Chapter 2Key issues
2.1This chapter considers submitters’ evidence on the Treasury Laws Amendment (Genetic Testing Protections in Life Insurance and Other Measures) Bill 2025 (thebill). In summary:
most submitters limited their comments to Schedule 1, and were broadly supportive of its measures;
while only a few submitters discussed Schedules 2 or 4, those that did were supportive of those schedules; and
submitters did not provide evidence in relation to Schedule3.
2.2This chapter concludes with the committee’s view and a recommendation.
Schedule 1—Limiting the use of genetic information by life insurers
2.3As outlined below, submitters expressed broad support for Schedule 1’s provisions to ban the use of genetic test results in life insurance. In particular, submitters highlighted the important role of genetic testing in healthcare and how confidentiality concerns can deter people from accessing such testing.
2.4While also welcoming the ban, some submitters considered that certain provisions in Schedule 1 could be refined.
The important role of genetic testing in healthcare
2.5The committee heard that genetic testing has an important role in preventative health, the identification of effective treatment options and in medical research.
2.6For instance, the Human Genetics Society of Australasia submitted that genetic testing for people with a predisposed health concern means they can:
Take proactive steps to manage their health and reduce their risk of future illness: such as enhanced surveillance to support early detection of illness; or preventative measures to reduce risk; and
Make informed decisions about reproductive health options, including the option of not passing on a genetic condition.
2.7The Australian Medical Association (AMA) submitted that genetic testing can identify a person’s need for ‘potentially life-saving treatment before an issue arises’. As such, the AMA considered that genetic testing ‘should be incorporated into everyday healthcare’ and, further, that genetic testing has ‘ the capacity to rapidly transform healthcare in Australia’.
2.8For people already diagnosed with serious health conditions, the committee heard that genetic testing ‘can inform more effective treatment options…by revealing the influence their genes may have on their response to certain medications’. Further, evidence provided to the committee suggests pharmacogenomic testing could improve healthcare outcomes for many people:
Research from the Royal College of Pathologists of Australasia show 95% of people carry at least one genetic variant that affects their response to commonly prescribed drugs. This variability can result in less effective treatment, adverse drug reactions, or costly trial-and-error prescribing. Pharmacogenomic testing can offer clinicians insights to help select the most appropriate medication and dosage for each patient, thereby reducing the risk of side effects and improving therapeutic efficacy and compliance.
2.9Additionally, the Queensland Youth Policy Collective (QYPC) outlined the valuable role of genetic data in research:
…de-identified genetic data is a valuable input for scientific and medical research. It can be used to identify populations that are particularly vulnerable to certain diseases to inform public health interventions. Researchers can also use aggregate testing results to identify previously unknown genetic risk factors and develop more effective treatments.
Confidentiality concerns are a significant deterrent to genetic test access
2.10Despite the benefits of genetic testing, submitters highlighted that Australians are concerned that genetic test information could adversely impact their access to life insurance. The AMA, for instance, submitted that ‘people are discouraged from participating in genetic testing and genomic research for fear of being frozen out of insurance cover if a genetic risk is uncovered’.
2.11Similarly, the QYPC submitted that ‘Australians are delaying or even completely declining genetic testing due to concerns over the impact it could have on their life insurance’. Research cited by the QYPC supports this view:
In a 2019 study of nearly 1,500 Australian adults, over 80% of participants expressed high concerns about potential insurance discrimination based on their genetic data. Young people in particular tend to be less willing to share their genetic results than their older counterparts. Another study revealed that the proportion of participants who declined genetic testing in the Victorian Colorectal Concern Family Study more than doubled when participants were informed of the potential impact of genetic testing on their insurance eligibility.
2.12Such concerns were evident in a submission received from an individual with multiple heritable health conditions. The individual, whose submission was published on a ‘name withheld’ basis at their request, submitted that while they had ‘explored genetic testing to better understand [their] health risks and guide preventative care’, they chose not to proceed given the risk they of a negative insurance outcome. Further, the individual said that, while some of their health conditions ‘remain under-researched’, they were reluctant to participate in medical research ‘due to concern about insurance consequences’. As the individual observed, this dynamic leads to a counterproductive outcome where ‘individuals avoid research participation due to insurance risk’ at the cost of ‘medical progress, public health, and future patients’.
