Genetic testing results now protected from life insurers, new laws widely welcomed

According to the Assistant Treasurer, Dr Daniel Mulino’s media release, the legislation will apply to life insurance contract decisions made on or after six months following royal assent. The legislation is subject to statutory review every five years, and it is subject to individual dispute resolution via the Australian Financial Complaints Authority (AFCA). The Act is effective as of 8 October, 2026.

In the second Parliamentary reading of the Treasury Laws Amendment (Genetic Testing Protections in Life Insurance and Other Measures) Bill 2025, Mulino said: “Genetic testing can help save lives, supporting medical practitioners to prevent, diagnose, treat and monitor a range of cancers, cancer predisposition syndromes and other heritable conditions.”

He added that the government recognises the importance of genetic and genomic health technologies.

“We support the use of genetic tests increasingly becoming a part of our preventive healthcare system. Although genetic testing uptake is on the rise, a recent genetic testing study from Monash University shows that more than half of participants that discontinued their involvement in the study did so because of concerns around accessing affordable insurance.”

Ray Giblett and Timothy Chan, both Partners at Norton Rose Fulbright Australia, say the Bill was not a contentious one and various parties stand to gain.

“The Council of Australian Life Insurers publicly supported a ban on the use of genetic test results in insurance underwriting,” Giblett says.

“Those who stand to gain most are individuals considering genetic testing, who will no longer face the choice between protecting their health and protecting their financial future, as well as researchers and the broader public health system. Although accepted and proposed by life insurers, the downside is that they will be unable to rely on more accurate genetic data to price and exclude risks.”

Chan explains that life insurers bear the principal regulatory burden, although the industry has been complying with a self-imposed moratorium on using genetic information in life insurance since June 2019.

Under the moratorium, life insurers cannot ask for genetic testing information unless the insurance sought is above certain caps. The moratorium is an obligation under the Life Insurance Code of Practice.

Though the ban does offer significant protections to individuals undertaking genetic tests and holding, or intending to hold, life insurance, it does not prevent individuals from voluntarily providing genetic test results along with written consent. If this occurs, these voluntarily provided results may be used in underwriting. The ban also does not limit the existing freedoms of insurers to access and use information such as existing signs, symptoms, or diagnoses, for the purpose of underwriting life insurance.

Life insurance, unlike health insurance, is risk-rated.

“That means that life insurance premiums are individually calculated to reflect each applicant’s unique risk profile,” says Giblett. “Insurers have their own rating systems but can take into account factors such as medical history, family history, age, smoker status and occupation.”

In contrast, private health insurance in Australia operates on a “community-rated” basis under the Private Health Insurance Act 2007.

Giblett says, “This prevents insurers from charging different premiums based on a person’s age, gender or medical history. Accordingly, a person’s genetic testing information cannot be used by private health insurers to tailor a health insurance premium.”

He adds that technological advancements have contributed to more data than ever being available for underwriting purposes, and genetic testing is becoming more widely used and available.

The amendment resulted from perceived weaknesses that remained in existence despite a total ban announced in September 2024 on the ability of insurers to request or utilise adverse genetic testing results as part of life insurance underwriting.

Prior to the amendment passed on 1 April, the existing life insurance and anti-discrimination regulatory frameworks allowed insurers to request and use a life insured’s genetic testing results when considering whether to offer life insurance to that individual, and on what terms.

Both civil and criminal offences apply for non-compliance, regulated by the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC). An insurer may be subject to both a strict liability offence (punishable by up to 60 penalty units or approximately $12,200 at time of writing) and a civil penalty provision (punishable by up to 5,000 penalty units or $1,017,550 at time of writing) for contravening the ban.

In a media statement, Disability Discrimination Commissioner Rosemary Kayess said, “These historic reforms represent a major step forward for equality, dignity and public health. They recognise a simple but vital principle: no one should be forced to choose between protecting their health and protecting their financial future.”

Kayess added, “The law responds to years of community advocacy and research showing that fear of insurance discrimination was deterring individuals and families from undertaking preventive and diagnostic genetic testing. Genetic discrimination is a form of disability discrimination.”

Human Rights Commissioner Lorraine Finlay said in a statement that the reforms strengthen trust in both the health and insurance systems.

“They promote fairness, consistency and confidence and provide clearer legal certainty for both consumers and insurers. The changes support early detection and prevention and send a clear message that discrimination has no place in access to essential financial services.”

