Review too slow
The bill was criticised for waiting five years before the mandatory review, with an amendment seeking a three-year review instead.
This bill became law on Apr 8th, 2026.
Budget, tax & economy
The law bans life insurers from using certain genetic test information to decide whether to offer life insurance, or what terms and conditions to offer.
Australians were delaying or forgoing genetic testing because life insurers could use genetic test results in underwriting. The bill bans that use to reduce those concerns and encourage testing.
Australia’s life insurance industry introduced a partial moratorium in 2019 after a parliamentary inquiry raised concerns that genetic test results were deterring people from getting tested. Treasury then found the problem was still affecting uptake, and the government turned its 2024 ban announcement into this bill to make the protection permanent in law.
The main criticism was that the bill leaves too much for later review or regulation, with some members warning about insurer workarounds, a five-year review window, and delegated powers that could modify key definitions. The concerns came mainly from crossbench amendments and the Senate scrutiny committee, while broader support for the ban remained intact.
The Labor government introduced this bill. It passed on the voices.
Did it become law?
Yes
Became law 08 Apr 2026
Final passage
Passed without a counted vote
2 recorded amendment or procedural votes were found, but no counted vote on the bill itself was recorded.
Passage speed
126 days
From introduction to the latest recorded parliamentary step
Meaning
The law bans life insurers from using certain genetic test information to decide whether to offer life insurance, or what terms and conditions to offer. Breaches can lead to criminal and civil penalties, ASICThe Australian Securities and Investments Commission, which enforces parts of Australia’s corporate and financial services law. will enforce the ban, and disability discrimination law is updated to match.
A key goal is to reassure people that having genetic testing, including for health research, should not hurt their access to life insurance. The government says this should encourage more testing and support health and scientific benefits.
The law also gives some foreign financial services providers clearer pathways to operate in Australia. It creates three exemptions from needing an Australian financial services licence and speeds up licensing for some providers already regulated in comparable overseas systems.
The law further updates the framework for how Australia meets its financial obligations to multilateral development banks and the IMFThe International Monetary Fund, a global institution that lends to countries and supports financial stability.. It introduces standing appropriations for current and future obligations and aims to cut administrative burden.
Schedule 1 to the Bill amends the ICA 1984 to establish a ban which prohibits insurers from using certain 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. Contravention of the ban will be subject to a criminal offence and civil penalty provision, with ASIC assigned regulatory responsibility for monitoring and enforcing the ban. The DDA 1992 is also amended to align Australia’s anti-discrimination law with the ban.Explanatory memorandum
The objective of the amendments is to provide certainty to individuals that undertaking genetic testing, including through participation in health or medical research, will not impact their ability to obtain life insurance cover, or the terms and conditions of that cover. It is intended that this will lead to the uptake of genetic testing and therefore provide extensive individual, public health and scientific benefits.Explanatory memorandum
Schedule 2 to the Bill supports the participation of foreign financial services providers in Australia by providing regulatory certainty through establishing three exemptions from the requirement to hold an AFS licence – the professional investor exemption, the comparable regulator exemption and the market maker exemption. Schedule 2 to the Bill also fast-tracks the process for foreign financial services providers that apply for an AFS licence by exempting them from the fit and proper person test if they are authorised to provide financial services in a comparable overseas regulatory regime.Explanatory memorandum
Schedule 3 to the Bill streamlines and modernises the legislative framework under which Australia fulfils its financial obligations to MDBs and the IMF. The amendments introduce special appropriations to support all current and future financial obligations Australia has with MDBs and make other amendments to reduce future administrative burden.Explanatory memorandum
Context
Australia’s life insurance industry introduced a partial moratorium in 2019 after a parliamentary inquiry raised concerns that genetic test results were deterring people from getting tested. Treasury then found the problem was still affecting uptake, and the government turned its 2024 ban announcement into this bill to make the protection permanent in law.
