Katy Gallagher (ACT, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the Public Service) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—I move:

That—

(a) the questions on all remaining stages of the Fair Work Amendment (Baby Priya's) Bill 2025 be put at 1 pm today;

(b) paragraph (a) operate as a limitation of debate under standing order 142; and

(c) divisions may take place between 1.30 pm and 2 pm until consideration of the bill has concluded.

Malcolm Roberts (Queensland, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I want to make some brief comments. This is yet another guillotine, another cutting of debate, by the Labor government—so much for transparency—yet again. You're denying a voice to an emotional issue that troubles millions of people. You're stopping debate on stillborns. The government doesn't want the experiences of people with stillborns told in this parliament. Shame! We should have a full debate.

Matthew Canavan (Queensland, Liberal National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This is a very regrettable move by the government because it's a very sensitive issue. It's an extremely sensitive topic, the birth—or in some extremely tragic cases, the stillbirth—of what could have been a potential human life, a potential human being. I think it would be best, particularly for this chamber, for this house, to take a deliberative approach to an issue of this sensitivity. This bill has only just been introduced to this place, and my understanding of the motion now before this chamber is that the government is intending to move the bill without any form of consideration, deliberation or debate. We are in effect not doing our job as senators to only make laws after a considered deliberation of the issues.

May I also add that, in this case, there was a motion last week that sought to refer this bill to a Senate committee. That was refused. That sometimes happens, but again it seems a little unusual for a bill of this sensitivity—that goes to a lot of different opinions in the broader public—not to have a proper airing of all of those issues. I could only conclude that the reason the government is seeking to silence debate on this issue is because it has been on the receiving end of thousands of people who are upset and concerned about this bill. We've all received that correspondence, and some of us would agree with it—some of us wouldn't; some of us would have a different opinion. But because there has been such an outcry of concern over this bill in the past week, the government has simply decided, in my view, that instead of having to respond to those concerns—and I think there are some legitimate concerns that I'll come to—it is simply going to silence them. Its approach to engaging with the Australian public is to treat them with contempt and say, 'Talk to the hand.' That is the approach being taken here by the government, through this motion, and it should be condemned. It should be absolutely condemned to act in this way.

There are some very, very legitimate issues with how this is being approached, and I would have liked to have made a contribution on the substantive issues of this debate. Some may be surprised at how I would have approached these issues. I don't think it is black and white. I think there is a very, very difficult and sensitive topic to deal with here. Fundamentally, I do believe—as, I believe, the Liberal and National parties do, some people in the government do and most people do—that the law should be changed to ensure that parents that have to go through the tragic event of a stillbirth are not disadvantaged when it comes to their workplace or other entitlements associated with parental rights.

I know many parents who have gone through this situation, and they are no less parents simply because their child has unfortunately suffered an untimely end before birth. That child is a human being. That child has been loved and cherished by their parents, and the loss those parents feel is as great as that of any parent who loses a child. It is a problem with our current laws that such loss is not properly reflected in our workplace laws or in the entitlement rules for the paid parental leave system. So I fully support all of that and would hope that we legislate to get to that position.

There is an issue that's been raised—and, as I say, it's what the government wants to silence—and it's that the bill, as drafted, would appear to extend these additional rights to situations where a pregnancy has been terminated on the decision of the parents. This is a very difficult situation. I recognise that it's a relatively rare situation, in terms of late-term interventions. It does, however, happen, and I think there are legitimate issues here. As I've said, I don't think it is black and white, because the decision that a parent would take to do that in those circumstances comes in a myriad of forms, and it is quite difficult to write laws around this to capture all of those different human experiences. In particular, I am very mindful of situations where, in the late term of pregnancy, the health of the mother can be put at risk. It's an extremely difficult question for any parent or any family to have to face, and I wouldn't want our laws to impose an undue burden on parents in that situation deciding how they balance the health of the mother against the health of a child. It's a terrible ethical dilemma and ultimately one I firmly believe that each parent, each mother and father, is best placed to determine themselves.

I just want to be clear. I've received the correspondence that I referred to, but I don't want to see us amend this bill in anyway that reduces the rights of mothers to make a decision to protect their own health. However, I also don't want a situation where, if in the event there aren't any health risks, we would extend entitlements where there has been a decision to terminate a pregnancy at late term. These examples are very confronting situations.

A few years ago I moved a bill, the Human Rights (Children Born Alive Protection) Bill 2022, to provide care to babies when they are born alive in these situations, and, when I first introduced that bill, I was under the impression that a baby born alive in these circumstances is an unfortunate, unexpected outcome of a termination procedure. I apologise for bringing this up—the government has brought this on. I didn't intend to speak on this right now, but you've brought it on, and I want to make sure I have my chance to speak. I've just been told that 1 pm is still the guillotine, and, on an issue that goes to conscience, it would be much better for the government to have a conscience and let other senators express their conscience, their views, on this matter. A few hours is simply not good enough to deal with these issues.

As I said, I was under the impression that, in the event of a late-term termination, a baby born alive is an unexpected, unfortunate contingency that sometimes happens. Unfortunately, for some termination procedures, the baby being born alive is, in fact, an outcome of the procedure; the procedure is, in some circumstances, simply to induce pregnancy, and the baby is then born and is, effectively, left to die. It's very, very sad and very tragic. The problem is that other techniques that can deliver a late-term abortion in some states involve the use of chemicals that inflict enormous pain on the fetus and that are, in fact, banned for use in euthanising animals in this country.

