Zali Steggall
Warringah · Independent · Australia
“These amendments don't prevent the government from reforming the NDIS. They don't prevent the government from managing costs and they don't prevent the government from improving sustainability, but they do ensure that participants can seek reassessment when their plan no longer meets their needs.”
“The NDIS was built on a simple promise that Australians with disability would have access to the reasonable and necessary supports they needed to live with dignity, participate in the community and exercise choice and control over their own lives. The NDIS must be sustainable. It must be well governed.”
“If a decision has a practical effect of cutting a participant's support, then it should be treated as it is: a decision that affects that participant. Put simply, if your funding is significantly cut, you should have review rights. The third amendment deals with the review rights where funding is significantly reduced.”
“I rise to recognise the incredible work of some incredibly passionate women at the Arise Foundation and to call for greater investment in recovery and healing for women leaving violence. For too many women, the crisis does not end when they leave.”
“Reform must not mean that people are pushed away from work, study or volunteering because the supports that make participation possible have been overlooked by a system that has become more and more automated. The first amendment deals with plan reassessment.”
“by leave—I move amendments (1) to (4) as circulated in my name together: (1) Schedule 1, item 21, page 9 (line 22), at the end of subsection 48A(1), add: ; and (e) alternatively to paragraphs (a) to(d), the participant demonstrates that: (i) the supports are no longer available; or (ii) the plan is insufficient to meet the participant's r…”
The complete record
Every one of 837 lines we hold for Zali Steggall, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 5 of 17.
“The treaty helps protect the parts of the ocean that no one country owns, where there haven't been enough proper rules, and it makes it easier to create protected ocean areas and harder for people and nations to damage marine life without checks. It also means countries have to think more carefully about the harm their activities could cause before they go ahead. This matters so much. Currently, areas of national jurisdiction cover nearly half the planet. So this is a huge share of the ocean, yet governance has lagged far behind the science and far behind the scale of the threat to those areas. The treaty was designed to change that. So the bill is necessary now—and I welcome it—to ratify and domestically implement the rules that were agreed to within the high seas treaty.”
“The High Seas Biodiversity Bill 2026 is domestic legislation that Australia needs to finally ratify the high seas treaty, which is now in force internationally. The bill establishes three core things: a regime for marine genetic resources, a framework for recognising and managing protected or specially managed areas of the high seas, and an environmental impact assessment regime for certain activities that may damage the marine environment. It is the world's first legally binding agreement to protect marine life in international waters, and it is a historic moment for international ocean conservation efforts. After nearly two decades of negotiations, the high seas treaty will govern almost two-thirds of the planet's ocean ecosystems, which are under threat from overfishing, commercial shipping and pollution.”
“At the heart of the problem is this: global shocks send prices sky high and gas companies enjoy the upside, but the Australian public does not capture a fair share of that windfall. The government just has to get on board with doing something to properly bring back some revenue for the Australian people. What can we do here? We're here discussing it. We've got young students here watching this debate with the hope that they're not going to inherit intergenerational inequity and that they're going to have some revenue in the bank from this government to ensure the right things can be paid for. First, we need to legislate a meaningful tax on gas exports so that the Australian public receives a fair return when global prices surge. Second— ( Time expired )”
“These are students who are hoping to go to university and will have to pay HECS debts. They will be contributing more to Australia's future than the gas export industry. A fair share is not anti industry; it's pro Australia. We need a rules based charge on extraordinary export rents. The proceeds of a 25 per cent tax on natural gas exports should be used for responsible cost-of-living relief and to fund a clean industry transition. We know that every time there are international shocks they have an impact. When Russia invaded Ukraine, global fossil prices spiked and gas exporters made record profits. The price went up and the profits rose about 45 per cent above the pre-2022 average. Yet Australians did not see any of that benefit.”
“Australians are entitled to ask a pretty basic question: how is it that one of the world's biggest gas exporters can raise less from taxing offshore gas profits than the Commonwealth raises from beer excise? Treasury evidence cited publicly this year put beer excise at about $2.7 billion, compared to the PRRT revenue of about $1.5 billion. It is absurd, and Australians know it's absurd; they all know. There is so much support and consensus for us to be properly taxing our gas exporters. To put it plainly—in Australia a night at the pub is being taxed more effectively than the export of a public natural resource. That's not a tax system designed in the national interest. We know that the government collects more from students through HECS and HELP repayments than it does through the PRRT. What do I say to the young people who are here?”