Industry moratorium begins
After a parliamentary inquiry into life insurance, the industry introduced a partial moratorium on using genetic test results in underwriting.
Explanatory memorandum ↗Treasury opens consultation
Treasury asked the public in 2023 how insurers using genetic test results was affecting genetic testing and research participation.
Explanatory memorandum ↗Government announces full ban
In September 2024 the government said it would ban life insurers from requesting or using adverse genetic test results and put ASICThe Australian Securities and Investments Commission, which enforces parts of Australia’s corporate and financial services law. in charge of enforcement.
Explanatory memorandum ↗Bill introduced to Parliament
The Albanese Government introduced the bill to turn the promised ban into law and stop life insurers using adverse genetic testing information in underwriting.
Treasury Ministers ↗Testing concerns persist
By 2025 Treasury said Australians were still delaying or skipping genetic testing because of life insurance worries.
Explanatory memorandum ↗Parliament passes ban
Parliament passed the bill in 2026, clearing the way for the new genetic testing protections to take effect.
Treasury Ministers ↗Legislative route
The bill was formally presented to the chamber and read a first time, which starts its parliamentary journey.
Introduced and read a first time
A minister or sponsoring member moved the second reading, opening the main debate on the bill's purpose and principles.
Second reading moved
Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills considered the bill in Scrutiny Digest 2 of 2026 on 04/02/2026. It raised delegation of legislative powers and parliamentary scrutiny issues, including delegated legislation modifying or exempting primary legislation (henry viii).
Considered in published report
Scrutiny Digest 2 of 2026The Senate Economics Legislation CommitteeA Senate committee that examines Treasury bills and takes submissions before reporting to Parliament. inquired into the bill and reported on its four schedules, covering limits on life insurers’ use of genetic information, foreign financial services licensing exemptions, multilateral development bank amendments, and repeal of Stage 2 financial adviser registration. The report focused mainly on human rights issues, finding that Schedules 1 and 2 may limit rights but in a way described as reasonable and proportionate, while Schedules 3 and 4 were said not to raise human rights issues.
Referred; report published
Committee report (26 Feb 2026)Members debated the bill in principle before the chamber decided whether to keep considering it.
Members debated the bill in principle before the chamber decided whether to keep considering it.
The chamber agreed to the bill at second reading, meaning it accepted the bill in principle and allowed it to continue.
Second reading agreed to
The chamber agreed to the bill at third reading, which completed passage through that chamber.
Third reading agreed to
The bill was formally presented to the chamber and read a first time, which starts its parliamentary journey.
Introduced and read a first time
A minister or sponsoring member moved the second reading, opening the main debate on the bill's purpose and principles.
Second reading moved
The chamber agreed to the bill at second reading, meaning it accepted the bill in principle and allowed it to continue.
Second reading agreed to
The chamber agreed to the bill at third reading, which completed passage through that chamber.
Third reading agreed to
Key criticism
The main criticism was that the bill leaves too much for later review or regulation, with some members warning about insurer workarounds, a five-year review window, and delegated powers that could modify key definitions. The concerns came mainly from crossbench amendments and the Senate scrutiny committee, while broader support for the ban remained intact.
Criticism was narrow and focused on safeguards.
Review too slow
The bill was criticised for waiting five years before the mandatory review, with an amendment seeking a three-year review instead.
Definitions too flexible
One amendment sought to stop regulations from overriding the bill’s definitions of genetic testing and protected genetic information.
Too much delegated power
The scrutiny committee raised concerns about delegated legislation modifying primary law and weakening parliamentary scrutiny.
Further sources
Votes
The bill passed both chambers on the voices. The counted divisions below were about amendments or procedure, not final passage.
House agreed to the bill's third reading on the voices, so there is no list of individual Aye and No votes for final passage in that chamber.
Passed on the voices
In a voice vote, members call out Aye or No and the presiding officer judges which side has it. Individual names are only recorded if a formal division is called.
Senate agreed to the bill's third reading on the voices, so there is no list of individual Aye and No votes for final passage in that chamber.
