Brought to you by:

Rights advocates, researcher flag flaws in genetic test ban

The Australian Human Rights Commission remains concerned about several aspects of the proposed ban on using genetic test results in life underwriting.

It has flagged the exclusion of existing life insurance contracts from the new regime; the fact consent is not a defined term and can be provided by an agent, such as an insurance broker; and that the meaning of protected genetic information does not include inferred genetic information.

“Addressing these concerns will ensure stronger protections against genetic discrimination and better protect the human rights of people accessing life insurance policies,” the commission says in a submission to senators.

Draft laws were introduced in parliament last November and referred to the Senate Economics Legislation Committee, which is expected to report its findings by February 26.

Monash University has also made a submission to the committee.

The university’s genetic researcher, Jane Tiller, says: “The government should be commended on an excellent draft bill, which will protect Australians against discrimination on the basis of genetic test results, and ultimately enable genomic medicine to save lives through prevention of disease.”

However, issues that have not been addressed include “protection against discrimination for people with existing discriminatory contracts of insurance.

“Under the current drafting of the bill, the ban will apply in relation to life insurance contract decisions made on or after the date of commencement.

“A life insurance decision is defined to only apply to decisions in relation to applications for life insurance, and doesn’t capture insureds whose only interaction is annual premium adjustments.

“This means individuals who have been paying premiums for many years, with a loading attached because of discrimination on the basis of genetic results, would be faced with an unfair choice of retaining cover with discriminatory penalties or cancelling their current policy and being re-underwritten on possibly very unfavourable terms (due to the passage of time).”