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

I seek to continue my remarks. In other words, the voluntary system and the effectiveness of industry self-regulation have not provided the certainty Australians need. When people avoid potentially lifesaving knowledge because of financial fear, government has a responsibility to act, and when people are avoiding potentially lifesaving medical knowledge because of financial fear, the government has that responsibility to step in.

This issue has also been examined by leading experts in genomic medicine. Dr Jane Tiller, the Ethical, Legal and Social Adviser in Public Health Genomics at Monash University, wrote recently about the significance of these reforms. She observed:

A bill that would ban life insurers from discriminating against Australians based on results of genetic testing has been introduced to parliament …

…   …   …

It follows almost a decade of research, consultation, community pressure and political efforts to end this form of genetic discrimination.

That observation captures how we arrived at this moment. This reform has not emerged overnight. It has been shaped by years of research, evidence and engagement with clinicians, scientists, patient groups and the broader community.

Dr Tiller and others have also highlighted the central problem that this legislation addresses—the fear that genetic information may be used against people when they apply for life insurance. Research has shown that fear of genetic discrimination has been discouraging some Australians from undertaking genetic testing altogether, even when those tests could identify preventable disease or allow early treatment. It's a deeply troubling outcome, because genetic testing has the potential to save lives.

Tests that identify inherited risks, such as variants in genes which significantly increase the risk of breast, ovarian and prostate cancer, can enable prevention, early intervention and significantly improved outcomes. Genetic testing can change the future for people at risk of preventable disease. Yet, without proper protections, the very knowledge that could protect a person's health could also become their financial liability. That is precisely the situation this legislation seeks to resolve.

It is also worth noting that Australia is not entering new territory with this reform. Several comparable countries have already recognised the risks of genetic discrimination insurance and have taken steps to prevent it. In Canada, federal legislation passed in 2017 makes it illegal for insurers to require individuals to undergo genetic testing or the use of the results of those tests when providing services such as insurance. In the United Kingdom, a longstanding agreement between government and the insurance industry prevents insurers from using predictive genetic test results for most types of insurance. Across Europe, many countries have also implemented restrictions on the use of genetic data in insurance underwriting, recognising the unique ethical issues associated with genetic information. These reforms reflect the shared understanding across advanced economies.

Genetic information is fundamentally different from many other forms of medical data. It is predictive rather than diagnostic. It often relates to probabilities rather than certainty, and it can reveal information not only about an individual but about their family members as well. For these reasons, many countries have concluded that genetic data requires special protections. Australia is now taking an important step to align with those international standards.

This bill amends the Insurance Contracts Act 1984 to prohibit life insurers from using the results of genetic testing, or information about these tests, when deciding whether to offer life insurance cover or determining the terms and conditions of that cover. Importantly, this legislation strikes a careful balance. It does not prevent life insurers from assessing risk entirely. Insurers will still be able to consider information such as diagnosed conditions, symptoms and family medical history when underwriting policies. Those factors have long been part of the insurance system and will remain so.

The legislation draws a clear line around predictive genetic test results, because genetic information raises unique ethical and social issues. A person may carry a genetic variant associated with a disease, yet live their entire life without ever developing that condition. To penalise someone financially for knowledge of a possibility rather than evidence of illness is something many Australians instinctively recognise as unfair. This reform ensures that this does not happen, and it does so with strong safeguards. The legislation establishes strict liability and civil penalty provisions for breaches of the ban, and gives the Australian Securities and Investments Commission responsibility for monitoring and enforcing compliance. In other words, these protections will not just simply exist on paper; they will be backed by real regulatory oversight.

While schedule 1 represents essential reform in this bill, the legislation also contains several additional measures designed to modernise Australia's financial regulatory framework. Schedule 2 introduces licensing exemptions for certain foreign financial services providers, allowing them to provide services to Australian professional and wholesale investors under defined conditions. This will help ensure that Australian investors, including superannuation funds, can access a wider range of global financial services and investment opportunities. Schedule 3 modernises the legislative framework governing Australia's participation in multilateral development banks and the International Monetary Fund. These institutions play a critical role in supporting economic stability and development around the world, including in our own region. Schedule 4 repeals the planned stage 2 financial adviser registration requirement, reducing unnecessary regulatory burden while maintaining appropriate oversight of the financial advice profession.

