Bradford Sue: Corrections (Mothers with Babies) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Bradford Sue: Corrections (Mothers with Babies) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:632;Page:4029] 
SUE BRADFORD (Green) 
: 
 I move  
That the Corrections (Mothers with Babies) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. 
 At the appropriate time I intend to move that the bill be considered by the Law and Order Committee. 
I have brought this Corrections (Mothers with Babies) Amendment Bill to Parliament for consideration because of what I believe are elements of grave inhumanity in the way we often treat mothers of babies within our prison system. The catalyst came for me when I heard stories of mothers being refused any chance to breastfeed their newborn babies at all and having those newborn babies forcibly removed; when I heard of the trauma of mothers losing their babies at 6 months or at other random points of time during the cycle of imprisonment; and worst of all when I learnt that the right to breastfeed is at times being used as a tool of prison discipline. In the 21st century in a supposedly civilised country like Aotearoa New Zealand I think we can do a whole lot better than that. 
My bill has two overarching goals: to ensure prison authorities allow mothers to breastfeed their babies and to extend the period during which mothers are allowed to keep their babies with them from 6 months to 2 years. There is not an implication there as some have suggested that the breastfeeding and the time period are intrinsically linked together. They are two separate issues and I still want to see mothers given the chance to keep their babies with them even if they are unable to breastfeed at all or choose to stop breastfeeding before the 2 years are up as most women in fact do. 
In 2002 the World Health Organization adopted the World Health Assembly’s resolution to: “protect promote and support exclusive breastfeeding for six months … and to provide safe and appropriate complementary foods with continued breastfeeding for up to two years of age and beyond”. Not only international resolutions like that but also all the research I have ever seen show that breastfeeding is best for both the physical health and mental well-being of our babies. It also assists hugely in the bonding process that is so critical for babies’ long-term chances in life. I do not think a small group of babies should be denied that very fundamental human right simply because their mothers are languishing in either the remand or the sentence parts of the prison system. 
The breastfeeding issue underlies the broader question of how long babies should be allowed to be accommodated with their imprisoned mothers and indeed whether they should be with their mothers at all. In 2002 New Zealand prisons took a brave new step into the future by allowing babies aged under 6 months to live with their mothers in self-care units in prison. I would like to acknowledge here the former Alliance MP and Minister of Corrections Matt Robson for the role he played in assisting that to happen. I am sorry he is not actually here in the House tonight to help us take the further steps that I am proposing—steps that I am sure he would have backed all the way. 
Although 6 months in 2002 was at least a start it means we are still lagging a long way behind many other parts of the world. For example the state of Victoria in Australia allows children to stay with their mothers for up to 6 years. Malaysia and Canada allow it for 4 years and Singapore Hong Kong and Thailand allow it for 3 years each. Some of those countries are not exactly renowned for their progressive prison systems and I think that is an indication of just how far behind international best practice we in fact are. 
Some commentators have criticised my bill because they say that 2 years is far too young an age to take a child away from its mother. I agree with them but it is a whole lot better than 6 months. I also add that I would certainly welcome support from the House to amend the provision at the select committee to at least 3 years which I think is a much more reasonable age at which to take the risk of forced separation. More mothers would have finished their sentences by then as well. However if we are not yet ready in this country to be quite that advanced in our reforms in this area I hope my fellow MPs will at least support an extension to 2 years. 
Forcibly separating a mother from a baby at 6 months or at any time before then is nothing short of barbaric. Some MPs will have seen the letter from a prisoner that I copied to them yesterday. I do not know how any mother among us can remain unmoved by the extract from her story. I will quote a small portion of it: “Nine hours after I gave birth to my precious daughter I was told I was coming back to prison. I said with my baby? I was told no just me. I broke down. I deprived myself of sleep because I was so scared that I would wake up and my baby would be gone. I lost my appetite. Giving birth is meant to be such a happy occasion. The way I feel is that my heart doesn’t beat—it bleeds. I couldn’t even breastfeed because I didn’t know what was happening.” The process of having one’s baby taken away against one’s will is infinitely traumatic. 
Some people say that those women are criminals and do not deserve the right to breastfeed or to be with their babies. My response is that actually it is better for all of us if mothers and babies can have a better start in prison because in fact the mothers’ chances of rehabilitation will be so much higher. Women who are living in the criminal subculture often are addicted to alcohol drugs and gambling and exist in the kind of parallel universe most so-called mainstream members of society know nothing or little about. One of the main hopes for their rehabilitation can come from their giving birth and raising a child or children. It does not always work of course but having a baby and being given the opportunity to be a mother in a safe secure situation in which to love and nurture the child can make all the difference in that mother’s life. 
The converse is true too. If the baby is ripped away from the mother at 1 day 2 days 3 months or 6 months the despair and trauma that result can be absolutely devastating and the woman can end up being plunged back even deeper into the subculture from which she came. Our corrections system should be about maximising rehabilitation. It should be about giving prisoners the utmost possibility of turning their lives round when they come out. I do not think many parties in this House still believe that all we should focus on is punishment at the expense of the chance of change and redemption. 
Then of course there is the question of what is best for the child. Some people seem to think that I am proposing to put mothers and babies into the kind of environment we see in TV programmes such as  
Bad Girls 
 or hear about in so many movies books and so on. Far from it. For a baby to stay with its mother in prison both need to be in mother and baby self-care units within the prison and well separated from the general population. I was pleased to hear tonight that the new Auckland women’s prison south of Auckland will have one of these units. These places give the children concerned the chance to live for a period in a stable and regulated environment often with a lot more peace and security than can be offered in life outside—something that is on the minds of many of us at the moment I think after the double murder of the Kahui twins last week. 
My bill does not say that the needs of the mother should be paramount over those of her child but they are intertwined. For the best possible start in life a baby should be able to stay with its mother for at least 2 years. It should have the opportunity to be breastfed wholly then partially for as long as the mother desires and is able. Mothers in prison do have to abide by protocols and ensure a drug and violence free environment for their child. They also have the chance to receive the kind of parenting education and support that they might not be able to access on the outside for any number of reasons. For the child too I believe that it will often be better to spend the first 2 years of its life with its mother in prison than to be passed from one relative to another or through a series of foster homes which is often the only option. 
A further question that is sometimes asked about all this is the potential cost to the Department of Corrections of establishing mother and baby units in all women’s prisons sufficient to meet demand. I believe that this is a cost we cannot afford not to meet and in any case the cost would not be particularly large given that we have some units already. According to the best current information I have there are only 13 pregnant women within our prison system at present and we have quite a large female prison population right now. Although this number will always be subject to fluctuation it is hard to imagine it ever growing substantially. 
At a purely instinctive level I think anyone who has been a mother can understand the trauma a woman goes through when she has her baby removed against her will. Whatever our attitude individually or as political parties to crime and punishment I believe that my bill represents a reform whose time has come. I would like to thank all those political parties in the House who have come out in support of at least my bill going to a select committee and I hope that support will continue. It is a tribute to all those members that they have seen past traditional approaches to law and order issues and have understood the potential benefits of putting the needs of babies and mothers before the urge to condemn and punish. I look forward to the debate.