“In fact, a couple of weeks ago I asked the Treasurer, in here, if the government would acknowledge that it actually got the PRRT settings wrong and that the Treasury had recommended it be tighter—an 80 per cent deduction, not the 90 per cent deduction. But, no, the government doesn't want to acknowledge it got those settings wrong. It's digging its heels in despite all that revenue lost for Australians. The Australia Institute estimates that we've forgone so far about $63.8 billion since July 2022—and the government made that policy choice—by not taxing gas export windfalls. It's around $2 million per hour, as I said, which is just mind boggling.”
“This represents a potentially transformative opportunity for the federal budget, yet, throughout the discussion on this matter of public importance, what we've heard is platitudes and government talking points but nothing really genuine when it comes to tackling why we are not getting fair revenue for an Australian resource. The PRRT is a failed government policy. The returns have been patchy and delayed because deductions and project features can push cash payment out for years, and successive budgets have downgraded revenue expectations for the PRRT. I don't have my hopes up that in the upcoming budget, in May, those predictions will be any different.”
“I will start off by giving you a very clear figure. The Australian people lose $2 million per hour in revenue because we are failing to tax the gas export industry appropriately—or some $50 million per day. I ask all government members and backbenchers: how much budget repair and good could we be doing to help Australian households deal with the cost of living and the cost of transport, fuel and so many other things—and offer small-business support—if we just got something fair for Australians' very own resource? Gas is Australians' own resource, and Australians should get the dividend, especially when export prices surge. We are a gas-exporting powerhouse. Around three-quarters of our gas production is shipped overseas. In 2022-23 alone, LNG exports were worth about $92.2 billion.”
“My question is to the Prime Minister. Two years after an Israeli air strike unlawfully killed Australian aid worker Zomi Frankcom in Gaza, Israel has failed to provide transparency, accountability, a formal apology or compensation. The UK and Poland have launched coronial inquiries and commissioned international probes into the death of their citizens. What tangible progress has the government made to secure justice for Zomi since meeting with President Hertzog, and will the government support a humanitarian peace prize in Zomi's honour?”
“So to all those in this place who want to continue culture wars about the risks and the very serious consequences for the future, I would say get with the times.”
“There is no doubt that budget repair is needed. That's why I urge the government to look at the fuel excise rebate. Over $10 billion going to mining has to stop. It simply cannot continue that we have the budget in the state that it's in with the consequences and the crisis we have now. Finally, there is no doubt that it's just unconscionable that we can continue to have excess wartime export profits by the gas industry. The government just needs to admit that it got the settings of the PRRT wrong. Either change those settings or introduce a 25 per cent export tax. We have to balance the budget. We have to build resilience and domestic energy security and, to do that, it will cost. We need to ensure that is done in a balanced and measurable way.”
“So I can support emergency underwriting to keep Australia moving through this short-term shock, but we can't remain complacent while dependent on legacy fossil fuel energies. Those in this place who want to continue the culture wars about this are simply reckless and negligent to what Australians are going to face in the future. The strategic reserve that matters most is the one that reduces oil dependence. Keep the EV FBT exemption, accelerate charging and public transport electrification, and treat climate resilience as a foundation of national and economic resilience. I welcome the announcements today from the government in relation to the assistance to Australians when it comes to the fuel excise, the halving of the excise, and in relation to freight. But, again, these are going to come as massive hits to the budget.”
“So, the fuel crisis demonstrates exactly what we need to urgently electrify our economy and end our dependence on legacy fossil fuels. The other component of this legislation lays the groundwork for a critical mineral strategy reserve by giving Export Finance Australia new powers to enter offtake arrangements, facilitate contracts and stockpile key minerals. These are mechanisms that can give emerging projects commercial certainty, attract investment and increase Australia's involvement in clean energy supply chains. For too long we've been comfortable digging up strategic materials while allowing refining, processing and high-value manufacturing to happen elsewhere. That needs to stop.”
