Treasury Laws Amendment (Genetic Testing Protections in Life Insurance and Other Measures) Bill 2025; Second Reading

Campbell argued the bill delivers four core outcomes, including banning the use of adverse genetic test results in life insurance underwriting. Campbell cited the A-GLIMMER study, which found the previous voluntary moratorium inadequate, and noted the bill introduces civil penalties and criminal offences for non-compliance. Campbell explained that Schedule 2 provides licensing exemptions for foreign financial service providers, Schedule 3 modernises funding for multilateral development banks, and Schedule 4 removes the stage 2 requirement for financial adviser registration to cut red tape.

Wilson supported the legislation but criticised the government's four-year delay in introducing it, noting that broad agreement existed since 2019. Wilson argued that the delay had consequences for Australians who may have avoided genetic testing due to fear of insurance discrimination. Wilson also criticised the government's broader approach to financial services, alleging it favours industry super funds over individual financial independence and choice.

Garland emphasised that the bill aligns Australia with global best practices in countries like the UK and Canada. Garland highlighted evidence from Dr Jane Tiller's research showing that fear of insurance discrimination discouraged participation in genetic testing and medical research. Garland noted that the ban applies to life, trauma, total and permanent disability, and income protection insurance, with enforcement by ASIC, and stated it would not increase insurance premiums as insurers can still use clinical diagnoses and family history.

Chaney welcomed Schedule 1 as a sensible reform that replaces the voluntary pause with a definite legal standard supported by enforcement. Chaney argued that fear of discrimination had stopped people from accessing vital genetic tests and taking part in medical research. Chaney stated the bill provides assurance that opting for genetic testing will not endanger access to financial security.

McCormack supported the bill but criticised the government for procrastination, noting that the coalition had to drag Labor to this point. McCormack expressed concern that Schedule 3 introduces standing appropriations without clear upper limits, comparing it to issues with the National Disability Insurance Scheme. McCormack stated the coalition supports the reforms to meet international obligations but urged the government to resist additional levies that could increase costs for financial advisers.

Cook shared her personal experience with melanoma and clinical trials to illustrate the fear of genetic discrimination. Cook argued the bill removes barriers to testing and supports medical research participation, citing the story of a constituent who avoided testing due to insurance concerns. Cook linked the reform to broader government health initiatives, including PBS price caps and women's healthcare packages, stating the bill ensures Australians are not penalised for seeking health information.

Webster supported Schedule 1, highlighting the importance of preventive care, particularly in regional Australia where chronic disease rates are higher. Webster cited the DNA Screen study, which found one in 50 young adults at high genetic risk of preventable disease, and noted that fear of insurance discrimination was a primary reason for non-participation. Webster criticised the government for delaying the legislation despite a 2024 announcement and called for greater investment in preventive health measures.

Coffey supported the bill, drawing on her personal experience with multiple sclerosis to emphasise the importance of health certainty. Coffey explained that the bill amends the Insurance Contracts Act 1984 and the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 to ban the use of protected genetic information in underwriting. Coffey noted that Schedules 2 to 4 modernise financial regulation, support international economic engagement, and remove unnecessary red tape in financial adviser registration.

Aldred supported the bill, acknowledging its bipartisan nature while criticising the government for delaying legislation despite earlier announcements. Aldred argued that the reforms prevent insurers from denying cover based on genetic data, thereby encouraging medical testing and research. Aldred highlighted the personal story of a constituent who faced insurance limitations after testing positive for a BRCA2 mutation, illustrating the unfairness of the previous system.

Doyle explained that the bill removes barriers to health and investment by banning the use of genetic results in life insurance underwriting. Doyle shared her personal experience with genetic testing to emphasise the importance of accessing such information without fear of financial penalty. Doyle outlined that the legislation also streamlines licensing for foreign financial providers and modernises frameworks for multilateral development banks.

Ryan supported the bill but expressed disappointment that it does not apply retrospectively to existing contracts with discriminatory terms. Ryan moved amendments calling on the government to expand the Medicare Benefits Schedule to fund population-based carrier testing and genomic screening programs. Ryan urged the Treasurer to ensure regulations prevent insurers from inferring genetic data from other medical information and suggested a three-year review period instead of five.

Miller-Frost argued that the bill aligns anti-discrimination laws with modern medical science, protecting individuals from insurer penalties for genetic predispositions. Miller-Frost noted that the previous industry-led moratorium lacked government oversight and failed to provide consumer confidence. Miller-Frost highlighted that the reforms include civil and criminal penalties enforced by ASIC to ensure compliance.

Scamps supported the legislative ban, citing evidence that the previous self-regulated moratorium was inadequate and deterred people from testing. Scamps raised concerns that the bill does not address adverse terms in existing contracts, urging insurers to remove loadings prospectively for current clients. Scamps endorsed the amendment to reduce the mandatory review period to three years to keep pace with rapid technological changes.

Gregg stated that the bill fixes a system that discouraged Australians from seeking life-saving genetic information due to insurance fears. Gregg referenced the DNA Screen study to illustrate how many young people were deterred from participation by potential financial impacts. Gregg explained that the bill also removes unnecessary regulatory burdens for financial advisers and streamlines international financial commitments.

Steggall welcomed the shift from industry self-regulation to a statutory framework, arguing it provides greater certainty and public confidence. Steggall noted that while the bill addresses genetic discrimination, broader issues of fairness in insurance underwriting remain unresolved. Steggall urged the government to continue addressing discrimination in all its forms within the life insurance sector.