Passed on the voices
In a voice vote, members call out Aye or No and the presiding officer judges which side has it. Individual names are only recorded if a formal division is called.
Recorded amendment and procedural votes grouped by chamber. Expand a vote to see the party breakdown.
House
Moved by Monique Ryan (Crossbench). Defeated 10 to 66. Support came from Centre Alliance, Greens, and minor parties and independents. Opposition came from Labor and Liberal.
Defeat kept the bill's five-year review timetable unchanged.
Defeated 9 to 64. Support came from Greens and minor parties and independents. Opposition came from Labor and Liberal.
Defeat left key definitions alterable through regulations.
This list includes amendment votes, procedural votes and votes on the bill itself.
Parliamentary debate
Start here — lead voices
Mulino supports the bill, arguing it will ban life insurers from using genetic testing information so Australians are not deterred from potentially life-saving tests, while also making other Treasury law changes on foreign financial service provider relief, multilateral development bank and IMFThe International Monetary Fund, a global institution that lends to countries and supports financial stability. arrangements, and financial adviser registration.
Read in Hansard ↗Monique Ryan supports the bill as a long-overdue reform to stop life insurers discriminating on the basis of genetic test results, arguing it will remove a major barrier to people accessing genetic testing and better health care.
Read in Hansard ↗Sophie Scamps supports the bill, arguing it is urgently needed to end genetic discrimination in life insurance, remove a barrier to genetic testing and restore fairness and trust.
Read in Hansard ↗Coffey supports the bill, arguing it will stop life insurers from using adverse genetic test results, align insurance and anti-discrimination law, and encourage Australians to pursue genetic testing and research without fear of financial penalty.
Read in Hansard ↗All speeches by bloc
25 speakers · 29 contributions · 25 support
“That's what this bill is here to do. It gives Australians reassurance against genetic discrimination in life insurance. It offers hope to people considering genetic testing or participation in research. It aligns our insurance law with our anti-discrimination framework. It establishes enforcement provisions that give reform real force. It modernises financial service regulation, supports Australia's international economic engagement and removes unnecessary red tape. Most of all, it says to Australians living with uncertainty about their health, quite simply: get the test, join the research, have the conversation with your doctor, seek the information that could help you or help your family. This government will not leave you exposed for doing so. That is fair, that is humane and that is exactly why this House should support this bill.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“Mr HILL (Bruce—Assistant Minister for Citizenship, Customs and Multicultural Affairs and Assistant Minister for International Education) (19:12): Thank you, Deputy Speaker. I am very eager to speak on this bill. I strongly support the Treasury Laws Amendment (Genetic Testing Protections in Life Insurance and Other Measures) Bill 2025, which will ban the use of genetic test results in life insurance.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“In conclusion, all parts of this bill are important, but, most importantly, we're removing the barrier for vulnerable Australians seeking more information about their own health. This is good for those individuals, good for our healthcare system and good for our society. I commend this bill to the House.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“We promised to ban the use of adverse genetic test results in life insurance. We are delivering on that promise. This parliament has a choice. We can cling to outdated frameworks that force people into silence or hesitation, or we can embrace a future where science advances, prevention expands and fairness underpins our laws. For the people of Melbourne, for families across this country, for every young person considering a test that could change their future, I know whose side I am on. I commend this bill to the House.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“Mr REPACHOLI (Hunter) (18:42): I rise to speak on the Treasury Laws Amendment (Genetic Testing Protections in Life Insurance and Other Measures) Bill 2025. This is an important bill. It's a bill about fairness, it's a bill about trust and, above all, it's a bill about making sure Australians can make decisions about their health without fear. At its heart, this legislation delivers on a clear commitment. We said we would stop life insurers from using genetic testing results against Australians. This bill does exactly that. Genetic testing saves lives. It allows doctors to identify serious risks early. It allows people to take preventive action. It allows families to understand their health and plan for the future as well. But, for too long, Australians have faced an unacceptable choice: do they take a genetic test that could protect their health, or do they avoid testing because they're worried it will affect their ability to get life insurance? That's not a choice anyone should have to make.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“I commend the bill to the House.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“Ms JORDAN-BAIRD (Gorton) (17:10): Today I rise to support the Treasury Laws Amendment (Genetic Testing Protections in Life Insurance and Other Measures) Bill 2025, which was introduced by the Assistant Treasurer, and I commend him for doing so. This amendment to the Insurance Contracts Act 1984 is a significant one because genetic testing can save lives. Genetic testing supports medical practitioners to prevent illnesses, diagnose conditions earlier, and treat and monitor a range of cancers, cancer predisposition syndromes and other heritable conditions sooner. It plays a critical role in monitoring all of this. For many Australians, one major thing has stood in the way of getting tested for and treating conditions early, and that's the concern that life insurers will use that information against them. That's not right—and, what's more, it takes one easy fix, and that fix is this bill in front of us.