I don't know. When I learnt that—obviously, I'm pro-life—I was shocked. I was shocked that we simply leave babies to die and that there's no care provided to them. That's why I introduced my bill. It's something, I think, most of us haven't perhaps confronted, but it's what happens. Just like there's a problem here that we're trying to fix, that, to me, seems like a major problem. Surely, every human being deserves care, but we're not providing that right now. These late-term terminations are extremely confronting, and we should be much more considerate in dealing with these issues. That's why I would very much like to see a proper Senate inquiry into this, where we don't seek to yell and scream at each other but seek to actually confront the details of what occurs and how we should best legislate for those contingencies, which is what good lawmakers should do.

As I said, when I introduced my bill, I wasn't even aware of this. It wasn't until we had a Senate inquiry into that bill—I think it was the first Senate inquiry into abortions for many decades in this place—that we had experts and doctors come forward and actually explain how a late-term termination works. I think all senators in the room, whatever their views, were a bit shocked by the description of the procedure. I apologise again for having to go through this again, but I need to make this point right now because these sorts of facts, these confronting truths, should be given an appropriately sensitive airing through a deliberative process in this chamber.

Instead, the government has come in here and blindsided the Senate this morning. I was ready to speak on the bill, as it has been listed—the government listed it for the agenda this week, which was circulated—but instead the government decided to come in and, through an early morning intervention into our deliberations here, say: 'No, that's it. We're going to make sure this is dealt with today.' As I said at the start—I've been in this position a lot of times in recent years—we really let people down in this place. We do this all the time, guys. I don't know if this is a newsflash to anybody, but everybody out there hates us. They really don't like us. The reason they don't like us is games like this, these silly little games that political parties play to get their way—to use the raw force of their numbers to get a decision to go their way.

That's not our job. We're paid really good money. We get great privileges. Our job is to debate. Our job is to consider. Our job is to listen to the Australian public. But, instead, time and time and time again, at an increasing rate, may I say, this chamber—and it has been all sides of politics, but there's no doubt about the fact that it's getting much, much worse—comes in here and simply silences everybody and puts a cone of silence over us, and none of the public can then penetrate that cone. They can't have their voice heard. They can't get a response. They don't even get an airing of their concerns in their assembly. This is their place, not ours. We're just tenants here. All of our careers will pass, but we are here as servants to the Australian people. We are meant to be, but, instead, by moving motions like this, we are acting like their masters. That is the wrong way around, guys. If you keep acting like this, you will continue to get a level of frustration and anger in the political system in this country. It is why the primary vote of the major parties is at its lowest level ever. That's absolutely why it is—no doubt. It's us that do this rubbish, and we cop the backlash for it.

Okay, you can do it. You've got the numbers. You can do it, but there are going to be consequences for actions like this. There is going to be a backlash from the broader public and not just on this issue. This is just another shocking example of us not doing the jobs we are paid to do, of us simply deciding that it's all too hard and it's all too difficult to handle these tough questions that people in emails and on social media bombard us with and of us saying: 'So let's just knock off early. Let's knock off early, and we can all go home at 1.00 pm'—apparently—'and then no-one will email us again, because a decision was made and there's nothing they can do about it.' They might not email us again, but they will come and vote in a few years, and a lot of us might not be here. I tell you what, if the polls keep going the way they are, there are not going to be many senators from the major parties left. That's the hard, cold reality of this and what we're doing. Keep at it, guys. Keep making a mockery of this house, and maybe you won't be here in the future to keep acting like this.

Katy Gallagher (ACT, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the Public Service) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Just to be clear about why we're moving this motion, it's to allow for the passage of Baby Priya's bill by one o'clock today. If we hadn't had that 15 minutes, we would have got into the bill. We're allowing for three hours—

Sue Lines (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Minister Wong?

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Canavan was heard in silence by this side of the chamber. I request that Minister Gallagher be afforded the same courtesy.

Sue Lines (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I remind senators—Senator Canavan, you were heard in silence, and Minister Gallagher will be heard in silence as well.

Katy Gallagher (ACT, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the Public Service) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

To allow for three hours of debate, allowing all senators to participate in that on this important bill—just to be clear, this bill is actually about amending the Fair Work Act, and it only relates to employer funded paid parental leave if a child is stillborn or dies. Its origins are in the parents of Baby Priya, who lived for six weeks after her birth, and, when she passed away, her mother's parental leave was cancelled by her employer. She had worked there for 11 years, and her father's parental leave continued. Those very brave parents felt that it was unfair that the mother lost her parental leave, and this bill responds to that. It recognises that the loss of a baby is devastating for parents and that, if there's a way to respond, in Baby Priya's name and with the bravery of her parents, to seek legislative reform that would allow a mother, in the exact same experience as what's Baby Priya's mother endured, to grieve and to have an entitlement to grieve through that period of what would have been her parental leave—that's what this bill is about. We believe three hours is plenty of time for senators who would like to participate, just as Senator Canavan and others have, but let's not lose focus on what the bill actually is.

I know there has been a fair bit of attention about what this bill is not. But this bill is about amending the Fair Work Act so that where parental leave exists for parents in the private sector—not related to Commonwealth paid parental leave, which doesn't cancel in those circumstances—parents will be entitled to continue to receive parental leave. That's what the bill's about. And, if passage isn't completed by one o'clock, that still will have been three hours of debate for this chamber. I move:

That the question be now put.

Sue Lines (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the motion moved by Minister Gallagher—that the question be put—be agreed to.

Sue Lines (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the motion moved by Minister Gallagher be agreed to.