25 Mar 2026 · 11:32 AM · Division 2
Treasury Laws Amendment (Genetic Testing Protections in Life Insurance and Other Measures) Bill 2025
- Official title
- Treasury Laws Amendment (Genetic Testing Protections in Life Insurance and Other Measures) Bill 2025 - Consideration in Detail - Statutory review
Noes in the majority
This says only which side won the vote, because what Aye and No meant here depends on the exact question put in the chamber.
- Aye
- 10
- No
- 66
- Not recorded voting
- 73
“Not recorded voting” is everyone eligible who isn't recorded as Aye or No, for example absent, paired, or presiding.
What was decided
The majority voted against an amendment introduced by Kooyong MP Monique Ryan (Independent), which means it was unsuccessful.
What does this amendment do?
Dr Ryan explained that:
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.
The government's bill specifies that statutory reviews must consider whether the legislation is effective in providing reasonable certainty to individuals about the use of protected genetic information in relation to contracts of life insurance and whether these provisions have any unintended consequences. There is, in fact, good reason to suspect that future reviews will identify disadvantage arising from the failure of this bill to offer retrospective application. As it stands, people who have already had penalties, loadings, exclusions or discriminatory terms imposed upon them by life insurers will continue to face discrimination unless they seek to negotiate new coverage. The implications of this inequity are going to have to be closely monitored.
Amendment text
(1) Schedule 1, item 3, page 10 (line 18), omit "each fifth anniversary", substitute "each third anniversary".
Summary written by They Vote For You contributors. Read it with the debate
Votes by party
Votes by party as a table
| Party | Aye | No |
|---|---|---|
| Australian Labor Party | 0 | 65 |
| Independent | 8 | 0 |
| Australian Greens | 1 | 0 |
| Centre Alliance | 1 | 0 |
| Liberal Party | 0 | 1 |
How each member voted
Aye · 10
- Elizabeth Watson-BrownRyan · Greens
- Rebekha SharkieMayo · Centre Alliance
- Nicolette BoeleBradfield · Independent
- Kate ChaneyCurtin · Independent
- Andrew GeeCalare · Independent
- Dai LeFowler · Independent
- Monique RyanKooyong · Independent
- Sophie ScampsMackellar · Independent
- Allegra SpenderWentworth · Independent
- Andrew WilkieClark · Independent
No · 66
- Basem AbdoCalwell · Labor
- Ash AmbihaipaharBarton · Labor
- Jodie BelyeaDunkley · Labor
- Carol BerryWhitlam · Labor
- Jo BriskeyMaribyrnong · Labor
- Matt BurnellSpence · Labor
- Alison ByrnesCunningham · Labor
- Julie-Ann CampbellMoreton · Labor
- Lisa ChestersBendigo · Labor
- Sharon ClaydonNewcastle · Labor
- Claire ClutterhamSturt · Labor
- Renee CoffeyGriffith · Labor
- Libby CokerCorangamite · Labor
- Emma ComerPetrie · Labor
- Kara CookBonner · Labor
- Trish CookBullwinkel · Labor
- Mary DoyleAston · Labor
- Mark DreyfusIsaacs · Labor
- Justine ElliotRichmond · Labor
- Cassandra FernandoHolt · Labor
- Ali FranceDickson · Labor
- Mike FreelanderMacarthur · Labor
- Tom FrenchMoore · Labor
- Carina GarlandChisholm · Labor
- Steve GeorganasAdelaide · Labor
- Patrick GormanPerth · Labor
- Luke GoslingSolomon · Labor
- Matt GreggDeakin · Labor
- Rowan HolzbergerForde · Labor
- Ed HusicChifley · Labor
Spotted a mistake? Report a correction.