“EVs rose from under two per cent of new sales when the policy began to around 10 per cent of new sales now, with Treasury estimating almost 100,000 vehicles benefiting from the exemption—faster than expected. By all accounts, sales of EVs are now booming as people realise the only way they can in fact inoculate themselves from fuel price shocks is by choosing that, not hybrid and not something that continues to rely on imported fuel. On public transport, again China demonstrates the scale question too. It has the world's highest stock share of electric buses. The international energy agency puts it at around 30 per cent of bus stocks, built over years of industrial policy and procurement. Meanwhile, Australia is still overwhelmingly running diesel fleets, and even recent reporting puts our electric bus share at about one per cent.”
“Whilst it's not immune to this fuel shock, China is actually less exposed than many nations on the transport side because it has electrified more of its economy. That's allowing the Chinese government to introduce fuel price caps, cushioning consumers from price shocks. So it's really important that we look around to see how Australia can do better. We have to treat EV uptake as a fuel security program, not just a culture war as many in this place like to do. Keeping Australians off imported petrol is a strategic objective. It also reduces household exposure to global price spikes permanently, not temporarily. This includes keeping the fringe benefit tax exemption for EVs. Treasury forecasting shows that EV uptake has exceeded early expectation.”
“Countries that electrify faster are less exposed to oil price shocks in their day-to-day economies. China's transformation is the obvious example for all the naysayers who, again, always want to point to the negatives. China has pushed electrification hard. Electric cars were almost half of all car sales there in 2024, with over 11 million cars sold, and electrification across the broader economy is proceeding faster than in the US or the EU by the International Energy Agency's measures. That is a structural buffer against oil price shocks because a bigger share of mobility and industry runs on domestically generated electricity instead of imported oil. China has been investing in renewable energy independence at scale since the early 2000s.”
“If we are to achieve genuine resilience, our transport sector must be electrified. That means buses, fleets, charging infrastructure and heavy vehicles. In fact, for the naysayers who don't think it's possible, just today the Parliamentary Friends of Electric Vehicles and Future Fuels are hosting the Freight Forward summit, with incredible advances and amazing technology and options when it comes to electric heavy vehicle freight options. The impacts of climate change will multiply these risks. Geopolitical instability and wars get magnified by further events. Australia's own National Climate Risk Assessment identifies climate risks across essential goods and services, the economy, infrastructure and national security systems. Resilience that ignores climate change is short lived.”
“But these laws need guardrails to ensure these powers are temporary and not used to finance fossil fuels for any longer than would address the immediate fuel security crisis. To that end, I would urge the government to consider a much earlier period of review for this legislation. Food security and regional resilience are directly affected in the current crisis. When the diesel price spikes or supply tightens, there is no doubt that farmers and freight feel it first and then everyone pays at the check-out. That is exactly why fuel security is not just an energy policy; it's a cost-of-living and national resilience policy. Underwriting fuel cargoes must be paired with an explicit funded electrification plan where possible. Otherwise we'll just keep paying to delay our own economic and national resilience.”
“Its scaremongering campaign that electric vehicles would ruin the weekend was not just silly politics; it was short sighted and really reckless. It was a symptom of a deeper failure to plan for the economic and energy transitions already underway. If the major parties had got with the program earlier and engaged seriously with the needs of a 21st century economy, Australia could have built far greater economic resilience by now. The central idea in this legislation is sound, and I will support it to address a temporary emergency situation. It gives Export Finance Australia a flexible set of tools—insurance, derivatives, loans and other arrangements—to derisk additional cargoes to encourage suppliers to bid for discretionary shipments.”
“Australia has not met this goal, and I don't understand that it's one of the government's intentions. Australia briefly leased space in the US Strategic Petroleum Reserve in 2020 and then sold that oil in 2022. Angus Taylor, Leader of the Opposition, was the minister responsible for that decision to lease space and then subsequently sell it off on the international market. Even when that arrangement existed, it was a small volume and slow to access and it was crude, not ready-to-use fuel. Fuel security policy in recent years has focused heavily on stockholding obligations and supporting our remaining domestic refineries, but this treats supply as the only lever while underinvesting in the long-term demand solution, which is electrifying transport. It was the Morrison coalition government that helped lead us into this mess.”