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“Across the parliament there's pretty uniform agreement on this legislation, and this is something the whole parliament can be congratulated on. It's one of the most important pieces of legislation to pass through this parliament in the 10 years I've been here; I really do feel that. This will open the way for further advances in health care based on genomics that we know will be coming towards us as a tsunami in the next few years. The people that have promoted this bill—I'll mention Jane Tiller again, from Monash University, and Stephen Jones, Daniel Mulino and many other members of parliament that we've heard speak—need to be proud of the fact that this parliament is looking to the future in health care by introducing this legislation. I congratulate my paediatric colleague Monique Ryan, who's here today, who I know has also been a very strong supporter of this legislation, as have many other members of parliament—too many to mention.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“Amendments like these are what good governments do. It has been a long journey to get here but one that this government—starting under former assistant treasurer Jones and now introduced into the House by the Assistant Treasurer—is doing in consultation with advocates, insurers and the health community. This legislation will fix problems, remove barriers, back Australians to look after their own health and encourage them to do so. Australians should never have to choose between their health and their financial security, and with this legislation—when it passes through this parliament—they'll no longer have to. I commend it to the House.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“Mr FRENCH (Moore) (18:29): I rise to speak in support of the Treasury Laws Amendment (Genetic Testing Protections in Life Insurance and Other Measures) Bill 2025. This is a bill about fairness, about modern medicine and about ensuring that Australians are not punished for taking responsibility for their own health.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“I rise in support of the Treasury Laws Amendment (Genetic Testing Protections in Life Insurance and Other Measures) Bill 2025.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“It's an amendment that has been a decade in the making. I again pay particular tribute to Dr Jane Tiller, whose tireless campaigning over the last few years has now seen deserved success. I commend the bill to the House.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“This bill is about fairness in health, confidence in financial markets, modernisation of international engagement and sensible regulatory reform. This bill means greater confidence for people to pursue genetic testing without fear, stronger access to global investment opportunities, responsible participation in international financial institutions and reduced regulatory burden where it does not serve consumers. Our government is getting on with the job—removing barriers, modernising systems and putting Australians first. I commend this bill to the House.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“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.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“That is why I rise today to support the Treasury Laws Amendment (Genetic Testing Protections in Life Insurance and Other Measures) Bill 2025.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“This bill delivers that. It delivers on a clear commitment, it ends a longstanding inequity, and it ensures that Australians no longer have to choose between their health and their financial security. I commend this bill to the House.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“This bill does many other things in other schedules. I support all of them, and I commend the bill to the House.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“I spoke about the changes being based squarely on the evidence of harm created by the current laws. This legislation also reflects something fundamental about fairness. Fairness is at the heart of Labor policy. Australians believe in a fair go. They believe that people should not be penalised for taking responsible steps to protect their health. I agree, and I commend the bill to the House.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“In conclusion, it's people over products. As a nurse, I've always believed that prevention is better than cure. As a PhD candidate, I understand that the data tells us the same thing. And, as the member for Bullwinkel, I know my community expects us to put health ahead of insurance industry loopholes. For 10 years, those opposite ignored the genetic underclass. They allowed this system to persist, where Australians were punished for being proactive about their health. The Labor Albanese government is fixing that. We're telling every Australian: your DNA belongs to you, not your insurer. We are choosing science, we are choosing prevention and we are choosing people. I commend this bill to the House.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“I thank the minister who's at the table for his role in bringing this to the parliament. I also thank the previous minister, who did a lot of the groundwork on it as well, because, as the member for Macarthur said, this has been an effort of so many people to bring it to the parliament. As the member for Macarthur quite rightly points out, this is important legislation, and I commend it to the House.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
Hansard records 2 separate contributions by Abdo on this bill. They are grouped here so the speaker is listed once.
