Tony Pasin (Barker, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

Baby Priya's bill, the Fair Work Amendment (Baby Priya's) Bill 2025, does two things I absolutely support and one thing I can't. The bill updates the Fair Work Act to treat a natural stillbirth and a baby who dies shortly after birth in the same—so as to enable paid parental leave to apply without the ability of an employer to seek to avoid that obligation owing to the nature of those unfortunate circumstances. I want to be really clear. I think that is what is intended in this bill, I think that's what's intended by Baby Priya's law and that is what I absolutely support so fulsomely that I can't even put it into words.

I commend the previous speaker for her contribution about how difficult it must be to live through those kinds of traumas—every support for a family dealing with that kind of tragedy. So often with my own children I think, in this role, about how lucky I've been as I meet children—I'm sure, Deputy Speaker, you've had this experience as well—who are challenged in life because of health or circumstances. You can't help but think about how lucky you have been and how, in life, you have perhaps won the lottery of life as you are empathising with those constituents, acting on their behalf and supporting them.

But I did say there are two things this bill does that I support and congratulate the government for adopting and one thing it does that I can't support. I can only hope and think that this is an unintended consequence that hasn't perhaps been thought through. As I read the act and as legal experts have read the act and have confirmed with me, it would effectively treat an intentionally late-term aborted child in the same way as it would a natural stillbirth or a baby who dies shortly after birth. That is something I can't support.

Perhaps it's an unintended consequence because some of the jurisdictions around our country have adopted late-term abortion legislation and not everyone in the community is cognisant of that. But, in my own state of South Australia—I'm certainly no expert on other jurisdictions, although I've spoken to colleagues who confirm that, in some other jurisdictions, the laws are even more liberal than in our own home state, Deputy Speaker. In my home state a late-term abortion up to birth is now lawful. I can see my friend opposite quizzing that. I'm happy to share that information with you. It's as shocking a concept to me as it perhaps is to those—

No, I wasn't talking about you, Member for Dickson; I was talking about my friend opposite. I wish it weren't the case, but it is. Perhaps this law has been framed in a way without having that background. The following probably indicates that it is not an unintended consequence, because, recently, in correspondence from Minister Gallagher's office and, subsequently, in Senate estimates, courtesy of Labor minister Jenny McAllister, we've had it confirmed that the stillborn baby payment—a payment made by the Commonwealth department to families who have suffered a stillborn tragedy—is payable to individuals who have taken the decision to terminate a pregnancy late in the term, as is Commonwealth paid parental leave, up to $22,000.

Apologies to the chamber, but I can't avoid making this statement. Not everyone understands, but I need to clarify that abortions that are undertaken in the third trimester effectively require a stillbirth to take place. You can, as I have, speak to medical experts and become aware of that. Quite obviously the definition is that a payment is made in the event of a stillbirth. And, if a birth has to take place in the third trimester, then, of course, the payment is made. What our nation needs—and I'm not proposing to do it via this bill, because, as I said, I support the substantive elements of this bill, not the unintended consequence—is a definition of what 'stillborn' means, and stillborn must exclude the intentional decision to undertake an abortion. If that were the case, I wouldn't be speaking. The bill would have my support, because the Fair Work Act would simply be saying, 'In the event of a stillbirth, as defined, excluding late-term abortion,' then, of course, an employer can't seek to renegotiate leave for a family dealing with that grief. As I have said, we need to ensure that we're very clear about this. I would prefer a world in which those Commonwealth payments aren't made either, and that definition of stillborn would deal with that as well.

These are uncomfortable discussions and debates, but I want to be very clear and I want to end where I started. I completely support Baby Priya's bill as it relates to a baby that passes away shortly after birth or, indeed, in the event of a stillborn child, as we would ordinarily define that to be. I hope very much that those opposite accept that what I'm talking about is an unintended consequence and that, in the fullness of time, we can work towards excluding paid parental leave. I think it's clear in the title 'paid parental leave' that it should be available to parents and that it should be available to people who had wished to become parents but for the grace of God have not become parents through an incident or outcome, but it shouldn't be available to people who don't wish to become parents. I hope that in the fullness of time we will be able to clarify this for the parliament, the people, the bureaucracy and business—those who will ultimately administer Baby Priya's bill.

See this speech in context