expense of people's health but to put a diligent ruler over what was necessary. We have to. We must, as an absolute priority, do it with the NDIS at the moment, lest it get out of control, if it isn't already. When it comes to this particular bill, this legislation before the House, we ought to do the same.

The coalition ultimately supports these provisions because we must meet our international obligations. Our credibility in global economic institutions actually does matter. We cannot afford to be seen as a slow or unreliable partner, and we never are. We said—and we said it under the previous leader of the opposition, the member for Farrer, and I know the member for Hume feels the same way—that when there's good legislation, the shadow cabinet will consider it, we'll take it through the normal processes, and, if it's good legislation and it's good for Australia, then it will be good for the coalition. We'll certainly support it because that's the way the coalition operates. We do it in the best interest, the national interest. We're always operating in the national interest. When Australia makes commitments, they will be honoured, and that's important, too. You must keep your word. Keeping your word is something that is important not just in politics but in life. It's important that you stay the course, keep the faith and keep your word.

Kara Cook (Bonner, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I still remember walking through the city on my lunch break in Brisbane many years ago, when my phone rang and my dermatologist's number came up. I had had regular skin checks since I was 16. I grew up in central Queensland, in a small town called Yeppoon. I spent long days at the beach and did competitive sailing with not a lot of protection, and it had its consequences. Over the years, I had many biopsies. My last routine check before that phone call, a suspicious mole was removed, and, this time, it came back. That phone call was life-changing for me. It was a melanoma, and I was 27 years old. In the years that followed, I was diagnosed with two more melanomas in different locations. In total, I had three melanomas diagnosed before I turned 30. After that, I sought support from the Cancer Council Queensland, I joined fundraising efforts like the Melanoma March, and I enrolled in clinical trials, hoping that my experience might help others.

It was during those trials that I first encountered the challenges around genetic testing. I remember being told that participating and providing DNA samples could affect my ability to get life insurance. I was asked whether I wanted to know if there were any indicators of future illness and warned about the consequences of receiving those results.

At that time, as someone who was under 30, it was a pretty confronting conversation to have. When faced with your own mortality and with choices about whether to proceed with receiving those results, I do remember wondering how many people would opt out, how many people would choose not to know because of the complications for them with their life insurance? How many would potentially walk away from life-saving treatment and testing not because of the fear of the illness but because of the fear of the financial consequences that might follow for them and, most importantly, for their family. That is why I rise today to support the Treasury Laws Amendment (Genetic Testing Protections in Life Insurance and Other Measures) Bill 2025.

This legislation is about giving Australians certainty—certainty that they can take steps to protect their health without being penalised for it. For too long, Australians have faced discrimination based on their genetics when seeking life insurance. Insurers have been able to refuse cover, increase premiums or impose conditions on genetic test results. That's exactly what happened to me with an exemption around skin cancer. The result of that is clear; people do delay or avoid testing altogether, even when it could save their lives. This bill changes that. It ensures that life insurers cannot use protected genetic information to refuse cover, raise premiums or impose conditions. It means Australians will no longer have to disclose genetic test results when applying for life insurance, and it gives Australians the confidence to participate in medical research and take control of their health without fear.

This is not just a policy issue; it is a human issue and it is an issue of fairness. We have seen what happens when protections are not strong enough. The industry's self-regulated moratorium was a step forward, but it has not provided the certainty Australians need. Confusion still remains, trust is low and too many people still avoid testing. This is not a system that protects people; it is a system that holds them back, and this bill fixes that.

The need for reform is not abstract; it has very real consequences. Some people may have heard of the story of a Bundaberg mother, Judy Honor, who lives with Lynch Syndrome, a genetic condition that increases cancer risk. Her son Dwayne avoided genetic testing not because he didn't want to know about his health but because he feared the impact on his life insurance. Because of that decision, he also stepped back from participating in research. That is the consequence of the current system, and it's not an isolated case. When I spoke to researchers at the PA hospital where I did a number of clinical trials, they told me that they were struggling to get participants because of the genetic-testing consequences for people. Surveys and research have shown that many Australians delay or avoid testing for the same reason. Researchers have often reported difficulties in recruitment. Health professionals have overwhelmingly agreed that change is needed. When people are too afraid to learn about their health, something is fundamentally wrong in the system and does need to change.