Genetic science is advancing rapidly. Over the coming decades, genetic testing will become a routine part of health care. More people will learn about their inherited risks. More people will understand their biological vulnerabilities, and that knowledge has the potential to dramatically improve health outcomes. But if our laws do not keep pace with scientific progress, we risk creating a new form of inequality. We risk creating a world where people are penalised simply because they have access to better medical knowledge about themselves. That is not a future Australians would accept. A person's DNA should be a tool for better health, not a barrier to financial security, and the knowledge that could save your life should never be used against you. This legislation ensures that genetic knowledge remains a tool for prevention, for treatment and for better health, not a mechanism for discrimination. It is for those reasons that I commend this bill to the House.

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

I rise to support this bill. I'm very proud to support the introduction and implementation of the Treasury Laws Amendment (Genetic Testing Protections in Life Insurance and Other Measures) Bill 2025. It is very long overdue. Together with members on this side, I stand very proudly in support of stronger protections for people undergoing genetic testing, and ensuring that any genetic testing that's done will not be detrimental in terms of other financial products or insurances that they wish to purchase to protect their lives—something to protect the family with, in case there's a death—or protecting the costs that are incurred with health insurance. That's why this particular bill is very important. We need to ensure that we have measures in place that give stronger protection to people undergoing genetic testing.

Genetic testing is a good thing. It can monitor the traits of your ancestors in your body. Deputy Speaker Freelander, I don't have to tell you, being a doctor, how important it is. We don't want people to put their health at risk. Through testing, they might discover that all the males in their family have a history of prostate cancer, for example. It makes sense to have a test done to see if you share genetic make-up that will give you a high likelihood of developing prostate cancer. That would be a good thing to discover early. You could take precautions, have regular testing and put a whole range of measures in place to protect you.

The dangerous side of it is that, when we want to purchase a financial product, such as life insurance or general health insurance, it could be very detrimental. At that point the person would have to make a decision as to whether to go ahead with the genetic testing so they can get all the details of their family history—I gave you an example of prostate cancer; it could be a whole range of other things—in order to protect themselves into the future. If these laws aren't in place, they will have to consider: Will I lose my life insurance? Will I be able to get health cover? Will I be able to afford the premiums or the excesses that they may impose upon me because of this genetic testing? Health should never be a choice. We should be doing the best that we can for our health, as individuals, as governments and as a community. This bill protects not only the health of people but also the issues that could affect the financial costs of health or—even worse—lead to people not being able to get any cover at all.

Across the country, individuals and families are choosing to undertake genetic testing so they can make sense of their health, prepare for the future and make informed decisions that may one day save their lives. These tests give people knowledge, and with knowledge comes clarity to map out the future for better health. For far too long that same information—information that can guide someone to life-saving treatment—has been a source of anxiety rather than empowerment and, as I explained earlier, potentially detrimental in terms of costs and insurance cover. People who sought knowledge found themselves caught in a system that made them feel vulnerable, judged and sometimes even punished, instead of being supported for taking proactive steps. Too many faced barriers precisely when they needed understanding the most.

Across communities, including countless people who began reaching out to my office as early as February last year, the message from the public has been consistent, as I'm sure it has been for all of us who have constituents that come to talk to us about this particular issue. The message that I've been hearing is clear: this isn't fair, and we need to make it fairer. People have shared their stories, their fears, their hopes and their belief that a society built on compassion should not allow people to be disadvantaged simply because they choose to learn more about their health, their genetic make-up and the things that they could be prone to, and what they should be doing to prevent any negative health. These voices, the people who have come to see me, steady and sincere constituents, carried a simple truth: no-one should ever be penalised for doing the right thing, especially in health. No-one should have to choose between seeking life-saving medical insight and preserving peace of mind for themselves and their families. No-one should ever be placed in that position.

Debate interrupted.