Henry Pike (Bowman, Liberal National Party) Share this | Hansard source

I flag ahead of time that I'm only going to speak for a few minutes on this matter. Firstly, I associate myself with the comments of all those who've spoken in favour of the Fair Work Amendment (Baby Priya's) Bill 2025. This is an incredibly important bit of legislation, and I think the intention here from the government is a very noble one. Many speakers have offered really strong, heartfelt contributions on this. I associate myself with them. This is a really welcome reform. But I also want to raise a concern, as some other members have this afternoon, with a feature of this law that has only been brought to my attention today. I want to seek clarity from the government on that through this contribution.

The member for Calwell made the very good point that without this clarity that the bill is providing for parents who find themselves in this tragic situation it compounds the grief, and I thought that was a very apt line. We have nothing but admiration for Baby Priya's parents, who have gone above and beyond to advocate for this change and to provide that clarity. So many Australians face this grief silently—an unimaginable grief—but Baby Priya's parents have taken that extra step up to say that we need to change this. I cannot thank them enough for their efforts, and I congratulate the government for bringing this bill forward, pushing this reform and closing this loophole.

It is about providing clarity, as the member for Bennelong said. The concern I've got today is in relation to clarity of the use of definitions within the bill. The bill makes reference to stillbirths, and it points back to the definition of 'stillbirth' within the Fair Work Act. There have been some concerns raised with me, and there have been concerns raised with the minister in Senate estimates recently, about whether that definition covers a stillbirth caused by a late-term abortion. I hope that isn't the case. I hope that within this bill we are not including that. I don't think that including that is the intention of the government. I strongly support the intention of the government on this matter. I don't think that is the intention, and I want to seek clarity from the government to ensure that isn't the case, because I do not think that is actually what they want to achieve there. I have gone back and read the Senate estimates transcripts and seen the correspondence that has been made by the minister on this, and they haven't provided me with the necessary answers I need to satisfy myself that that isn't the case in this bill. I'm providing this contribution to ask the government if they can provide that clarity; can you give me that assurance that this does not apply to a stillbirth that has been caused due to a late-term abortion? I would welcome that, and I think many in the community would welcome that as well.

This is a bill that should have support from all corners of Australian society, and if we can achieve that clarity, I think we will get there. I want to associate myself with the remarks of the member for Canning, the member for New England and the member for Barker, who have all outlined this issue, and with everyone who has spoken in favour of this bill, because I can appreciate the intention here. I can appreciate the passion people have brought to this issue and I strongly support the intention. I thank the House.

See this speech in context