Fair Work Amendment (Baby Priya's) Bill 2025; Second Reading

Joyce acknowledged the grief associated with stillbirth and supported the bill’s substance regarding natural loss. Joyce raised concerns that the legislation might encompass late-term abortions, citing previous ministerial correspondence and estimates. Joyce argued for a clear definition of stillbirth that excludes intentional termination, stating he would not support the bill if it covered such cases without explicit clarification.

Briskey commended the bill for ensuring parents are not forced to return to work while grieving the loss of a child. Briskey highlighted the story of Baby Priya, whose parents campaigned after her leave was cancelled following her death at six weeks. Briskey explained the bill introduces a principle that employer-funded leave cannot be refused or cancelled due to stillbirth or early infant death, unless otherwise agreed. Briskey noted the reform aligns with existing unpaid leave entitlements and supports bargaining for conditions above the safety net.

Pasin supported the bill’s treatment of natural stillbirth and early infant death but opposed its potential application to late-term abortions. Pasin argued that the current definition of stillborn might inadvertently include intentional termination, which he could not support. Pasin called for a legislative definition of stillborn that explicitly excludes late-term abortion to ensure the bill’s intent was not broadened beyond natural loss.

Abdo described the bill as a moral necessity that closes a cruel gap in workplace laws. Abdo detailed the experience of Baby Priya’s mother, who had her leave cancelled ten days after her daughter’s death, contrasting this with her partner’s retained entitlements. Abdo argued the legislation provides certainty and dignity, preventing employers from cancelling leave during a time of immense grief. Abdo cited statistics on stillbirth and infant death to emphasise the need for compassionate workplace standards.

Laxale stated the bill was solely about fixing a legal loophole identified by grieving parents, not about culture war issues. Laxale explained that the legislation clarifies that employer-funded leave cannot be cancelled if a child is stillborn or dies, bringing it in line with government-funded leave. Laxale praised the advocacy of Baby Priya’s parents and other families who shared their stories. Laxale argued the reform reflects Labor’s commitment to a fair and compassionate workplace system.

Pike associated himself with those supporting the bill’s noble intention to provide clarity for grieving parents. Pike raised concerns about the definition of stillbirth within the Fair Work Act, questioning whether it included stillbirths caused by late-term abortions. Pike sought assurance from the government that the bill did not intend to cover such cases, noting that previous estimates had not provided sufficient clarity on this point.

Khalil commended the bipartisan support for the bill, which delivers on an election commitment to protect parental leave entitlements. Khalil highlighted the story of Baby Priya’s parents, who launched a petition after her leave was cancelled, leading to government action. Khalil noted the bill prevents employers from unilaterally cancelling leave and extends protections to adoption and surrogacy arrangements. Khalil linked the reform to broader investments in women’s health and workforce participation.