BILLS - Treasury Laws Amendment (Genetic Testing Protections in Life Insurance and Other Measures) Bill 2025 - Second Reading
Basem Abdo supports the bill, especially schedule 1, arguing it is a fairness reform that will stop life insurers using genetic test results to discriminate and remove a deterrent to life-saving genetic testing. He says evidence from research, consultation and stakeholder concerns shows the current voluntary approach has not adequately protected Australians.
“Mr ABDO (Calwell) (19:24): I was really enjoying the assistant minister's contribution, so apologies for taking up some of his time. I rise to speak in support of this bill and particularly the reforms contained in schedule 1, which will prohibit life insurers from using genetic test results to discriminate against Australians seeking life insurance. At its heart, this reform is about something very simple. It's about fairness. Australians believe deeply in the idea of a fair go. We believe people should not be penalised for things beyond their control. We believe that the benefits of modern science should improve lives, not create new barriers or new forms of discrimination.”Read this contribution in Hansard ↗
BILLS - Treasury Laws Amendment (Genetic Testing Protections in Life Insurance and Other Measures) Bill 2025 - Second Reading
Abdo supports the bill, arguing that voluntary industry self-regulation has failed and that banning life insurers from using predictive genetic test results is necessary to stop discrimination and remove a deterrent to potentially lifesaving testing. He says the bill provides enforceable protections while also modernising parts of the financial regulatory framework through its other schedules.
“It is for those reasons that I commend this bill to the House.”Read this contribution in Hansard ↗
“We are acting on behalf of vulnerable Australians. The most affluent can get away without buying life insurance, but vulnerable Australians often feel a need to purchase life insurance in order to forestall the risk that their family are left adversely affected by the economic consequences of their death. This bill will ensure a greater sense of equity and protect some of the most vulnerable in our community. It will be good for medical research, and that is why it enjoys the backing of so many medical research companies. It will be good for health, which is why it enjoys the backing of so many medical advocacy bodies, such as the Australian Medical Association and the Royal Australian College of General Practitioners. It will bring peace of mind to Australians who want to go and find out more about their genetic history, either through curious inquiry or because they are keen to see what genetic testing reveals about them and how they can help their own health and that of their families. I commend the bill to the House.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
Hansard records 4 separate contributions by Mulino on this bill. They are grouped here so the speaker is listed once.
BILLS - Treasury Laws Amendment (Genetic Testing Protections in Life Insurance and Other Measures) Bill 2025 - Second Reading
Mulino supports the bill, arguing it will ban life insurers from using genetic testing information so Australians are not deterred from potentially life-saving tests, while also making other Treasury law changes on foreign financial service provider relief, multilateral development bank and IMFThe International Monetary Fund, a global institution that lends to countries and supports financial stability. arrangements, and financial adviser registration. He says the measures will improve health, regulatory certainty and reduce unnecessary administrative burden.
