Goff Phil: Corrections (Mothers with Babies) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Goff Phil: Corrections (Mothers with Babies) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:647;Page:16167] 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Corrections) 
: 
 Firstly I acknowledge Sue Bradford for the work she has done in promoting the Corrections (Mothers with Babies) Amendment Bill and for encouraging us to recognise the negative impact of maternal imprisonment on the children of women prisoners. I think everybody in this House would recognise that the children of prisoners are amongst the most vulnerable members of our community and that therefore anything we can do to support children in this situation is very important. It is important in the context of this debate that we address how we can most effectively support those children. I also acknowledge the Law and Order Committee for approaching this topic in a non-partisan way and for its contributions to the bill. 
Tariana Turia has I think just drawn attention to one way to reduce the impact on children of maternal imprisonment and that is where possible not to send women offenders with dependent children to prison. I like to think that our justice system today in situations where it is compatible with public safety and the interests of justice will use community-based sentences instead of imprisonment. The Government has taken a number of steps to strengthen sentencing options. Stronger community-based sentences are now available to judges which means that home detention community detention and intensive supervision may often be suitable alternatives to a prison sentence. Such community-based sentences avoid our having to separate mothers and children. The sentences also allow women offenders more easily to be linked into a range of community and social services to support them and allow communities to be much more active in their role in supporting women and leading them away from the path to reoffending. Most important they would mean that children who are often in the position of not having a father at home would not lose a mother as well as a father in terms of their carers. 
Having said all of that which I think would be agreed to by most members of the House I know that most of us also acknowledge that there are times when a woman’s offending means that a prison sentence is the only appropriate response. Currently babies up to 6 months of age can reside in prisons with their mothers. The women and their children are housed in self-care units with other women offenders preparing for release from prison. But there are restrictions on who can take advantage of that arrangement. Women must have a minimum-security classification in order to participate in the programme for mothers with children in prison. The prison system also attempts to assist by having breastfeeding and bonding facilities available to women prisoners who do not have minimum-security classification or who for example may be on remand. The children can come in on a daily basis to feed and to bond with their mothers but for the rest of the time they reside with alternative caregivers. I also accept Tariana Turia’s argument that often people in the wider family can care appropriately for those children. 
Importantly this bill seeks to make it possible in appropriate circumstances for more children to reside in prison with their mothers. It does that by raising the upper age that children can reside in prison from 6 months to 2 years. It also opens up participation to all women prisoners with dependent children under the age of 2 not just those who have a minimum-security classification. Our first instinct is that children and prisons do not go naturally together. If we are to allow older children to reside in prison we need to make sure we have an environment that supports their developmental needs; otherwise there is a risk that we could do more harm than good. The existing self-care units are not specifically designed with older children in mind. Most of us who are parents understand that the developmental needs of a 2-year-old are vastly different from those of a 6-month-old baby and that a 2-year-old requires more varied stimulation for growth and development. 
The initial advice to me from the Department of Corrections was that to fully meet the needs of women prisoners with children aged up to 2 it would need an additional specifically designed 24 places in prison. This the department said would cost around $20 million in capital expenditure and around $6.5 million in annual operating expenditure. That cost is very difficult to justify when we consider other competing needs; that $26 million might alternatively be used to for example assist disadvantaged children in the community. Those costs were based on building and staffing for separate accommodation for mothers with children to optimal standards in all three of New Zealand’s women’s prisons. If the level of demand did not fill those positions it would be a very expensive and perhaps unnecessary provision. Of course we hope that with alternative community sentencing we may lower the level of demand for women and their children to be accommodated in prison. Finding $1 million to accommodate a woman and her child is hard to prioritise against other needs. 
As a result I asked the Department of Corrections to come up with alternative and perhaps more financially realistic proposals to allow the department to respond to this bill and to have a more immediate impact in terms of avoiding separating mothers and children. The department did that. Its representatives came back and spoke with me. I met with Sue Bradford to discuss what we might do that would have an immediate impact and would be affordable in terms of the Budget. The department came up with a total of eight places in Auckland and Christchurch women’s prisons at a cost of about $2 million in capital and $1.5 million in operating expenditure. In addition children at all three facilities it said could remain with their mothers for 9 months. I think this would certainly be a good first step. 
I took the time to discuss this with Sue Bradford because I knew we shared the same objectives and wanted a realistic way in which to deliver those particular objectives. Sue Bradford said to me—and she will respond in the House—that she thought this was a sensible approach that was capable of being built on for the future. To do it however I needed a Supplementary Order Paper. Otherwise we would have to find the $26 million upfront. Therefore I have circulated Supplementary Order Paper 174 to all members. It amends subsection (1) of section 81C which is inserted by clause 5 to make the construction of accommodation for women prisoners with children who are less than 2 years of age subject to the availability of resources. This would mean we could bring this in in a way that lowers the costs without sacrificing the objective. It would mean we could phase in necessary changes in accommodation giving us time to see how our new sentencing practices work in terms of avoiding the need for mothers and children to be in prison and allowing the department to build up the required facilities gradually and in a more cost-effective way. 
I have had the chance to discuss this alternative with a range of members of Parliament from different parties and there appears to be quite a strong level of support for proceeding in this manner. I therefore commend this amendment for the consideration of the Committee of the whole House. Again I thank particularly Sue Bradford for the concern and hard work she has put into this. I also thank all members of Parliament who have risen above the sort of politicking that often comes up in a discussion relating to prisons and law and order in order to look at how we might best do something that will make a real difference for these children and in a way that also preserves the integrity of our justice system and the safety of the public. Once again I thank Sue Bradford for her contribution to this debate and I thank members for their consideration of the Supplementary Order Paper that is on the Table of the House in my name.