2.13Evidence to the committee suggests Australians’ concerns about the use of their genetic information is well-founded. As the Association of Superannuation Funds of Australia (ASFA) submitted, sector research from 2021 ‘indicated that around 10 per cent of individuals who disclosed a genetic test result had insurance cover offered on less favourable terms or had cover declined’.
2.14Additionally, the QYPC submitted that privacy concerns regarding genetic information can also extend to the testing decisions of a person’s relatives. Noting research findings that people can be readily identified in databases containing familial genetic information, the QYPC submitted that, absent legal protections, a young person could have their ability to obtain insurance ‘compromised’ by a relative’s decision to undertake genetic testing.
Support for Schedule 1 to improve genetic testing outcomes
2.15Noting the abovementioned concerns, a broad cross section of submitters welcomed Schedule 1 to better protect Australians’ genetic test information and, in doing so, encourage Australians to access genetic testing when useful.
2.16For example, the Human Genetics Society of Australasia submitted it ‘strongly supports’ Schedule 1, describing the reform as ‘essential for improving prevention, care and treatment pathways for individuals and their families’. Similarly, the AMA described Schedule 1 as ‘comprehensive, robust legislation that is critical to ensuring that Australians feel safe and confident their genetic test results will not result in discrimination by life insurers’. As such, the AMA considered the bill should be passed ‘as a matter of urgency’.
2.17ASFA also submitted that it ‘strongly supports the introduction of a total legislative ban on requesting access to and use of adverse genetic test results in life insurance underwriting’. ASFA considered Schedule 1 to be a ‘measured response which has taken on feedback from stakeholders, and which is workable for consumers, superannuation funds and insurance companies’. Further, ASFA highlighted its support for certain aspects of Schedule 1:
The Bill provides a comprehensive definition of current methods of genetic testing.ASFA also supports the provision in the Bill providing for the ability to make regulations prescribing what information is protected genetic information.This will allow the meaning of protected genetic information to be kept up to date and reflect medical technological developments. ASFA also supports the proposed five yearly review of the legislation in order to keep the legislation relevant to contemporary standards and procedures.
2.18The QYPC considered that Schedule 1 will ‘protect the confidentiality of the private medical information of young people seeking insurance coverage and their relatives’. In particular, the QYPC said proposed section 33H of Schedule1, ‘will mitigate’ the risk that a young person has their ability to obtain life insurance impacted by a testing decision of a distant relevant by making it an offence for an insurer to ‘request, incentivise or otherwise induce or encourage a person to provide protected genetic information, including the results of genetic testing’.
2.19Given the protections proposed in Schedule 1, the QYPC considered that more Australians would undertake genetic testing which, in turn, would empower young people to ‘make more informed decisions about their healthcare’ and improve their health outcomes. Further, the QYPC argued that Schedule 1 would contribute to Australia’s long-term economic growth given chronic illness is a barrier to work and a ‘healthier population requires less government expenditure on healthcare, assisted living and income support’.
2.20The Council of Australian Life Insurers (CALI) welcomed Schedule 1 as a ‘further step forward for Government and industry in reinforcing confidence in both predictive genetic testing and life insurance’. In particular, CALI welcomed proposed provisions in Schedule 1:
to preserve life insurers’ ability to ask an individual about their health and diagnosed health conditions, regardless of whether the condition was made through a genetic test;
to preserve life insurers’ ability to collect family medical history;
to enable individuals to ‘voluntarily disclose favourable genetic test results’; and
to provide ‘five-year review periods and subordinated regulation-making powers to ensure that the legislation can keep pace with advances in genomic science and genetic testing’.
2.21Health insurer Bupa also expressed support for Schedule 1, stating the ‘proposed legislative changes will offer Australians greater confidence to continue to seek genetic testing which can have significant long-term benefits for them and their families’. In particular, Bupa expressed support for Schedule1’s proposed exemption to allow a:
…life insurance policyholder the opportunity to volunteer the information of the test or to use it to improve the policyholder’s or beneficiary’s outcome. These exceptions ensure individuals can retain autonomy over their genetic information while still being able to use it when appropriate.
2.22Bupa recommended that the committee support Schedule 1 ‘as drafted’.
Defining ‘protected genetic information’
2.23As outlined below, some submitters considered that the definition of ‘protected genetic information’ in Schedule 1 should be amended to offer a broader range of protections.