“By putting this ban in place, we will remove this barrier, so more Australians will access genetic testing and, in turn, its full benefits for patients, public health and medical research can be delivered.”Read this contribution in Hansard ↗
BILLS - Treasury Laws Amendment (Genetic Testing Protections in Life Insurance and Other Measures) Bill 2025 - Second Reading
Mulino supports the bill, arguing it will ban life insurers from using genetic test results and implement other financial-sector and international finance reforms, including foreign financial service provider exemptions, multilateral development bank framework updates and removal of stage 2 adviser registration. He says these measures provide certainty, reduce unnecessary burden and improve regulatory settings.
“I commend the bill to the House.”Read this contribution in Hansard ↗
BILLS;Treasury Laws Amendment (Genetic Testing Protections in Life Insurance and Other Measures) Bill 2025;Consideration in Detail - 25 Mar 2026
Mulino says the government opposes the proposed amendment and argues the bill’s regulation-making framework is needed to futureproof the ban on genetic testing in life insurance as medical technology evolves. He says the bill’s delegated powers are justified and remain subject to parliamentary disallowance.
“The government recognises the importance of this legislation in futureproofing the ban and ensuring it continues to operate effectively, particularly as health and medical technology continue to advance. The purpose of the regulations is to enable the legislation to promptly respond to health and medical advancements which might necessitate modifications to the operation of the ban. The legislation establishing the ban is complex and it is important that it is futureproofed, particularly in the early stages of its implementation. The inclusion of the wording is important to putting it beyond doubt that the regulations can override the primary law, particularly where there is overlap. Without the wording, there could be confusion as to whether the primary law or the regulation takes priority, and it may ultimately limit the ability of the legislation to keep pace with ongoing advances in health and medical technology.”Read this contribution in Hansard ↗
BILLS;Treasury Laws Amendment (Genetic Testing Protections in Life Insurance and Other Measures) Bill 2025;Consideration in Detail - 25 Mar 2026
Mulino says the government supports the idea of reviews but rejects this amendment requiring reviews every three years, arguing that three years is too short to properly assess the ban’s effects and would create unnecessary administrative burden.
“Dr MULINO (Fraser—Assistant Treasurer and Minister for Financial Services) (11:27): The government supports the need for reviews and the benefit of reviews, but does not support this particular amendment. Three-yearly reviews may not be sufficient to adequately assess the impact of the ban. Once the ban is implemented, it will take time for its impact to fully develop, and three years may not provide enough time for this to occur. Additionally, undertaking a statutory review every three years is likely to give rise to a significant administrative burden with potentially less than commensurate benefits. Three years is likely not enough time to effectively implement and monitor the impacts of any legislative changes arising from recommendations in prior reviews.”Read this contribution in Hansard ↗
“By putting this ban in place, we will remove this barrier, so more Australians will access genetic testing and in turn, its full benefits for patients, public health and medical research can be delivered.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“Mr GEORGANAS (Adelaide) (19:23): 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.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
5 speakers · 5 support
“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.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“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.'”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“This bill supports better health outcomes, and that's why the coalition backs it.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“I commend brave people like Meg for sharing their stories so vulnerably and so charitably. I commend researchers and advocates like Dr Jane Tiller. I think it is a great moment for this parliament at a time where we quite rightly have a very robust contest of ideas on a number of contentious issues—and this place should be a place of strong debate. But I think there are some topics where the community and the broader public want to see us come together as a parliament to champion an issue and to progress a cause that is worthy of support, and this bill does just that. I'm very pleased to be part of a coalition who has had a strong track record of supporting this issue, and I'm very pleased to commend this bill to the House.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“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.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
1 speaker · 1 unclear
“This study by Edith Cowan University has brought once more to light the whole gamut of this new world we're in with genetic testing. Genetic testing has to have some ring-roads put around it. If it doesn't, it will become incredibly Orwellian in terms of the type of world that we want to create. Of course, the attributes being tested for don't stop with people's predisposition for wanting male children, because that's where it generally moves towards—male. It also comes to other attributes that people wish to select for, and they can do it by genetic testing. They can do it for eye colour. They can do it for height. They can do it for whether a person has the propensity to become obese. All these things become part of this rather dark and perverse new form of eugenics in trying to create a new form of humankind—one that fits our ideal model for what we believe to be the perfect human being. It's completely wrong. It's a very bad thing.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
5 speakers · 7 contributions · 5 support
Hansard records 2 separate contributions by Ryan, including an amendment-moving contribution. They are grouped here so the speaker is listed once.
