Baby Priya brought compassion to the parliament. Then four men hijacked the debate

Politics can be a cynical and nasty business, but outbreaks of grace and compassion do occur. One happened on Wednesday during a parliamentary debate for the second reading speech of “Baby Priya’s Bill”.

MP after MP rose to speak with sensitivity about one of life’s most devastating experiences – the birth of a stillborn baby.

The bill will amend workplace laws to ensure employee entitlements to parental leave extend to parents whose baby has been stillborn, or who has tragically died in infancy. The bill is named after baby Priya, who was born prematurely at 24 weeks in June 2024. For six weeks, she battled for life in the neonatal intensive care unit. Then she died.

Her mother was an employee of a large organisation; she had worked there for 11 years. When she notified her employer of her baby’s death, she was told via text message that her parental leave had been cancelled, and she would get just one month of personal leave.

Priya’s father was able to retain his full paternity leave in the NSW industrial system – an inequality he thought was grossly unfair to his wife, who was not only bereaved but was also dealing with the physical difficulties of postpartum, but without the delight of her baby to buoy her.

The bill had bipartisan support, but several male MPs used the debate about this sensitive issue to shoehorn in their objections to late-term abortion – on which more later.

But first, back to the gracious parts of the debate. Speaking on behalf of the opposition, Coalition employment spokesman Tim Wilson said that “this is one of the most tragic and heartbreaking stories that you could ever hear as an Australian”.

“The only thing we could extend to our fellow citizens is a sense of compassion and empathy for the tragedy that has been lived,” he continued.

Member for Melbourne Sarah Witty rose to speak about having experienced the loss of a stillborn baby herself.

“Losing a child at any stage is profoundly painful, yet stillborn and infant deaths are often met with silence, discomfort or avoidance,” the Labor MP said.

Speaking after her, Nationals MP Michael McCormack told Witty: “Our hearts are with you. I say to the government, thank you. Well done. The Coalition supports it.”

But four Coalition MPs were more qualified in their support for the bill. They were conservative MPs Andrew Hastie, Barnaby Joyce, Henry Pike and Tony Pasin.

They didn’t have to speak during the debate. But as men who feel strongly that women shouldn’t be allowed to have late-term abortions – incredibly rare events which occur only for the most extreme of medical and psychological reasons – they felt they must speak up.

They were concerned that the bill would allow women who have had late-term medical abortions to claim parental leave from their employers. They argued the bill should be worded so it cannot be applied to late-term pregnancy terminations.

As my colleague Natassia Chrysanthos reported, Hastie said it was a matter of conscience for him, and it was “no secret” he was opposed to late-term abortions.

“I note the sensitivity around this, but I do call upon the government to clarify that [the bill] does not apply to late-term abortions,” he said.

Joyce said the MPs had concerns because “it appeared that late-term abortions were encompassed in this”.

Pasin said that paid parental leave “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, he said, “it shouldn’t be available to people who don’t wish to become parents”.

One Nation senator Pauline Hanson has long been pushing this debate out to the extremes, as she is wont to do. Previously, Hanson has accused the Labor government of “funding the murder of healthy babies where Australian women can terminate a pregnancy up to the day before birth … and access to paid parental leave of up to $22,754”.

Late-term abortions (those after 20 weeks’ gestation) account for fewer than 1 per cent of terminations. They are usually because of tragic circumstances such as late-diagnosed major fetal abnormalities, or situations where having the baby would severely harm the mother’s mental or physical health.

It is always remarkable (and for many women, offensive) to witness the spectacle of men attempting to police matters that are the business of women, their partners, and their doctors.

But here we have something even more insidious. It is the implication, however deeply buried in parliamentary rhetoric, that these women, who have had late-term abortions, might try to cheat the system. They might have just endured a physical and psychological ordeal unique to their sex, but they are not truly bereaved because they didn’t want their babies anyway. And yet, it is implied that they would be taking an employee entitlement intended for the legitimately bereaved.

Health Minister Mark Butler noted that no female Coalition MP spoke out against the wording of the bill. The gender voting patterns of the last decade had already made it pretty clear. Then, the results of the last election put it up in blinding lights: the Coalition has a major problem with the female vote.

As opposition leader, Peter Dutton, who was criticised for aping parts of the MAGA agenda in his election campaign, was firmly against bringing abortion into Australia’s political debate. Dutton said he supported a woman’s right to choose.

And yet, there are still right-wing MPs who look to the US and see a workable playbook. Hijacking what was otherwise a gracious debate about a tragic female experience to raise a notional quibble about women who might take a payment they don’t deserve? It’s audacious, for sure.

Jacqueline Maley is a columnist and author.

Get a weekly wrap of views that will challenge, champion and inform your own. Sign up for our Opinion newsletter.