2.24The Australian Human Rights Commission (AHRC), for instance, expressed concerns that the definition of ‘protected genetic information’ excludes ‘a clinically diagnosed disease and information about the characteristics, natural history or prognosis of the clinically diagnosed disease’. The AHRC said it was ‘essential that insurers are prevented from sidestepping the ban on the use of genetic information through inferring genetic status based on a person’s medical care’. As such, the AHRC recommended that the definition of ‘protected genetic information’ be amended to:
….include ‘inferred genetic information based on information about a person’s ongoing medical care, including risk surveillance activities, prescribed medications, participation in preventative health care (such as clinical trials), or any other indirect method of inferring increased risk or genetic test results.
2.25Similarly, Dr Jane Tiller, Public Health Genomics, Monash University, recommended that the definition of ‘protected genetic information’ in proposed section 33F of Schedule 1 be updated to include a clause which, in effect, would prohibit insurance companies from inferring genetic test results based on a person’s medical care. Further, Dr Tiller submitted that the definition of ‘protected genetic information’ should be amended so that an insurer would only be able to collect information on a clinically diagnosed disease for the insured individual or for a first-degree genetic relative of the insured individual. Under the current drafting of proposed paragraph 33F(2)(b), Dr Tiller noted information on a clinically diagnosed disease could be collected in relation to any genetic relative of the insured individual.
2.26While supporting the bill as drafted, an individual submitter to the inquiry made several recommendations intended to improve the definition and application of ‘protected genetic information’ under Schedule 2. These recommendations included:
explicitly prohibiting the ‘use of protected genetic information both directly and indirectly, including through derived indicators, third-party analytics, risk scores, or other proxy measures that are substantially informed by genetic data’;
future-proofing the scope of protected genetic information by expanding the scope of the definition so that it ‘explicitly encompasses modern and emerging genomic outputs, including whole-genome sequencing, whole-exome sequencing, clinically validated genomic panels, and polygenic risk scores’; and
extending the ‘prohibitions on requesting, using, or relying on protected genetic information equally to reinsurers, underwriting agents, brokers, advisers, and outsourced service providers’.
Regulation making-powers
2.27As discussed in Chapter 1, Schedule 1 provides for the Treasurer to make regulations that specify the meaning of key terms, including ‘protected genetic information’ and ‘genetic testing’, under the Insurance Contracts Act 1984 (ICA1984).
2.28While acknowledging the need for key terms ‘to be able to keep pace with medical advances’, the AHRC argued against the regulation making powers in Schedule 1, stating it was inappropriate for such powers to potentially ‘limit or expand on the meaning of terms as defined in legislation’. As such, the AHRC recommended that:
Sections 33E(2) and 33F(5) of the Bill should be amended to remove the words ‘Regulations made for the purposes of this subsection have effect despite anything else in this section’.
2.29Expressing a different view, ASFA welcomed the proposed regulation making power in respect of ‘protected genetic information,’ stating it ‘will allow the meaning of protected genetic information to be kept up to date and reflect medical technological developments’.
Consent arrangements for an insurer to use protected genetic information
2.30As outlined in Chapter 1, Schedule 1 proposes a strict liability offence (subsection 33H(1)) and a civil penalty (subsection 33H(2)) for circumstances where an insurer uses protected genetic information in contravention of the law. An exception to these proposed penalties is established by proposed subsection 33H(3), which enables a life insured person—or certain people authorised to act on behalf of that person—to provide consent for the insurer to use their protected genetic information so long as it does not disadvantage the individual.
2.31The AHRC noted that ‘consent’ is not defined in Schedule 1, outside of a requirement for consent to be provided in writing. The AHRC cautioned that ‘[w]hen a word is not defined in legislation, it is taken to have its ordinary meaning’ and, given the sensitivity of genetic information, a greater standard protection for an individual’s privacy should be prioritised. As such, the AHRC recommended that ‘consent’ should be defined under section 11 of theICA 1984 in a way that ensures ‘express, full, free and informed consent is a requirement’.
2.32Further, the AHRC expressed concern that ‘consent can be provided to an insurer by an agent, particularly an insurance broker,’ and questioned ‘whether it is appropriate that a third-party agent can provide written consent’. The AHRC highlighted concerns regarding the financial incentives which apply to an insurance broker’s work and the standards which may apply to a written consent form As such, the AHRC to recommend that proposed paragraphs 33H(3)(a) and (c) of the bill ‘should be amended to remove the ability of an insurance broker to act as an agent of the life insured’.