We know that genetic testing saves lives. It enables early intervention, it guides treatment, it allows families to make informed decisions. We are entering an era where genomics is transforming health care from cancer detection to rare-disease diagnosis to targeted therapies, but that progress means very little if Australians are afraid to access it. This bill will ensure that those healthcare advances translate into real benefits for Australians, not more barriers.

Ten years on from that first diagnosis, I happily remain cancer free. I still have regular skin checks every six months and I continue to support clinical trials. I know how important it is for Australians to feel confident to do the same, because when people avoid testing, we will all lose—we will lose opportunities for early diagnosis, we will lose opportunities for prevention and we will lose progress in medical research. This bill will ensure that we do not suffer any of those losses and also that Australia keeps pace with the rest of the world. Countries like the United Kingdom and Canada have already acted to protect citizens from genetic discrimination.

Without reform, we risk falling behind not just in fairness but in science, so the choice before us is clear. I'm pleased to hear the support from all sides of the chamber on this bill. We know that we cannot allow fear and uncertainty to continue to hold Australians back. We can create a system that supports people to take control of their health, and this bill does exactly that. It will remove a major barrier to testing, it will support research participation, and it will restore trust in the life insurance system.

This type of research and testing also has the potential to reduce out-of-pocket costs. By detecting diseases early on, Australians will save extensive treatment and out-of-pocket costs down the track. That certainly was the case for me. Supporting Australians' health and being proactive in getting the health care they need is a priority for the Albanese Labor government. That is why we have implemented things like tripling the bulk-billing incentive. This will see over 4,800 more clinics convert to fully bulk-billed over the next four years, including 13 in my electorate of Bonner. This will mean that local families can continue to see a doctor for free. With cheaper medicines, Australians can get the health care they need when they need it. They won't put off looking after their health. It also eases the financial pressure that many families experience when faced with incredibly hard decisions between things like groceries and medication due to cost-of-living pressures.

The Albanese government has made medicines cheaper. Residents in my electorate have saved more than $12.8 million across two million scripts. From 1 January, we have seen the cost of PBS medications drop to just $25 per script. Since being elected, Labor has added over 300 new and amended listings to the PBS. Those listings have saved families hundreds of thousands of dollars, and, through the $800 million women's healthcare package, we are seeing much needed treatment for women and girls being made cheaper and more accessible. With more medicines listed on the PBS, it's also enabled more than 365,000 women to access more than 715,000 cheaper scripts for oral contraceptives and menopausal hormone therapies.

Labor has also invested more than $49 million to provide around 430,000 more services to help women across the country with complex gynaecological conditions, including endometriosis, polycystic ovarian syndrome and chronic pelvic pain. The women's healthcare package includes the first new listing of oral contraceptive pills in more than 30 years, saving 150,000 women hundreds of dollars every year. By making health care more affordable, more Australians will put their health first. This bill is one more piece of that work.

What this bill really says is simple—no Australian should be judged by the genes they are born with. No Australian should be denied life insurance because of a condition they may never develop. Genetic information is not destiny. It is not a guarantee of illness. It does not predict when a condition might appear, how severe it might be or whether it will happen at all. This bill restores fairness, it restores dignity and it restores trust in the life insurance system. No Australian should have to choose between knowing their health risks and securing life insurance to provide financial security to protect their family. This is practical and compassionate reform. It strengthens our health system. It supports our research sector, and it reflects modern science. It will also protect our families, and it will ensure that Australians can take control of their health without fear. I am proud to be part of the Albanese Labor government that is ending this form of discrimination. The message is very clear with this bill: your genes are not your fault, your health decisions should not determine your insurability, and your future should be shaped by your choices, not your DNA. I commend the bill to the House.

Anne Webster (Mallee, National Party, Shadow Minister for Regional Development, Local Government and Territories) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise this afternoon to speak to the Treasury Laws Amendment (Genetic Testing Protections in Life Insurance and Other Measures) Bill 2025. I will come to the bill in a moment; I want to first, as the shadow minister for regional health, talk about the importance of primary and preventive care.

