Bradford Sue: Corrections (Mothers with Babies) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Bradford Sue: Corrections (Mothers with Babies) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:643;Page:13352] 
SUE BRADFORD (Green) 
: 
 I move  
That the Corrections (Mothers with Babies) Amendment Bill be now read a second time 
. I am delighted that this bill is back before the House tonight for its second reading with a recommendation of support from all the members of the Law and Order Committee. Although this bill as originally drafted has been much amended over the nearly year and a half that it has been before the select committee I believe that the amendments are a useful and worthy reflection of the quality of the work that was put into the bill by submitters officials and MPs alike. 
Throughout this process I have been touched by how seriously members from other parties have taken my original concerns about the fate of babies and children whose mothers are in prison despite the fact that this issue affects only a very small number of people each year. I would like to particularly acknowledge Simon Power and Chester Borrows from the National Party and the chair of the select committee Martin Gallagher for the care and attention they put into this bill through quite an exhaustive process. We heard a number of interesting and useful submissions from very different perspectives ranging from prison reform groups breastfeeding advocates and experts on parenting and separation theory through to legal and health professionals and former prisoners. I would like to particularly acknowledge the latter for their courage in being willing to expose their own histories in order to help us understand the issue more clearly. 
A number of critical points came through strongly as we considered the questions raised by my original bill and heard what submitters had to say. I will take the opportunity to touch on a few of those points now. One of the first big issues to arise was that of the length of time that a mother should be able to keep her baby or child with her while she is in prison. Quite a large number of submitters made the point very strongly that a period of 2 years which was originally advocated in my bill was actually not long enough and that we should amend the bill to create a higher upper age limit—3 years being one of the more popular suggestions. 
The proponents of the longer period felt that removing a child at 2 years was not only too soon but developmentally quite the wrong age to separate a child from his or her mother. Submitters also frequently noted that in other jurisdictions it was quite common for children to be able to stay with their mothers for 3 years or even longer. There was no common agreement from submitters on what the ideal suitable upper limit should be with some even saying that there should be no limit at all. I confess that I was quite keen to try to move the limit upwards to at least 3 years but in the end I have of course accepted the necessities of political compromise. It is far better to achieve at least the 2-year reform that I originally advocated rather than no change at all. 
I also understand arguments that were made particularly by Department of Corrections officials that all the women’s prisons in this country are basically high-security prisons and that there are no open prisons of the sort that are available in other countries and are far more suitable for keeping older children within their confines rather than the closed prisons we have at the moment. 
Another criticism of my original bill which came from groups like the Puriri Trust was that in a humane society we should not be putting mothers with babies into prison at all. I have huge sympathy for this perspective. I believe that we should be working towards a situation where mothers who we feel should be locked up are located in some form of community-based habilitation centre outside prison walls but until that happy day is reached I would rather achieve at least some progress rather than leave things as they are now with babies removed from their mothers at 6 months and with some mothers not being able to keep their babies with them at all. 
I refer here to the situation of people on remand and to those prisoners who are given a security classification that completely denies them the chance to keep their babies with them. This happens because the practice in our prisons at the moment is that only sentenced prisoners classified as low security are qualified to apply to keep their babies and because regulations do not allow the mixing of accused and remand prisoners or the mixing of differently classified prisoners within the same part of the prison. 
Some organisations criticised my bill because they thought I was continuing these two exclusions. Not at all—the bill in its original and now amended form is geared to ensuring that ultimately all women who are remanded in custody will have the opportunity to keep their babies with them as will women with a higher classification level which currently denies them even being considered for this option. 
Another issue that came up on a number of occasions while we were considering the bill was that of mothers who may not be willing or able to breastfeed their babies. Some members were concerned that the bill might discriminate against such mothers if it were wholly focused around the right to breastfeed. Again this was a misunderstanding of what I originally intended and we have now made it very clear through the insertion of some new wording that all mothers and babies are included and that all types of feeding are included not just breastfeeding. I guess this misapprehension arose because so much of my original stated purpose for the bill was around the need to enable babies to have the right to breastfeed but it was certainly never meant to exclude those mothers who cannot. However all of us agreed that although a key element of this bill is to support the right of imprisoned mothers to breastfeed all mothers should be able to apply to be part of the programme. 
Given that another of the key drivers for me in putting this bill forward was my concern at stories I had heard of breastfeeding being used as a way of punishing mothers or of keeping them in line I note the statement that we have included in the commentary on the bill which was agreed to by all members on the select committee: “When there is no other reason to terminate the placement we expect that removing access to breastfeeding will not be used as a tool of prison management or discipline.” I sincerely hope that this will be genuinely taken on board and passed on through the Department of Corrections training and supervisions systems and that we will not be hearing stories of such practices emanating from our prisons any time in the future. 
One of the biggest problems with this bill is the lack of sufficient quantity or quality of facilities to cater for the possible demands arising from it once it becomes law. The Department of Corrections has made it very clear that substantial alterations and improvements will need to be made to all three of our women’s prisons in order to accommodate all possibly eligible mothers and children once the bill comes into force. 
As select committee members we were fortunate enough to be given the opportunity to visit the new Auckland Region Women’s Corrections Facility as part of our consideration of the bill. Although the units we were shown looked surprisingly homely modern and child-friendly I think we could begin to understand some of the logistical problems that will occur once this bill is implemented and the age group of the children being kept with their mothers goes up. 
Because it will take a little time—and I hope that it truly will be a little time not a prolonged period—before sufficient facilities are ready we agreed to an amendment that will mean there may be some limitations on who and how many mothers and children can be accommodated during the interim period. I note however that the numbers of possibly eligible women and children remain very low. In fact when we visited the prison we found that there were no mothers with babies there at the time. I trust that the Department of Corrections will do its best to maximise the availability of facilities that do exist until the additional accommodations are completed. 
Another lingering concern I have had around this bill was the fact that I had heard that in some overseas jurisdictions—for example the UK—some mothers with mental health problems or drug or alcohol addictions are denied the right to keep their babies with them simply because of those problems. This denial is then exacerbated by the fact that the prison does not offer them the health support they need in order to work through and overcome their mental illness or substance abuse problems. 
I am therefore pleased that we have made it very clear in section 81B inserted by clause 5 that the prisons will be obliged to “facilitate the mother’s access to any treatment or counselling required to support the mother to care for her child:”. As long as the mother agrees to participate in treatment or programmes these problems are not in themselves reasons to disallow a mother from keeping her baby with her. The Government has also advised that it is now putting substantially more resources into mental health alcohol and drug addiction services in our prisons. I certainly hope these extra resources are applied to women’s prisons as much as they are to men’s prisons. 
But on a related matter I like other MPs acknowledge that there are some situations where a mother should not be able to participate in the programme—for example if she has committed violent or sexual offences against children or if she has issues that would put her child in danger. Nor should any woman be required or feel pressured to keep a baby with her in prison against her will. This bill is not about requiring or forcing any woman to keep her child with her nor is it about doing anything that might hurt or harm her child or children. The needs of the babies and children involved are paramount as we make patently clear in the purpose clause and elsewhere. 
I would like to finish by once again thanking all the members of the Law and Order Committee and the officials who have worked so hard on this bill as well as all the political parties in this House that appear to be continuing their support for my bill. As far as I am aware votes for this bill appear to have continued to be unanimous and that is a most unusual situation in this Parliament. I thank all members. It is a signal that this bill is a progressive reform whose time has indeed come.