“Australia is structurally exposed because we import most of our fuel and rely on international shipping arriving on schedule. When ships cancel or prices jump, we feel it at the bowser and then in freight, groceries and inflation. The government's immediate crisis settings have already included temporarily releasing up to 20 per cent of the minimum stockholding obligation for petrol and diesel, freeing up to 762 million litres targeted to relieve regional pressures; and actively monitoring stocks and arrivals while warning against panic buying and unsafe stockpiling. Australia also has international obligations. Under the international energy program treaty settings, member countries are expected to hold oil stocks equivalent to at least 90 days of oil reserves and be ready for collective action during major disruptions.”
“When climate hazards worsen, supply chains and essential services get hit. When fossil fuel markets spike, households and businesses get hit. The lesson is that genuine resilience means reducing long-term exposure to these kinds of disruptions. If we're serious about fuel and energy security, we must accelerate electrification—and fast. Electric transport is not an extra; it's a strategic shield against imported oil volatility. What is driving this bill is not a theoretical risk. It's an active disruption in global oil markets, with sharp price volatility and supply uncertainty tied to the conflict involving the US and Israel's actions in Iran and the resulting disruption around the Strait of Hormuz. Many experts predict that the disruptions will continue to expand, and the conflict may well last for a lot longer than hoped.”
“The Export Finance and Insurance Corporation Amendment (Strategic Reserve) Bill 2026 is not the solution to Australia's energy security. It is a necessary short-term circuit breaker during a fuel shock, but it's a loud admission that our national resilience remains dangerously dependent on legacy fossil fuel markets. I support the intent of this legislation to keep Australia moving, prevent regional communities from running out of fuel and prevent a short-term supply squeeze turning into a broader economic hit. But I will say the quiet part out loud: underwriting extra fuel cargoes does not address the structural problem. If we only do more imported fuel faster, we'll be right back here at the next geopolitical flashpoint. Climate resilience is national resilience and economic resilience; we've been saying this for years in this place.”
“It honours Australian sailors, including those lost in later ships that bear the HMAS Sydney name. I'd like to acknowledge the incredible work of the HMAS Sydney Association, the Bradleys Head management committee and the many in our community that have worked hard to see this nomination achieved. May it remain a place of remembrance and reflection for generations to come.”
“Today, I acknowledge the dedication of Bradleys Head Naval Memorial in Warringah as Australia marks 125 years of Royal Australian Navy service. This is a remarkable honour for our community, with Bradleys Head now recognised as one of just nine military memorials of national significance in Australia. It recognises a place that is not only beautiful but sacred in what it represents: service, sacrifice and remembrance. HMAS Sydney was the first Australian ship to engage an enemy at sea in the First World War. It defeated the German cruiser SMS Emden near the Cocos Islands in November 1914. Four Australians lost their lives. Bradleys Head is home to the mast of HMAS Sydney , and all passing naval ships still render a ceremonial salute. Bradleys Head holds deep meaning for Warringah, for the Navy and for our national story.”
“The other piece of legislation, the Fair Work Amendment (Fairer Fuel) Bill, proposes to enable the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations to authorise a reduction of the minimum six-month consultation period required before the commission can make road transport contractual chain orders, in circumstances where there are imminent and significant negative impacts on the road transport industry nationally and where it's in the public interest to reduce this timeframe. In the context of what is currently occurring in our transport sector, with fuel prices spiking, I accept that there is a need for this to be acted upon urgently, but I ask the major parties: please behave better and allow us proper scrutiny of legislation.”
“It is designed—and I would of course have liked much more time to properly analyse it—to double the maximum penalties for false and misleading conduct and cartel behaviour, lifting the top penalty to $100 million per offence, while leaving in place the existing alternative penalty formulas, such as three times the value of the benefit obtained or 30 per cent of adjusted turnover, where applicable. While it's being sold politically in the context of the fuel price spike and the action of some retailers, it does sit alongside the broader package of reforms for a stronger ACCC, which I think is desperately needed to ensure Australians are properly protected.”
