Borrows Chester: Corrections (Mothers with Babies) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Borrows Chester: Corrections (Mothers with Babies) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:650;Page:18808] 
CHESTER BORROWS (National—Whanganui) 
: 
 I appreciate the opportunity to speak to this Corrections (Mothers with Babies) Amendment Bill. I congratulate not only Sue Bradford on having some forethought in bringing the bill before the House but also the members of Parliament—the whole 121 of us—who got in behind this bill and made the decision to support it because I am quite sure that if we looked across the country and took advice from every man and his dog who tends to have a view on these things we would find that support was not unanimous. I am pleased to see that on this particular occasion the information laid before members of Parliament has won through in some good sense around this particular issue. Although a number of us were lobbied by people outside who were saying: “What are you doing? This is crazy stuff. A prison is no place for a baby.” there was unanimous resolve across the House that in certain circumstances prison is the best place for certain babies. 
We have only to look at the demographics of those people who go to jail to realise the wisdom behind the position that every party in this House has taken in respect of this bill. The mothers of children who grow up and go to prison have several hallmarks in common. They often have several children by the time they are 20 usually to multiple partners. The mothers of children who grow up and go to jail usually leave school with few or no qualifications they usually have their baby when they are very young they are usually employed in low-wage jobs or are on a benefit they usually have had no significant family care or engagement they are usually dependent on alcohol or some other drugs and they are usually tobacco smokers—and if we can identify the father he usually comes from within that same demographic too. That means that the vast majority of the people who end up in jail fall into the category of people who do not have those home supports or the ability or potential to readily succeed. 
Another point that must be made very strongly is that the whole purpose of this bill is to give paramountcy to the child and not to the mother. So those people who look baldly at this legislation and say that women will run off and get pregnant—or they use that colloquial term “fall pregnant”—however they manage to do that in order to have a softer time in jail are nuts because women will not. And if the mothers were of that mind then they would become pregnant in any event and would probably be in the category I have outlined earlier many many times. 
We need to look at our role as a society in order to take responsibility and to do the best we can by the child and the mother in circumstances where we are able to actually effect some purpose. There needs to be some discussion and understanding of the drivers that see young mothers in jail in the first place. Although we would love to be in a position to wind back the clock and to put in the education or safeguards that would prevent young people going to jail this provision is not exclusive. Just because we have this provision—and thank God that we do and that it will soon be implemented—does not mean that we do not do the other things around education or have those other societal fixes that need to be put into effect early. 
There is a real tension to the argument between the paramountcy of the child’s interest and consideration of the community-based sentence. I notice for instance that the Minister and other speakers talked about our ability now to enact home-based sentences and home detention is one of those sentences. I really hope that the cart does not get put before the horse in respect of these sentencing options. I do not believe having seen a lot of homes where prisoners come from including a lot of homes with young babies—the children of female offenders—that home detention will be the best option in every case in any event. 
The words of Dr Pita Sharples were related very well to us by his whip Te Ururoa Flavell in respect of children in prison. That speech asked whether the child would remember being raised in prison. Well I wonder whether a child of the same age maybe under 2 years old is able to remember everything that went on at home and how positive that experience was. For instance if a mum who fitted within the demographics I outlined at the beginning of my contribution lives in a house that is cold and damp a house that is shared by many other adults or a house where alcohol abuse or drug-taking happens on a frequent basis will the child remember that? Will the child benefit from remembering that as his or her first home life experience? 
Will the child remember growing up in a house with few toys where little interest is taken in the child and where not a heck of a lot of reading to the child is done or other parenting skills are displayed? 
When we really look at this situation we have to ask whether home detention is the best option for a person required to be sentenced for some other crime. For instance would it not be far more appropriate for the mother of a young child to be placed in a mother and baby unit within a prison—that is in a flatting situation—where carers are alongside prison officers living with that mother where parenting skills are taught on a daily basis and where the precursor for a mother having her baby in prison is that a parenting agreement is signed? In that situation the child’s interests are paramount and come first and a written contract negates drug-taking and other negative behaviours. The baby will be raised—albeit within a prison—in a warm environment with soft blankets with care and attention in a drug-free environment and with regular feeds. There will be access to regular medical checks like well child checks. The certainties that go with a regime that accepts the paramountcy of the child’s interests are right there as a key. 
I do not believe that that regime is available in some homes especially in the homes of those who end up going to jail. We have heard today for instance of the tragic death of a policeman in South Auckland and at the centre of that home which is now cordoned off by the police was a young mum and a 5-month-old child in circumstances where some offenders are living within that house. But as I say at the core of the situation is a 5-month-old baby. 
You know we cannot dictate in virtually every situation around this country where our babies live but we know that these babies are our babies. They are not brown babies or yellow babies or brindled babies; they are our babies. And it is our role as representatives in this House—people in a privileged position—to put the security of the most vulnerable in our society right at the forefront of all we do. 
I am proud to be part of the National Party which has supported this legislation all the way through. Once again I thank the sponsor of the bill and I say that I appreciate the support that has come from across the House on this very crucial issue. Thank you. 
Bill read a third time.