Application to existing life insurance contracts
2.33Some submitters queried the appropriateness of Schedule 1 applying just to life insurance contracts made on, or after, the commencement of the schedule.
2.34The AHRC submitted that Schedule 1, as drafted, would only apply to an existing life insurance contract where the contract is varied, reinstated or extended after commencement of the ban. Further, the ban would not apply to automatic contract variations, such as for annual premium increases. The AHRC described this as a ‘carve out’ which unfairly disadvantages those ‘who have previously received adverse underwriting outcomes based on genetic information,’ and suggested such an outcome would go ‘against the intent’ of the ban. This, among other factors, led the AHRC to recommend that:
The ban on the use of genetic information should apply to existing policies and in-progress applications from the commencement of the ban, so that any existing penalties, loading, exclusions or other adverse underwriting outcomes imposed due to the use of protected genetic information are removed.
2.35Noting the ban only applies to contracts made after commencement, Dr Tiller submitted that:
…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). These are individuals who have done the right thing, declared their adverse results to insurers, and in many cases paid additional sums to insurers for years.
2.36When announcing the Australian Government’s policy to ban the use of genetic test results in life insurance, the Assistant Treasurer, the Hon Dr Daniel Mulino MP, expressed his intent to:
…work constructively with the sector to see how people who have policies in place can seek to ensure that if they have had genetic tests, they can work with their insurers to ensure that that is reflected appropriately.
2.37The AMA submitted its support for Dr Mulino’s comments and said it advocates for a solution which ensures people who have experienced adverse life insurance outcomes on account of their genetic test results ‘do not continue to be discriminated against’.
2.38However, Dr Tiller submitted that she was unaware of any progress made towards achieving the intent expressed by Dr Muliono, and she has ‘concerns about proposed solutions which rely on voluntary action by the life insurance industry, which have not been progressed or agreed as yet’. While accepting that there is a ‘challenge in legislative principles’ with seeking to apply Schedule1 to existing life insurance contracts, Dr Tiller submitted that ‘ensuring discriminatory penalties are removed from contracts of insurance going forwards can be achieved without contravening these principles’.
2.39Expressing a different view, the Financial Advice Association of Australia (FAAA) submitted that Item 4(1) of Schedule 1 ‘seems to force a life insurer to ignore information that they received prior to the commencement day for any decisions they make after the commencement day’. The FAAA argued that this ‘evidently would provide an opportunity for existing clients to renegotiate existing contracts on the basis of disregarding the genetic testing information’.
Periodic 5-year review of the operation of the ban
2.40Submitters generally welcomed Schedule 1’s provision to require a five-yearly review of the ban.
2.41While also welcoming the proposed period review, the AHRC recommended that proposed section 33J of Schedule 1 be updated to expand the scope of the review function to ‘include a requirement that the review of the ban consider the effectiveness of the provisions to eliminate discrimination’.
Other issues
2.42While expressing support for the Australian Government’s ‘action to provide Australians with greater confidence to undertake genetic testing and to participate in health or medical research,’ the FAAA expressed concern about the ‘potential impact of this reform on the cost of life insurance for all Australians’. The FAAA submitted:
…life insurance is a pooled arrangement, and increased claims for new policy holders leveraging these reforms, will have an impact on the pricing of life insurance cover for all policy holders, particularly existing policyholders who have already been subject to large premium increases in recent years. We are concerned about the potential impact of this reform on the cost of life insurance for all Australians. The legislation places no restrictions on how much cover people who have concerning genetic testing results can seek to obtain, despite having full knowledge of the likely consequences of those genetic testing results. This could, over time, have a material impact on life insurance claims.
2.43The FAAA submitted a range of other feedback on Schedule 1, including a concern that the requirement for insurers to exclude protected genetic information from life insurance underwriting:
…will impact the role of medical practices in responding to underwriting requests. This might mean a much more careful review of patient files before responding to underwriting requests. This could lead to delays in doctors responding to requests for underwriting information or a material increase in the cost for them responding.
Schedule 2—Licensing exemptions for foreign financial services provides
2.44The committee received three submissions on Schedule 2 which were, in general, welcoming of the proposed measure to provide licensing exemptions for foreign financial services providers (FFSPs).