Halting genetic discrimination in the life insurance industry is a good start on better health care. It's just the beginning. We are at a fork in the road when it comes to health care in this country, particularly in regional Australia, with an ageing population and burgeoning rates of chronic disease. Our health services are struggling to keep up in the cities, let alone in the regions. We cannot afford to continue investing in acute hospital based care if we are not adequately investing in preventive health care and primary health care.

The Australian health system does not prioritise prevention as it should, or in the way other countries do, with only two per cent of the Australian health budget targeted at prevention or public health. Other nations with similar health systems spent in excess of five per cent of their budget on prevention. We know in regional Australia how important primary and preventive health care is. As in many rural towns and localities, it is the only health care close to where you live. We don't have the urgent care clinics that Labor like to get up and thump their chests about. We don't even have the doctors; they vanished into metropolitan areas under rule changes Labor made as soon as they came to office in 2022.

Increasing funding for prevention via genetic testing is an important step. DNA screening found hundreds of people at high risk of cancer and heart disease who can now take action to prevent disease. They published health economic modelling that indicated it would be cost-effective to offer high-risk DNA screening to the whole Australian adult population. This sort of evidence for policy decision-making should not be ignored.

I am speaking today amid a fuel crisis in regional Australia, and I'm very concerned that regional Australians will postpone or cancel a visit to their doctor if they can't afford or even source the fuel to get to the doctor. It is high time the Albanese Labor government thought about policy for regional Australians, not just for metropolitan Australians, that considers their poorer health status. One of my constituents, from Kaniva, told me recently she had to cancel a health appointment in Horsham because her local service station was out of fuel. Labor has let that woman down. She couldn't access health care—so spare me the posturing about women's health. Labor is not doing enough to help regional women access the health care they need.

I note this is an omnibus bill with amendments across several unrelated areas of law—what a shock! I intend to speak today to schedule 1 of the bill, on genetic protections in life insurance. This is an issue close to my heart, and I have advocated in this space over a period of time, working with Dr Jane Tiller of Monash University, particularly in my past role in the shadow ministry in regional health—a role that I'm honoured to hold again as the shadow minister for regional health and regional communications. I've long been interested in the benefits of predictive genetic testing for prevention and removal of discriminatory use of this health information. I've spoken on this issue in parliament previously. I am regularly contacted by constituents from my electorate of Mallee who are concerned about discrimination in the life insurance industry based on genetic information and who laud the benefits of genetic testing for preventive health interventions. I acknowledge the tireless work of Dr Jane Tiller and her team at DNA Screen, Monash University, Melbourne, in this area. Dr Tiller is project co-lead at DNA Screen, a lawyer and genetic counsellor with a keen interest in the regulatory and ethical aspects of genomics and public health.

What does this bill do? The 'genetic testing protections in life insurance' schedule of this bill amends the Insurance Contracts Act 1984 to insert a new division banning life insurers from using or requiring protected genetic information when deciding whether to offer life insurance cover. This includes trauma, total and permanent disability or income protection policies often bundled with life cover. 'Protected genetic information' generally refers to results from predictive genetic tests—for example, for hereditary disease risks like BRCA mutations—but family history or already diagnosed conditions may still be usable. A related amendment to the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 aligns antidiscrimination protections with this ban to ensure consistency. The change aims to encourage Australians to undergo genetic testing for health or medical reasons without fear of being denied insurance or copping a loading on their insurance, which addresses a longstanding discrimination concern.

It is essential to see the provisions of schedule 1 of this bill pass both houses of parliament to remove disincentives that discourage Australians seeking preventative genetic testing, and that is because genetic testing saves lives. Genetic testing can enable 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 people aged 18 to 40 years for high genetic risk of preventable cancer and heart disease, finding one in 50—two per cent—cent at high risk. That is a lot of Australians. Monash's DNA Screen study found that those people were able to access preventative measures such as surgery, surveillance and medication.