BILLS - Treasury Laws Amendment (Genetic Testing Protections in Life Insurance and Other Measures) Bill 2025 - Second Reading
Monique Ryan supports the bill as a long-overdue reform to stop life insurers discriminating on the basis of genetic test results, arguing it will remove a major barrier to people accessing genetic testing and better health care. She also criticises aspects of the bill, including its non-retrospective operation and the need for stronger regulations and earlier review, while still commending the bill to the House.
“Individuals should be able to receive optimal health care without the fear that it could compromise their ability to obtain life insurance cover on reasonable terms. That's why I support these reforms, which will remove that powerful disincentive and which will encourage more Australians to benefit from potentially life-changing genetic testing. For many Australians, that legislation will be transformative. The bill will operate by regulation, ensuring that the legislation can remain effective, even in the face of very rapidly evolving genetic testing technologies, and individuals can consent to use of their genetic information in underwriting so long as it does not disadvantage them.”Read this contribution in Hansard ↗
Moved amendment
Ryan supports the bill as an important measure to remove disincentives to life-saving genetic testing, while arguing it should be strengthened by requiring the statutory review to occur after three years rather than five. She also warns that the bill’s non-retrospective operation and possible workarounds by insurers will need close monitoring.
“I have moved this amendment to the Treasury Laws Amendment (Genetic Testing Protections in Life Insurance and Other Measures) Bill 2025. This important bill recognises that we have to remove disincentives for people who want to access life-saving genetic testing. The amendment that I am moving strengthens that intention by requiring the minister to commence and complete the statutory review of this legislation sooner than the government currently proposes—in fact, as soon as is practicable after three years, rather than five.”Read this contribution in Hansard ↗
Hansard records 2 separate contributions by Scamps on this bill. They are grouped here so the speaker is listed once.
BILLS - Treasury Laws Amendment (Genetic Testing Protections in Life Insurance and Other Measures) Bill 2025 - Second Reading
Sophie Scamps supports the bill, arguing it is urgently needed to end genetic discrimination in life insurance, remove a barrier to genetic testing and restore fairness and trust. She also backs a proposed amendment to require reviews every three years instead of every five years.
“Dr SCAMPS (Mackellar) (16:23): I rise to speak in support of the Treasury Laws Amendment (Genetic Testing Protections in Life Insurance and Other Measures) Bill 2025. The bill amends the Insurance Contracts Act 1984 to prohibit life insurers from requesting, using or relying on the results of an individual's genetic tests when deciding whether to offer life insurance cover or the terms and conditions of that cover, including pricing and exclusions. This applies to genetic tests undertaken for clinical care, for research participation or for personal or preventive reasons. Genetic discrimination in life insurance will also be unlawful under the Disability Discrimination Act.”Read this contribution in Hansard ↗
BILLS;Treasury Laws Amendment (Genetic Testing Protections in Life Insurance and Other Measures) Bill 2025;Consideration in Detail - 25 Mar 2026
Sophie Scamps supports the bill, saying it will ban insurers from using genetic test results in life insurance decisions and address harmful genetic discrimination. She also moves two amendments to stop regulations overriding key definitions, arguing this would better protect the bill’s safeguards from being weakened in future.