2.45In particular, submitters emphasised the importance of resolving the ‘uncertainty’ regarding the regulation of FFSPs in Australia. As the Financial Services Committee and the Corporations Committee of the Business Law Section of the Law Council of Australia (LCA) outlined, the uncertainty regarding FFSP regulation has been ongoing for nearly 10 years:
The uncertainty initially arose due to a change in the policy position of the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) with respect to FFSPs that was announced in 2016.The announcement of proposed legislative reform by the Morrison government in 2021 and the subsequent introduction of Schedule 7 to the Treasury Laws Amendment (Better Targeted Superannuation Concessions and Other Measures) Bill 2023 were intended to bring that uncertainty to an end, but Parliament was dissolved for the 2025 Federal election before this could be achieved.
2.46The Financial Services Council (FSC) submitted that regulatory certainty for FFSPs is important:
…not only for FFSPs wishing to service the Australian market, but also to ensure that FSC members can continue to access the services and products offered by FFSPs and offshore markets generally, for the benefit of Australian investors.
2.47The Australian Financial Markets Association (AFMA) also supported confirmation of permanent licensing relief arrangements for FFSPs as proposed in Schedule 2:
Licensing relief for FFSPs has enabled the enhancement of cross-border financial services, market competition, competitive pricing, and improved access to more diverse investments, financing sources, and niche markets for Australian businesses, since 2003. AFMA welcomes the Government’s intent to provide regulatory certainty to FFSPs and their clients by implementing a permanent legislative framework.
2.48AFMA added that it had engaged closely with Treasury and the Australian Securities and Investment Commission (ASIC) on the drafting of Schedule 2 and that it supports the bill’s ‘speedy passage, without amendment’.
Submitters’ views on areas for potential improvement
2.49As outlined below, some submitters considered that Schedule 2 could be improved in certain respects. For instance, the FSC noted that its engagement with the Australian Government’s consultation process for Schedule 2 had addressed ‘material elements’ of the FSC’s consultation response, bar the following two points:
(i)in the event an FFSP wishes to cease reliance on AFSL exemption and then seek to have the exemption reinstated, the FSC considered that the bill should provide for a streamlined process for the exemption to be reinstated rather than following the same process as for the initial applications; and
(ii)in the event that an FFSP breaches any of its exemption conditions it is required to notify ASIC as the regulator, the FSC considered that the bill should include a ‘materiality threshold’ so that the FFSP is only required to notify ASIC of significant breaches.
2.50While generally welcoming of Schedule 2, the LCA submitted that they remained concerned about:
(a)the complexity of the drafting, which makes the provisions introduced in Schedule 2 difficult to comprehend;
(b)the potential adverse impact on FFSPs who currently provide financial services to Australian clients under current ASIC exemptions, which are subject to fewer conditions and obligations than the exemptions proposed in Schedule 2;
(c)potential conflict between Schedule 2 and foreign laws governing FFSPs (for example, an obligation for an FFSP to inform ASIC about a foreign regulator’s investigation, which could potentially be in breach of a foreign law not to disclose such a matter); and
(d)the technical nature of some requirements and conditions of the exemptions, the ease with which they could be inadvertently breached, and the disproportionality of the associated consequences of any such breach (including the use of civil penalties in some cases).
2.51The LCA considered that, while it would not be ideal to implement legislative reform given the abovementioned issues, if there was no ‘political appetite to refine Schedule 2’ then ‘it would be preferable to have Schedule 2 passed in its current form now, rather than for it never to be passed’.
Schedule 3—Multilateral development banks: Modernising and technical amendments
2.52As noted at the beginning of the chapter, the committee did not receive any submissions in relation to Schedule 3.
Schedule 4—Repealing Stage 2 of the financial adviser registration
2.53The committee received two submissions in relation to Schedule 4, both of which supported the schedule’s provisions to not proceed with Stage 2 of the adviser registration process.
2.54In its submission, the FAAA queried the prospective benefits of progressing with Stage 2 of the Financial Adviser Registration process. In particular, the FAAA commented:
It is unclear what benefit would be obtained by requiring this process to move from one where the licensee registered the adviser, often as part of a bulk process, to one where the adviser needs to individually register with ASIC and renew on an annual basis.