“It's clear we need to electrify the economy—electrify transport, expand charging infrastructure, modernise the grid and make it easier, not harder, for households and businesses to move away from oil dependence. The first piece of legislation before us, the Treasury Laws Amendment (Doubling Penalties for ACCC Enforcement) Bill, is to ensure that there are greater consequences. A major part of laws and consequences for poor conduct is, ultimately, deterrence. The penalties must be significant to outweigh the benefits gained by price gouging. We need to build on that, which is what this piece of legislation does.”
“What is occurring in the Strait of Hormuz is a brutal reminder that overseas fuel shocks flow directly into household costs, freight costs, food prices and inflation here at home. And the stakes are high. In Warringah, I'm being told, many people are opting for public transport, but public transport is at capacity. People are trying to save on fuel use, but we do not have the public transport infrastructure or the numbers of buses to cope with the demand. In the short-term, we need transparency, enforcement and targeted relief. Stronger penalties for misleading conduct and market abuse are part of that, and direct support is better than blunt political gimmicks, which can worsen shortages. Economists quoted today warned that cutting the fuel excise would increase demand in an already strained market.”
“Australians are already paying more at the bowser, and hundreds of service stations across the country have been without at least one fuel type this week. In New South Wales alone, the federal government said on 24 March there were 164 stations without diesel and 289 without at least one fuel type. It's exactly why action matters now. The lesson is brutally simple: when global oil markets are shocked, Australians get hit at home through fuel, freight, food and inflation. We need to understand that genuine resilience is renewable energy resilience. Real national resilience does not come from staying hooked on imported fuel and hoping the next global shock is kinder.”
“But, as we are so often put in this position in this place, we have to weigh up the question of proper process over the substance of an issue. Where so often these measures are used for issues that are not genuinely urgent, I do, in this situation, agree that, at the end of the day, if you're going to have game playing by both sides, you all end up with the same mess. But Australians actually want some certainty, and they want some action to happen, when it comes to fuel prices. So, despite the poor parliamentary practice seen this morning, of the coalition and the government, I agreed to hasten the debate on action on fuel prices, because there is urgency on this issue. It's not a hypothetical risk or a talking point for tomorrow.”
“Well, I have to start by just calling out how ridiculous the situation that we find ourselves in this morning is. The coalition thought they would be clever and moved a motion to suspend standing orders to bring on urgent debate on legislation—the Treasury Laws Amendment (Doubling Penalties for ACCC Enforcement) Bill 2026—to increase the penalties under the ACCC in relation to a number of offences, particularly to address concerns around fuel price gouging. Of course, as the gamesmanship between the major parties is always in play, the government responded by agreeing to that motion but amending it to include, for urgent debate, another piece of legislation—the Fair Work Amendment (Fairer Fuel) Bill 2026—in relation to truckies. I will get to the substance of those. It's ridiculous.”
“So I urge the government that, if we are looking at budget repair and we're looking at appropriation, we have to be really clear about what is in Australia's long-term interest and make sure that policies match that.”
“We're hearing a lot in this place about concerns of shortages but not much, when the opportunities are there, about actually prioritising where those fuel supplies should be going. If we facilitate and accelerate a transition of passenger car transport away from fuel use and to renewables and EVs, we do then prioritise the precious commodity of fuel that we import to be used for those industries that still require it—farming and those areas of industry that have no choice. We import 90 per cent of our fuel to Australia. A vast majority of that is coming from refineries offshore. We are highly vulnerable, and so it is incredibly concerning that what is coming out at the moment from this government, in anticipation of the budget, is a mixed message.”
“We cannot keep running a budget that socialises the pain of global oil shocks while privatising the gains from Australian gas exports. Budget repair, fuel security and climate action should not be treated as separate debates. They are the same debate because, in the end, the strongest shield against global fossil fuel chaos is this: a renewable energy system, a renewable economy and an Australia less dependent on the volatility of other countries' wars. It's very clear that wind and sun cannot be stopped by geopolitical oil shocks and cannot be stopped by wars. Yet we're not hearing anything from the opposition in this debate in terms of sensible policy of how we can actually maximise that fuel use.”