Regional people are especially burdened by the types of disease that genetic testing can help prevent. The Wesfarmers health index 2025, based on 3.6 million real time SiSU Health Station checks from July 2024 to June 2025, ranks my electorate of Mallee as the most at-risk federal electorate in Victoria for cardiometabolic conditions, including obesity, type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular risks like heart attack and stroke. Coronary heart disease is the leading cause of death in regional Australia. This is not the case in major cities, where dementia is the leading cause.

The holistic burden of disease due to coronary heart disease—this means not just the impact of people dying, but of years spent living with illness—increases with geographic remoteness from 9.5 disability adjusted life years in major cities per thousand people to 21.3 in remote and very remote areas. The rate of cancer is highest in inner and outer regional parts of the country, at 512 cases per 100,000 people, which is higher than in major cities. Shockingly, the rate of survival with a cancer diagnosis reduces with geographic remoteness. Given the impact of cancer and heart disease in regional Australia is far greater than in our cities, it is essential we progress measures to reduce that risk by preventing disease where possible. Prevention and delay of chronic conditions increases quality years of life and decreases costs to the healthcare system.

Most notably, prevention saves the precious lives of dads, mums, sons and daughters—children. The loss of life is always tragic, but preventable loss is even more so. In regional Australia, access to healthcare services is a challenge. Vast distances, higher costs, challenges in recruiting and keeping the required workforce, and inadequate government investment—these factors all contribute. Regional people are well known to present to hospital with later stage illnesses, sicker than their city counterparts, often being hospitalised for conditions that were in fact preventable or could have been managed in primary care by a GP or nurse practitioner. With this in mind, it's not hard to see why I'm a strong advocate for interventions like preventive genetic testing, with the potential to identify risk factors for disease before they become life threatening, and encourage people to seek the care they need before it's too late.

Interestingly, it's not just older people who are interested in accessing genetic screening. Young Australians want preventive genetic information, too. 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 Mallee, at least 36 young people participated in the study. One young person was found to be at high genetic risk of bowel cancer and has now been able to access preventive health care.

The main reason that people who signed up for DNA Screen decided not to participate was genetic discrimination in life insurance. For decades this has been a significant ethical concern for Australians who 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. This legislation will address the most significant barrier to testing for Australians and will pave the way for greater investment into preventive genomic screening.

The DNA Screen study hopes to expand its testing to 100,000 people. This would identify thousands more at-risk people, who will not have to worry about life insurance discrimination, and move 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 makes very good economic sense.

It has taken too long for the Albanese Labor government to bring this legislation to the parliament. They shamefully abandoned their promise to protect Australians from genetic discrimination in life insurance in the previous term of their government, breaking a historic commitment made in September 2024. The pledge, publicly announced by the Assistant Treasurer, was a sign of hope for any Australian with a hereditary disease and was widely celebrated by clinicians, advocates, researchers and organisations across the country. Genetic life insurance discrimination discourages individuals from seeking vital genetic testing, denying them access to potentially life-saving information and treatment. The government's commitment was a landmark step towards ensuring equitable access to genomic health care for all Australians, offering security to individuals and families undergoing genetic testing.

There has long been broad agreement and support for this ban on life insurers using genetic testing to refuse cover, and it is disappointing that Australians have faced delays due to the incompetence of this government. This is an egregious example of the Albanese government's focus on announcements and grandstanding rather than the follow-through. Dr Jane Tiller from Monash University has been campaigning for a ban for almost a decade. With strong bipartisan support and no opposition, there is no reason why this legislation should not have been introduced to parliament sooner, as promised by the government. I am grateful—on behalf of all Australians, but especially regional Australians—that this bill is now before us, and I look forward to seeing the passage and implementation of this legislation in practice.

In closing, schedule 1 of this bill represents a long-awaited and profoundly important step towards safeguarding Australians from genetic discrimination, ensuring that individuals can seek life-saving genetic information without fear or penalty. For too long, the threat of insurance consequences has acted as a barrier to preventive health care, limiting the potential of modern genomics to reduce illness, improve wellbeing and save lives.

Sharon Claydon (Newcastle, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 43. The debate will be resumed at a later hour, and the member will have leave to continue speaking when the debate is resumed.