Corrections (Mothers with Babies) Amendment Bill

The National Party supports the Corrections (Mothers with Babies) Amendment Bill. In speaking to this bill, I will first comment that prison is no place for a baby to be. Actually, many of us would think that prison is no place for many people to be. Certainly, the children whom we are speaking about are children at their most vulnerable—our very young children who are being breastfed by their mothers. Breastfeeding mothers who are in prison are, in many cases, some of our most vulnerable adults. In many cases, they are people who, if they do not have their babies with them, have very little to live for. I cannot think of a worse thing as a mother than to have a baby taken away. I just cannot believe that that could happen in a civilised society.

I know full well that this bill will certainly impact upon the Department of Corrections, and I note that Mr Goff, the Minister of Corrections, has asked for certain provisions to allow the provision of facilities able to cope with young babies. However, when this bill first came to National members we decided that we should give it a try, that we should see whether the Law and Order Committee could come up with whatever changes were necessary to make it a workable bill. I know that there is a great deal of scepticism out in the community about just how this bill will work, how it will operate for the children, and whether we are being unkind to little children by having them be in prison.

As I started off by saying, prison is no place for children. But let us think practically about where many of these children come from—where they live and what their homes are like. If mothers are in such trouble with the law that they are in prison, is it not better that their children are with them in a place where they are supervised, their Well Child checks happen, and somebody makes sure they are looked after and cared for? Many of these mothers have multiple challenges and difficulties to overcome, and they will be in a place where they can be supported, helped to be good mothers, and encouraged to do the right thing for their children. As a mother, when I think of the Kāhui children, Chris and Cru, I would rather that those babies had been with their mother in prison, under guidance and care, than out in the community with their mother. I am not making any judgment about what happened to them, and by whom. It is extraordinary that, until today, we have not acknowledged the fact that often babies live in places where they are not so much brought up as dragged up. Not all of us look after our children in the way that we should.

This bill provides an opportunity for a mother to learn to be a mother. It provides, at least, an opportunity for children to be fed properly, to be looked after, and to have Well Child checks—to have an opportunity. It is also a chance for rehabilitation. If one thing will rehabilitate adults, it will surely be the love of, and their love for, their child. I cannot think of anything else that would rehabilitate many of the people we are talking about. A woman who ends up in prison with a young baby will have committed some pretty nasty crimes.

I think the concerns that people have about the safety of the children have been dealt with by the select committee. There is enough in this bill to ensure that. I know we are taking a risk by passing this bill, but we take a risk every single day that we live. We take risks when children are born to parents who are not ready to be parents—yet they are parents. We cannot always judge situations by our own situations, and certainly not by the way in which we were brought up. This bill is something we can do; we can give these young mothers and their children a chance. If this bill becomes law and it does not work, we will look at it again.

Before I call the next speaker, I bring to the attention of members that we are debating this bill clause by clause. I am sure that members were very pleased to hear the contribution of the last speaker, but the debate is narrow. We are debating clause 1, “Title”. We are not to go outside that, at all. The next clauses to be debated are clause 2, “Commencement”, clause 3, “Principal Act amended”, clause 4, “Purpose”, and so on. That is the way it is, unless someone would like to seek leave to do otherwise. Someone may do that. I am not suggesting that members should do that, but it is possible for any member to seek leave that we have an overall debate, then have separate questions on the clauses. That may be acceptable to the Committee.

That is a remarkably good suggestion. My understanding, and I think the understanding of the earlier speaker, was that we would debate all the clauses together. That would be quite sensible. There is a strong degree of unanimity about this bill, and it would make sense to do so. I seek the leave of the Committee that we debate all the clauses together.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): Leave has been sought for that course to be followed. Is there any objection? There is objection. Members will confine themselves strictly to the clause under discussion. We are debating clause 1.

I would like to talk about the title of this Corrections (Mothers with Babies) Amendment Bill. I suggest that the title is, in many respects, possibly the best title for the bill. It deals with the corrections system, it deals with mothers with babies who have been incarcerated, and it is an amendment, obviously, to the Corrections Act.

The title indicates that the bill is about those mothers and their babies under 24 months, and what it means for those babies to be with their mothers at that most critical time. It says to people that this bill is about more than women who have done wrong being jailed; it is about more than the punishment that society—certainly, our courts—has deemed they need to receive; it actually talks about the babies. I think that that is what is most important about the title of this bill. It talks about our babies, and it says that the bill is about our young ones under 24 months. At the end of the day, I think this bill makes it pretty clear that it is about what is best for the children, and, certainly, what is best for babies under 24 months old.

The Law and Order Committee could have looked at other titles for the bill, and there are a number of options that it could have looked at, but I think it has chosen a title that describes the bill quite well. The title talks about mothers, and it talks about their babies. Those babies are to be with their mothers while they are under 24 months. I wanted to stand up and take a quick call in support of the title of this bill.

I am delighted to speak on the title of the Corrections (Mothers with Babies) Amendment Bill, and I congratulate Sue Bradford on bringing this bill to the House. It is a compassionate bill. The title says it all, basically. The bill is all about mothers and babies, and it is all about doing our best for mothers and babies. It is not about punishing the babies; it is about supporting the mothers and doing our best for the babies by letting them stay with their mothers. It is about bonding, it is about any type of feeding—not just breastfeeding, which is obviously the preferred way of feeding—and it is about continuity of care.

Members will be interested to know that under the current law—until Sue’s bill does pass—mothers can have their children with them in prison until they are 6 months of age, but that has not been feasible because we do not have the infrastructure.

I think the title of the bill—Corrections (Mothers with Babies) Amendment Bill—is very appropriate.

Hon Member: It’s a good title.