“However, it should be applied fairly across all road users, with a structure that ensures that higher-emitting vehicles pay a greater share of the cost—in particular, those heavy-duty utes and American vehicles that are dangerous on our roads. If Australia wants genuine resilience in the face of global instability, transport reform must make sense from end to end,. That means stronger EV incentives and better charging infrastructure. Keep fringe benefit tax incentives for EVs. Consider exempting EVs from the luxury car tax and give a clear recognition that renewable power transport is not just a climate policy; it is economic security policy, too. The war involving Iran has exposed a hard truth: Australia is still too vulnerable to crises we do not control.”
“Today it's been reported that the Albanese government is considering introducing an EV tax in the form of a road user charge, beginning with electric vehicles. It's poor policy design. At a time when Australia's emissions are not declining quickly enough and households are already under pressure from fuel price volatility, introducing a new EV tax that targets only electric vehicles sends a wrong signal and risks slowing down that uptake, undermining efforts to reduce transport emissions whilst completely leaving off the hook those high-polluting, high-fuel used cars. A well-designed road user charge could be a sensible long-term reform. I don't deny that.”
“Third, at a time when Australians are already exposed to global oil shocks and rising transport costs, the last thing this country should be doing is making it harder for people to switch to electric vehicles. If we are serious about cutting emissions, improving fuel security and bringing down long-term household costs, we should be accelerating the shift away from petrol dependence, not putting new obstacles in the way. An EV is not just a cleaner car. It's a small piece of national resilience, because it does not draw on those fuel reserves. What makes this worse is a contradiction that is now coming out of the government's position. It cannot claim to support cleaner transport and lower emissions whilst simultaneously floating new taxes on EVs and winding back incentives that help people make the switch.”
“Exemptions and excessive deductions have allowed huge export volumes and huge profits to generate far too little public revenue. Ordinary Australians are exposed to every international oil shock, but multinational exporters exploiting finite Australian resources do not return a fair share to the Australian people. First, reform the PRRT so it actually works as a resource rent tax, not a permission slip for minimal returns. Reduce the deductions cap from 90 per cent to 80 per cent. Remove the seven-year exemption. Tighten uplift. Carry forward integrity rules. Increase transparency and crack down on profit shifting. Second, it is well past time for us to apply a 25 per cent LNG export tax. Australians own these resources. Australians should receive a better dividend for them.”
“Around one-fifth of global oil passes through the Strait of Hormuz, and the International Energy Agency has warned that the present disruption poses a major threat to the global economy. Petrol and diesel spikes do not stay at the bowser. They ripple through freight, groceries, construction, business costs and inflation. That is how an overseas conflict lands directly in the Australian household budget. An electrified transport sector, including heavy vehicles, is critical to immunising ourselves against uncontrollable and unpredictable international crises. At the same time, our tax system gives Australians a rotten deal on our main resource: gas. The PRRT is far too weak. The 90 per cent deductions cap should be reduced to, at a minimum, 80 per cent.”
“The deeper point is that renewable energy and a renewable economy are not just climate policies; they directly translate to economic security and national resilience. As we're here talking about an appropriation budget, we need to talk about those aspects. Australia remains dangerously exposed to imported oil shocks. Our fuel system still depends heavily on liquid fuels, and the government's own stockholding framework only requires private industry to hold minimum days of supply. If government supports fuel security it must also support the transition to lower-emissions transport, because lower-emissions transport is itself part of energy security. The current conflict involving Iran has shown exactly why.”
“Australia's budget is too exposed to global fossil fuel shocks and too soft on capturing a fair return from our own natural resources. The war involving Iran and disruption around the Strait of Hormuz is a brutal reminder that energy security is national security and that price shocks overseas hit Australian households, freight, food and inflation at home. If Australians are being asked to absorb the pain of global instability then gas exporters exploiting Australian resources should be paying more back to the Australian public. That means reforming the petroleum resource rent tax properly, and it means seriously considering a 25 per cent export tax on LNG exports as a budget repair and resilience measure.”