“While I strongly support this bill, I will be moving two amendments to strengthen it. These amendments respond to concerns raised by the Australian Human Rights Commission regarding sections 33E(2) and 33F(5) of the bill. As currently drafted, these sections allow regulations to override the definitions of key terms, such as 'genetic testing' and 'protected genetic information'. Specifically, the provisions state that the regulations 'have effect despite anything else in this section'. This means that regulations could, in effect, redefine what constitutes protected genetic information, even if that contradicts the definitions set out in the legislation itself. This creates a risk that the scope of protections could be narrowed in the future. In doing so, it dilutes the strength and certainty of the ban. It is not appropriate for regulations to have the power to limit or expand the meaning of terms that are so central to the operation of the legislation.”Read this contribution in Hansard ↗
“I welcome this bill and I urge the government to continue ensuring that discrimination when it comes to life insurance is addressed in all its forms.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“But to be honest, we have been slow to act on this. In 2003, the Australian Law Reform Commission first recommended that the life insurance industry needed safeguards around the use of genetic testing—that is, 23 years ago. In 2018, a joint parliamentary inquiry into the life insurance industry recommended a moratorium on the use of genetic testing results in life insurance. In 2019, the life insurance industry introduced a partial industry-led moratorium to set policy limits. While I commend the industry for taking the first step, it's overdue that Australia committed to the change. I wrote to the Assistant Treasurer about this issue back in 2023 and again in 2025, when I was contacted by members of my community and also by others, particularly Dr Jane Tiller from Monash University, who has been a leading light in this area. I think the point is that we have come to the right conclusion. I welcome this bill. I support this bill, and I would also say that parliament needs to work at a greater speed than we currently do when issues are raised with us over a long period of time. I also recognise the Council of Australian Life Insurance, CALI, for getting behind some of these changes. It is really important that the life insurance industry is working with these changes as opposed to trying to fight them.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“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.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
Record
House · Introduced and read a first time
Introduced
The bill was formally presented to the chamber and read a first time, which starts its parliamentary journey.
House · Second reading moved
Second reading opened
A minister or sponsoring member moved the second reading, opening the main debate on the bill's purpose and principles.
House · Second reading debate
Second reading debate
Members debated the bill in principle before the chamber decided whether to keep considering it.
House · Second reading debate
Second reading debate
Members debated the bill in principle before the chamber decided whether to keep considering it.
House · Second reading agreed to
Second reading agreed
The chamber agreed to the bill at second reading, meaning it accepted the bill in principle and allowed it to continue.
House · Consideration in detail debate
Consideration in detail debate
House · Third reading agreed to
Third reading agreed
The chamber agreed to the bill at third reading, which completed passage through that chamber.
Senate · Introduced and read a first time
Introduced
The bill was formally presented to the chamber and read a first time, which starts its parliamentary journey.
Senate · Second reading moved
Second reading opened
A minister or sponsoring member moved the second reading, opening the main debate on the bill's purpose and principles.
Senate · Second reading agreed to
Second reading agreed
The chamber agreed to the bill at second reading, meaning it accepted the bill in principle and allowed it to continue.
Senate · Third reading agreed to
Third reading agreed
The chamber agreed to the bill at third reading, which completed passage through that chamber.
Senate Economics Legislation Committee
Referred; report published
The Senate Economics Legislation Committee inquired into the bill and reported on its four schedules, covering limits on life insurers’ use of genetic information, foreign financial services licensing exemptions, multilateral development bank amendments, and repeal of Stage 2 financial adviser registration. The report focused mainly on human rights issues, finding that Schedules 1 and 2 may limit rights but in a way described as reasonable and proportionate, while Schedules 3 and 4 were said not to raise human rights issues.
Referred to Committee (27 Nov 2025): Senate Economics Legislation Committee; Committee report (26 Feb 2026)
Committee report (26 Feb 2026)Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills
Considered in published report
Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills considered the bill in Scrutiny Digest 2 of 2026 on 04/02/2026. It raised delegation of legislative powers and parliamentary scrutiny issues, including delegated legislation modifying or exempting primary legislation (henry viii).
Considered by scrutiny committee (4 Feb 2026): Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills; Scrutiny Digest 2 of 2026
Scrutiny Digest 2 of 2026