Dr JACKIE BLUE: Absolutely. Under the bill, babies can be with their mothers up to 24 months of age. No mother wants to have her children taken away, but at 24 months one can have staged management of the removal of a baby that is still with the mother, if the mother is still incarcerated. It is really in the best interests of the children that they are with their mothers. They should not be punished for the mothers’ crimes. It is all about reducing recidivism and intergenerational crime.

This is a fantastic bill. It has the support of National members. The title—Corrections (Mothers with Babies) Amendment Bill—is very apt, and we certainly support it.

On behalf of New Zealand First I am delighted to take a short call on the title of this bill, the Corrections (Mothers with Babies) Amendment Bill. We in New Zealand First believe that the title is most appropriate, and we believe, basically, that it says it all. It is relatively short and it is very specific. It is very easy to identify what the bill is about—the title tells one exactly: mothers with babies who are caught up in the justice system. So we believe that the title is very appropriate.

We identify babies as being those young, young children under 24 months, and we believe to have babies with their mothers in prison is a win-win situation. We know, too, that most mothers actually want to be with their babies, and to be in the justice system and away from one’s baby could be very traumatic. We believe the bill is in the best interests of children, and we will be looking forward to following it through the Committee stage.

I want to take a call on this clause because I agree with the previous speaker that the title of this bill actually says it all. If we break it down, the bill seeks to define a mother who is entitled to apply to have her child, under 24 months of age, with her in prison. I do not plan to take any future calls during the Committee stage, so I will take my opportunity to speak now.

I am pleased that the Law and Order Committee sought to check and adjust the definition of who can consider herself to be a mother and apply to have her child with her. Obviously the concept of a baby is well clarified, as to the length of time of the accommodation and at what age it would cease. I think the interesting word in the title is “with”, because the rest of the bill determines under what conditions an application can be made for a child to be with its mother, and also what might happen during this 24-month period in terms of parent education and a whole lot of other areas that can be covered during the time that a child is with its mother. United Future is very happy to support clause 1.

The ACT party rises, too, to support the Corrections (Mothers with Babies) Amendment Bill. In fact, it is surprising that it has not been a requirement before now. I think that is the only thing that amazes me, because the concern clearly is with the best interests of the child. The idea that when we incarcerate a mother we think that we are somehow adding to either her punishment or her rehabilitation by keeping her apart from her baby, and her baby apart from her, has to be muddle-headed. Surely the concern should be with the child, and how can any child be best cared for by being apart from his or her mum?

The bill allows the opportunity for the authorities to consider what is in the best interests of the child, so the issue of the facilities in the prison and, indeed, the issue of whether the mother is a suitable mother—irrespective of the fact that she is in prison—will be taken into account. I think, personally, it is astonishing that that has not been the case all these years.

Might I just add that I find it a bit disappointing, following Mr Goff’s suggestion and the bill’s support, that we are not debating the entire bill, because it is members’ day and that is an opportunity—particularly for the Opposition—to make a point. I thought it was very generous of Mr Goff to make the offer. I have to say that I am very disappointed with the National Party whip, who denied members on this side of the Committee the opportunity to debate the members’ bills and, indeed, to test the will of Parliament on their respective bills.

I want to take a call, and I am disappointed that we cannot take a call on the content of the bill, because although the title is self-descriptive, its contents are the fundamental drivers of why we are having this debate tonight. We are trivialising it actually by sitting here and talking about mothers and babies or mothers with babies—whether it is an apt title. The content of the bill is what matters in this debate. The Opposition’s refusal of Mr Goff’s request to take the debate as a whole has actually trivialised the debate tonight, but that does not surprise me. I also heard Opposition members talk about mothers and babies, so they even got the title wrong; it is mothers with babies.

But I think the sad thing here is that we have had to look at a bill in total, and entitle it. The issue that concerns us on this side of the Chamber is that this bill is trying to encourage the bonds of attachment by making the child central to the bill, not the mother, and that the child’s best interests are at heart. When we are looking at offending, at repeat recidivist offending, and at incarcerating mothers in prison, we are forgetting the outcomes of people who have lost their way in life. We have not supported strong attachment and bonding at birth—that absolutely critical stage—so there is no moral compass as those children grow up.

I think this is a fantastic bill, and it is interesting that Sue has had great success in getting her bills pulled out of the ballot. The title is apt for the bill. I look forward to better debate on the bill’s content, the reason why we need it, and, of course, why we support it.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): I just make the comment that I do not see how the debate can be taken too much further, because there is nothing new coming from contributors. I am willing to take another call, but I have no intention of seeing this Chamber being made fun of, as it were.

The title of the bill is appropriate. When we see that the title is Corrections (Mothers with Babies) Amendment Bill we can appreciate that we are talking about a change here; it is definitely an amendment bill. No doubt those people who are employed within the Department of Corrections will have to undertake training and make changes in their approach when this bill is introduced into law. No doubt there would have been an initial concern. This bill, with its title Corrections (Mothers with Babies) Amendment Bill, will add a cost, but when we look at it from that point of view we will see, too, that there is tremendous opportunity to ensure that the best possible outcome is achieved.

It is of significance that New Zealand should be one of the last of the OECD countries to have an ability to accommodate mothers with babies inside our corrections system. There is a lot of history and a lot of material around this legislation. The people who will be administering the Act will see that the intent of Parliament has to be to disregard the cost of what needs to be built to make adequate provisions, regardless of the security risk of, perhaps, the mother, so that the corrections system can carry out this activity in the appropriate way. On that level, I certainly support the title, and I look forward to the bill becoming law as the debate progresses. I think that the title, Corrections (Mothers with Babies) Amendment Bill, is very appropriate.

I move, That the question be now put.

Motion agreed to.

Clause 1 agreed to.

Clause 2 Commencement