Paragraph 1: Who is impacted?
Under the current interpretation of Australian law, parents who experience a stillbirth or infant loss are eligible for financial support through stillbirth and parental leave payments. However, the definition of "stillbirth" now being used may include cases where the termination was elective. This has significant ramifications for the integrity of the system and impacts all Australian taxpayers, bereaved families who have suffered genuine stillbirth, and the broader understanding of what constitutes a stillborn child under law.

Paragraph 2: What is at stake?
By blurring the distinction between babies who are lost through tragic medical stillbirth and those whose lives are ended through elective termination, the government risks undermining public confidence in parental support programs. Without a clear legal definition that excludes elective terminations, resources may be redirected away from grieving parents, while also distorting national stillbirth data, research efforts, and funding allocated for real stillbirth prevention.

Paragraph 3: Why is now the time to act?
The recent passage of "Priya's Law" in Parliament, though well-intentioned, was rushed without proper safeguards, after the Labor Government stifled debate around the clarity of the term "stillbirth". As a result, Australia is now in danger of reclassifying elective terminations as stillbirths. This would contradict medical ethics, public expectations, and the deeply personal and tragic reality of genuine stillbirth. We call on the government to amend the definitions immediately — before these laws go into effect in practice — to ensure that stillbirth payments remain reserved for families experiencing true medical loss.