2.55Further, the FAAA submitted that progressing with Stage 2 ‘would necessitate investment in new technology, which would likely come at a very significant cost’. The FAAA concluded it ‘supports the decision not to proceed with stage2 of individual financial adviser registration’.
2.56The FSC expressed support for the measure contained in Schedule 4 to not proceed with Stage 2 adviser registration process. In particular, the FSC said:
The FSC supports reducing the regulatory burden on the financial advice sector and for this reason we are supportive of the Government’s decision not to proceed with Stage 2. We appreciate the decision is also based on the determination not to proceed with Modernising Business Registers program, which was to be used to facilitate registration.
2.57The FSC concluded that it ‘supports the passage of this Bill, unamended’.
Committee view
2.58The committee welcomes the opportunity to examine the Treasury Laws Amendment (Genetic Testing Protections in Life Insurance and Other Measures) Bill 2025. The bill contains a range of important measures which the committee considers will substantially improve the areas which the schedules are, respectively, intended to address.
2.59In particular, the committee welcomes Schedule 1 of the bill to ban the use of Australians’ genetic testing information in underwriting life insurance. As several submitters outlined, genetic testing has important healthcare benefits and Australians should be encouraged to access genetic testing. The committee notes that multiple submitters expressed strong support for the enhanced protections in Schedule 1. The committee shares these views and considers that Schedule 1, as drafted, would mark a substantial improvement in the protections available for Australians. In turn, the committee considers these protections will encourage more Australians to undertake genetic testing.
2.60At the same time, the committee recognises some inquiry participants expressed a range of views about amendments that may potentially improve the operation of Schedule 1. Many of these proposals appear to algin well with the intent of the bill. At this stage, however, it is unclear to the committee how necessary the amendments are to ensure the effective operation of Schedule 1. The committee considers that the rule making power in relation to the meaning of ‘protected genetic information’ already provides significant flexibility for the Treasurer to ensure effective operation of the ban. Further, the committee considers that the proposed periodic 5-year review of the ban will serve as important opportunity to examine the efficacy of the ban.
2.61While recognising the challenges involved in having the ban apply retrospectively to existing life insurance contracts, the committee considers this a vital area for the Australian Government to address in conjunction with industry. As such, the committee encourages the Assistant Treasurer to provide an update on efforts to extend the ban to existing life insurance contacts.
2.62In relation to Schedule 2, the committee welcomes the Australian Government’s efforts to legislate a regulatory framework for foreign financial services providers. The committee recognises that, for many years, there has been regulatory uncertainty about the financial licensing arrangements which apply to foreign financial services providers operating in Australia. Such circumstances are not ideal for foreign financial services providers seeking to establish themselves domestically, nor is it ideal for Australian businesses and individuals that benefit from their services. As such, the committee considers Schedule 2 to be a worthy reform.
2.63Nonetheless, the committee notes that some submitters proposed amendments to Schedule2 and it appears those amendments were also raised by submitters in the Treasury consultation on the measure. The committee encourages the Assistant Treasury to consider whether these proposed amendments would improve the operation of Schedule 2.
2.64As noted at the beginning of this chapter, the committee did not receive evidence on Schedule 3’s provisions to streamline and modernise the legislative framework that underpins Australia’s financial obligations to multilateral development banks and the International Monetary Fund. The committee supports Australia’s commitments to multilateral development banks to support global economic growth and related objectives. Similarly, the committee supports Australia’s commitment to the International Monetary Fund to support stability of the international monetary system.
2.65As such, the committee supports the amendments proposed in Schedule 3 to provide ongoing improvements to the efficient administration of Australia’s financial commitments. The committee acknowledges the concerns raised by the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills regarding the establishment of standing appropriations under Schedule 3. Concurrently, the committee acknowledges the Australian Government’s rationale, as outlined in Explanatory Memorandum, for the proposed standing appropriations.
2.66In relation to Schedule 4, the committee welcomes the Australian Government’s ongoing efforts to improve standards in the financial advice sector. The committee acknowledges the Australian Government’s position that Stage 2 of the adviser registration process is no longer necessary to achieve the original policy intent of that measure. The committee also acknowledges submitters’ support for Schedule 4 on the basis that not proceeding with Stage 2 is anticipated to reduce regulatory burden for the financial advice sector.
2.67The committee recommends that the Senate pass the bill.
Senator Lisa Darmanin
Chair
Labor Senator for Victoria