“Ultimately, it's about whether Australians can seek potentially life-saving information about their health and the possible health implications of their children, without fearing that the consequences will follow them into the insurance market. And that's why I support this legislative ban on genetic discrimination in life insurance. This is about fairness, public trust and access to preventive care. It's about making sure that Australians are not deterred from testing, early intervention or research participation because they fear financial disadvantage. It's very important that we understand that but that more can still be done. 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.”
“It's important to recognise that life insurance sits within a special exception under antidiscrimination law. So banning genetic test results does not automatically eliminate every unfair or differential outcome in underwriting, and that's why this bill should be seen as a major and welcome reform but not the final chapter. Parliament should support it while remaining alert to the broader question of fairness, loopholes, enforcement and consumer redress in life insurance. Legislation is important, but consumers too must understand their rights and have confidence that those rights can be meaningfully protected. This bill is an overdue and necessary step that should be understood as part of a broader task: building a life insurance framework that is fairer, more transparent and better aligned with modern medicine.”
“We want to make sure Australians are participating in research and are going to access testing early. The bill addresses a central and pressing issue, but broader questions remain about fairness, antidiscrimination protections and how other forms of health or family information are treated in underwriting. In that sense, the bill is important but targeted. It addresses one specific problem—the use of protected genetic information in life insurance underwriting, including predictive genetic information—but it does not on its own address the problem of discrimination in insurance law. That means broader discrimination issues can remain. Even with this reform, insurers can still rely on other kinds of information in underwriting, such as diagnosis, symptoms and family medical history.”
“That was the right step, and it marked an important shift from temporary self-regulation to a clearer statutory framework. I do welcome the government's move to legislate in this area. Moving from consultation and self-regulation to legislation is a meaningful and necessary step. Legislation provides greater certainty, strengthens public confidence and makes clear that it is parliament, not the industry alone, that sets the boundaries of what is fair. That shift matters because it's not a marginal issue. It sits at the intersection of health, financial security, consumer confidence and scientific progress. If we get this right, we remove a barrier to testing, early intervention and research participation. The stakes of the debate are high not just for insurance law but for the broader direction of preventative health policy in Australia.”
“We should be encouraging Australians to access early testing where appropriate. We should be encouraging Australians to participate in research that advances knowledge and improves care. The existing framework applies quite a chilling effect on both. By late 2023, Treasury had released a consultation paper on the use of genetic testing results in life insurance underwriting. By that point, there was already a significant body of evidence showing that the existing arrangements were not delivering confidence, clarity or fairness. The question was no longer whether there was a problem; the question was whether parliament and the government were prepared to address it properly. In 2024-25, the government moved towards legislation to prohibit the use of adverse, predictive genetic test results in life insurance underwriting.”
“In other words, the industry led moratorium was better than nothing, but it's not the same as an evidence-based preventative public health policy. Crucially, research and consultation since then have shown that the self-regulatory model did not solve the core problem. Evidence showed that people continued to delay or avoid clinical genetic testing because of their concerns about life insurance, and that goes to the heart of the policy failure. Predictive genetic testing is becoming increasingly useful in modern medicine, but too many people have feared that obtaining that information could later be used against them when applying for life insurance, trauma cover, total and permanent disability cover or income protection, and that's the wrong incentive structure.”
“First, it relied on industry self-regulation, rather than protections enacted in law. That matters because public confidence is weaker when the industry is, effectively, left to supervise itself. And, in practical experience, that was found to be wanting. Second, it only protected people from having their genetic test results used against them up to certain insurance limits. For many families seeking a realistic level of cover to protect dependents, service a mortgage or maintain financial stability, those limits were too narrow. And, third, it did not resolve the broader problem of uncertainty. In the absence of legislated safeguards, people were still left unsure about their rights, the durability of the protections and what remedy they had if something went wrong.”
“For some time, patients, clinicians, researchers and advocates have warned that the use of predictive genetic test results in life insurance can deter people from getting tested and undermine confidence in both the health system and the insurance system. That concern was formally recognised in 2018 when the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services examined the life insurance industry and raised concerns that the use of genetic tests results was adversely affecting participation in health research involving genetic testing. In response, the Financial Services Council introduced an industry moratorium in 2019. That moratorium was presented as an answer, but, in practice, it was only a partial and temporary fix. It fell short in several important aspects.”