Finlay added, “We hope this will give people greater confidence to pursue genetic testing where it may benefit their health, knowing that sensitive health information will not be used unfairly. Over time, that confidence can translate into better health outcomes and stronger public trust.”

According to Jane Tiller, Ethical, Legal & Social Adviser in Public Health Genomics at Monash University, writing in The Conversation, “protected genetic material includes all health information that predicts or infers someone’s risk of future disease based on the results of genetic testing. In other words, life insurers cannot deny you cover or charge you higher premiums if you took a genetic test that predicted a higher risk of cancer, for example.”

Tiller pointed out that the definition does not include someone’s actual diagnosis, even if this was determined by the genetic testing. Individuals must answer in “good faith” when making an application for cover.

If you conceal health information from a life insurer, or deliberately mislead the insurer about health history, this is considered by AFCA to be a “fraudulent nondisclosure”, potentially resulting in policies being voided, and all premiums paid over time being forfeited.

A key fault of this amendment, as Tiller points out, is that travel insurers are – like life insurers – dependent on risk-rating in underwriting. Travel insurers are not beholden to these amendments and can still request information resulting from genetic testing.

Chan says travel insurance and other forms of general insurance are not captured by the ban.

“This appears to have been a deliberate policy choice rather than an oversight: the legislative focus was on life insurance. The Australian Human Rights Commission has, however, indicated that it will continue to advocate for fair treatment across all insurance types. Having said that, it is uncommon for genetic testing information to be used in travel insurance.”

From 27 November 2023 to 31 January 2024, the Federal Government undertook public consultation on a potential regulatory framework for the use of genetic testing in life insurance underwriting. The amendments in Schedule 1 to the Bill were announced by the then Assistant Treasurer on 11 September 2024.

Introduced on 26 November last year, the Treasury Laws Amendment (Genetic Testing Protections in Life Insurance and Other Measures) Bill 2025 amends: the Insurance Contracts Act 1984 (Cth) 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; the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Cth) to align Australia’s anti-discrimination law with the ban; the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) to provide four licensing exemptions for foreign financial services providers; and the Financial Sector Reform (Hayne Royal Commission Response—Better Advice) Act 2021 (Cth) to remove the requirement that individual financial advisers register themselves with the Australian Securities and Investments Commission annually from 1 July 2026. It also repeals the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development Regulation 2012.

The Bill as passed specifies that an insurer will be in contravention of the ban if:

• the insurer makes a life insurance contract decision in relation to a contract of life insurance or proposed contract of life insurance;
• in making that decision, the insurer takes into account the results of underwriting conducted in relation to a life insured; and
• protected genetic information about the life insured was solicited or used for the purpose of the underwriting by the insurer or any other person who conducted or assisted with the underwriting (e.g. underwriters).

This Act fulfils a need that the life insurance law community had been concerned about, and provides clarity for insurers, the science and medical sector, and individuals undergoing genetic testing, about their rights and responsibilities.

Giblett explains that the Act enshrines in legislation what was previously a self-imposed industry moratorium, which limited the use of genetic test results for life policies below certain financial thresholds. The moratorium was not enforceable by force of law.

He says, “Accordingly, the Act goes further by implementing a legislative ban backed by strict liability offences and civil penalties of up to $1.65 million. In this way, it provides legal certainty and enforceability beyond the industry moratorium.”

While individuals can still voluntarily provide genetic testing results to life insurers, they cannot be forced to do so.

“Individuals no longer have to face a choice between obtaining financial security through life insurance and obtaining genetic testing for medical reasons,” says Giblett. “It also provides assurance to those individuals who undergo genetic testing when participating in medical research that the genetic testing results will not affect their ability to obtain life insurance, or the terms on which life insurance is provided.”

There is a mandatory five-year statutory review, acknowledging that the legislation may need to evolve alongside medical and health advancements.

The Australian Medical Association (AMA) also welcomed the new legislation.

AMA Vice President Associate Professor Julian Rait said the reform delivers on years of advocacy from clinicians, researchers, and consumer groups who have long warned that the fear of insurance discrimination discourages Australians from undertaking potentially life-saving genetic testing.

“This is a major win for patients and for public health,” Rait said.

“Genetic testing and genomic research have the power to transform healthcare by identifying risks early and guiding timely, targeted treatment.”

He added, “Ensuring a patient’s genetic status cannot be used against them is essential to support participation in both clinical testing and genomic research. Partial bans or voluntary moratoriums create confusion and deter people from accessing tests that could guide early diagnosis or prevention.”