Laxale commended the bill for removing the choice between health knowledge and financial security, acknowledging advocates who campaigned for the reform. Laxale highlighted local participation in the DNA Screen study and the benefits of early detection for preventive care. Laxale connected the legislation to broader government health reforms aimed at improving access and reducing costs for Australians.

Jordan-Baird argued that the bill removes a significant barrier to preventive healthcare by ensuring genetic information cannot be used against individuals in life insurance decisions. Jordan-Baird cited Monash University research indicating that one in 50 Australians are at high genetic risk for preventable diseases, and noted that fear of discrimination had deterred many from participating in screening studies. Jordan-Baird emphasised that the reform aligns with broader government health investments and protects vulnerable communities from financial penalties for proactive health management.

Joyce argued that removing risk assessment from insurance undermines the fundamental purpose of risk pooling, potentially leading to higher costs or exclusion for high-risk individuals. Joyce raised concerns about the broader implications of genetic testing, specifically citing data on skewed sex ratios in births due to prenatal testing and sex selection. Joyce characterised the unchecked use of genetic technology as a step towards eugenics and argued that the bill failed to address these ethical and demographic issues.

Holzberger supported the bill, sharing stories from constituents with rare diseases to illustrate the importance of genetic testing for early diagnosis and treatment. Holzberger highlighted that without the bill, individuals might have been denied insurance cover based on genetic predispositions, which could have prevented them from accessing life-saving treatments. Holzberger argued that the legislation provides necessary certainty and encourages people to seek diagnoses without fear of financial exclusion.

Spender commended the bill for addressing long-standing recommendations from the Australian Law Reform Commission and parliamentary inquiries regarding genetic discrimination. Spender supported the provisions limiting insurer use of genetic data and welcomed the licensing exemptions for foreign financial service providers in Schedule 2. Spender also endorsed the removal of stage 2 registration requirements for financial advisers in Schedule 4, arguing it would reduce red tape and help retain advisers in the sector.

Leigh argued that the bill aligns the Insurance Contracts Act with the Disability Discrimination Act, providing clarity and protection for Australians. Leigh noted that genetic testing costs have fallen significantly, making it more accessible, but fear of insurance discrimination remains a barrier. Leigh emphasised that the ban allows individuals to volunteer test results if beneficial, such as proving they do not carry a specific disease variant, while protecting them from punitive underwriting based on predictive information.

Cook supported the bill, drawing on her background as a nurse to highlight the human cost of delayed diagnosis and treatment. Cook argued that the legislation shifts healthcare from a reactive to a proactive model by removing the fear of insurance penalties associated with genetic testing. Cook also endorsed the ancillary schedules, noting they streamline financial markets, modernise engagement with multilateral development banks, and reduce administrative burdens on financial advisers.

Lawrence argued that the bill addresses the gap between scientific advancement and legal protections, citing evidence that fear of discrimination deters testing and research participation. Lawrence emphasised that the reform is targeted, allowing insurers to still assess risk based on clinical diagnoses and family history while banning the use of predictive genetic information. Lawrence noted strong support from medical bodies and researchers for the legislation, which she said promotes fairness and preventive health.

French supported the bill, sharing his personal experience with chronic kidney disease to illustrate the value of early detection. French argued that the legislation provides enforceable legal protections, replacing the uncertain industry moratorium with clear statutory bans on using genetic information in underwriting. French emphasised that the reform supports public health goals by encouraging testing and research participation, while maintaining the integrity of risk-based insurance through other clinical data.

Repacholi argued that the bill ensures Australians can make health decisions without fear of financial penalty, citing data on the high uptake of genetic screening among young people. Repacholi highlighted the economic benefits of preventive healthcare, including reduced hospital pressures and increased productivity. Repacholi also supported the ancillary measures in Schedules 2, 3, and 4, noting they provide regulatory certainty for foreign financial providers, modernise international financial engagements, and reduce unnecessary burdens on financial advisers.

lead

Witty argued that the bill prevents Australians from having to choose between life-saving genetic knowledge and financial security. Witty stated that Schedule 1 bans insurers from using adverse genetic results to determine coverage or terms, while allowing consideration of diagnosed conditions and family history. Witty claimed the reform supports medical research by removing fears that discouraged participation in studies, such as one backed by Monash University. Witty also outlined Schedule 2, which provides licensing exemptions for foreign financial providers in trusted jurisdictions, and Schedule 3, which modernises Australia's participation in mutual development banks. Witty noted that Schedule 4 removes unnecessary regulatory burdens on financial advisers, arguing the existing oversight is sufficient.

Hill strongly supported the bill, acknowledging Dr Jane Tiller's advocacy and sharing his daughter's experience with a Factor V Leiden mutation and subsequent insurance difficulties. Hill argued that the legislation aligns Australia with countries like Canada and encourages individuals to take control of their health without fear of discrimination. Hill also raised concerns about state governments allowing pharmacists to prescribe contraceptive pills for the first time, citing risks for those with genetic conditions and potential conflicts of interest. Hill suggested that pharmacist prescribing should be limited to repeat prescriptions for stable patients rather than initial consultations.

Abdo supported the bill, emphasising that it promotes fairness by preventing penalties for factors beyond individual control. Abdo cited a Monash University study where over half of withdrawing participants feared insurance impacts, illustrating how fear hinders medical research and preventive care. Abdo referenced a parliamentary inquiry from 2018 and a 2019 voluntary industry moratorium, noting that stakeholders lacked confidence in the voluntary system's consistent application. Abdo argued that the legislation addresses the troubling reality that Australians are forced to choose between health protection and financial security.