Corrections (Mothers with Babies) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Corrections (Mothers with Babies) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:648;Page:17567] 
Corrections (Mothers with Babies) Amendment Bill 
In Committee 
Debate resumed from 2 July. 
Clause 4 Purpose ( 
continued 
)  
KATE WILKINSON (National) 
: 
 I rise to speak in the Committee stage of the Corrections (Mothers with Babies) Amendment Bill. Clause 4 is the purpose clause which is to provide for the best interests of the child by enabling young children of female prisoners to be placed with their mothers in prison until they turn 24 months’ old for the purposes of bonding feeding and maintaining continuity of care provided that certain criteria and conditions are met. I think it is fair to say that nobody believes that prison is the best place to bring up children but there are situations where this is a fair and reasonable thing to do. 
I would like to relate a situation a true story that happened in Central Otago that I think really endorses the purpose and good intentions of this bill. One of the local lawyers there told me that every court date the judge struggles with what to do with defendants who are really in the gaps. However the most recent court date was a very good example. The judge stated in his judgment that the defendant should have been given a sentence of community detention but because it is not offered in that area he could not give her that sentence. The defendant has a 3-month-old baby and a partner. She has no family outside Central Otago and because she has grown up there she has no support outside that area either. She was sentenced to 4 months’ imprisonment. The law has changed and she now has to do the entire 4 months. Her baby has been left with the grandmother. She has a 3-month-old baby who has been left with the grandmother and the mother was still breastfeeding. The lawyer stated quite rightly that this situation is outrageous. 
This bill will go somewhere to ameliorating this exact situation. We could criticise that fact that community detention is not available in that area of Central Otago and that in some cases a lack of cellphone coverage means that those who should be serving community detention cannot have electronic bail monitoring. But this real-life situation demonstrates how this amendment bill could do great things for that mum who has a 3-month-old baby and a partner. The mother had offended admittedly but had offended to the extent that the sentence was 4 months’ imprisonment and her baby had to be left with the grandmother even though the mother was still breastfeeding. In this sense it is justice by geography. The judge had no choice. The judge admitted that it was a “deplorable situation” but he had no option. 
This example is from the area of Central Otago; there are other areas where a smaller sentence is warranted but because of those areas’ geography imprisonment is the only option. For mothers who have young babies it is as the judge said deplorable. We have situations where those community detention sentences are not available in rural Westland Buller or in the central North Island including places like Taihape Waiouru Ohakune Raetihi and the Coromandel Peninsula. So if the mums in those areas happen to offend even at that minor level and get a sentence of 4 months they cannot do community detention. They are in the same “deplorable situation” that that poor mother in Central Otago was in. 
I congratulate the member and author of this bill Sue Bradford. It is one of those bills that has been if you like non-partisan. The Law and Order Committee of which I was a member worked hard to get some of the wording right. There was not much debate or dispute about the bill’s intention or wording and it is a good example of the way in which this Parliament can work very cooperatively and collaboratively across parties to produce legislation that really is in the best interests of our society. 
CHESTER BORROWS (National—Whanganui) 
: 
 I rise to take a call in support of clause 4 and I reiterate and support the words of my colleague Kate Wilkinson and her praise for Sue Bradford for bringing this bill to Parliament. No doubt many MPs come into the House are here for a while then disappear without leaving much of a trail. Sue is somebody who can point to a number of pieces of legislation and say she has done some stuff while she has been here. It was interesting to note that on this legislation she had unanimous support right across the House. That is something I am sure many of us would like to be able to tick off as having had in our time here. However I doubt that we will. 
The good sense behind this legislation is that it takes women who are frequently in a bad situation—hence the offending or the level of offending they are operating at that sees them go to jail—and allows for some good to happen while they are in prison. We know that the vast majority of people who go to prison in this country are there for a relatively short period of time—less than 2 years—and we also know that under the regime that is operating at the moment it is very difficult for any of those people in prison for less than 2 years to be able to obtain rehabilitation of any kind. 
When a woman goes to jail for offending frequently in the background to that offending is the protection or the support of a child and frequently there is some partner who is taking away from her the ability to support herself and her child. Often there is a situation where a woman is either taking the rap for someone else or offending at the direction of somebody else. 
My colleague Kate Wilkinson made the point that home detention is unavailable in some parts of the country. In respect of this legislation and these facts about mothers with babies going to jail I am quite pleased that it is not available in all places. If home detention were available I wonder where some of these mothers would be. Chances are that they would be in some dingy damp flat with some aggressive partner overseeing them dictating their movements and withholding their money—the benefit or whatever income comes into that household. 
This legislation allows the system to do some good for people in jail for a short period of time. Maybe that is by providing the skills necessary for mothers to be able to care for and nurture their children and set up bonds with their children that they would never have but for the opportunity to be able to hold their children with them until the children are 2 years old while they complete their sentences. 
There are so many intervening factors that make mothers of young babies completely vulnerable while they are out in the community. They are dictated to as to the associations they may have with others they are dictated to in terms of what they can provide for the nurturing of their children and they are dictated to in the activity they are able to be involved in—to the long-term detriment of the relationships they have with their children. 
The purpose of the bill is aimed directly at the best interests of the children. The purpose clause states: “for the purposes of bonding feeding and maintaining continuity of care provided that certain criteria and conditions are met.” Those conditions of course include remaining clean from drug abuse and being prepared to participate in a programme about parenting skills. 
I guess that the only shame is that when judges impose community-based sentences we do not more often see them imposing sentences that ensure that mothers of young babies attend these sorts of programmes. It is a shame that we do not see more young mothers attending such courses while they are on the outside—before they have to go to prison as part of a sentence—and recognising the responsibilities they have in dealing with the young ones who rely on them for life itself. 
I am pleased to be able to stand in support of this clause and to be able to report that National will continue its support for the bill right the way through the process. I look forward to this bill becoming law sooner rather than later. 
Dr JACKIE BLUE (National) 
: 
 I take great pleasure in rising to talk about the purpose of the Corrections (Mothers with Babies) Amendment Bill. Like my colleagues I congratulate Sue Bradford on bringing the bill to the House. It has unanimous support and why should it not? I think that it will achieve a significant change in a lot of people’s lives. 
The bill is not just about breastfeeding; I know that amendments have been made so that it can include bottle-feeding or other types of feeding. It is not exclusively about breastfeeding but breastfeeding is certainly a very important part of bonding between mother and child. Too often there is now a very poor percentage of women who continue to breastfeed and the women who are in prison and incarcerated with their babies will perhaps have a much much better chance ironically than women who are outside who go through district health board births and then have to get out of the hospital quite quickly because of the pressure on the number of beds. I think that that is one of the reasons we have such poor breastfeeding rates. 
The bill is also about allowing mothers to be with their children for up to 24 months and I think that it would be really interesting to do a prospective trial to look at the women going through. Once this legislation becomes enacted and we have the facilities built to cope with mothers and young babies we should do a trial to see how those women’s lives—and the lives of the babies for that matter—are affected coming out the other end and beyond. I went to a breakfast this week that was hosted by the Hon Tariana Turia. It was on models of positive youth development and there was a very interesting guest speaker from America Dr Larry Brendtro. He was basically saying that it is the bonding that is so important and it is the mentoring of an adult with a child that is so crucial in that child’s development. The same principle applies and even more so to small babies and their mothers. 
I think that this is a commendable bill. I wish that the bill goes speedily through the House and that the facilities are built so that we can see the good outcomes that come from this. Obviously not a lot of women would have young babies in prisons but this bill will accommodate those women who are pregnant and have children while they are in prison. The current law provides for mothers to be with their babies for 6 months and that provision has been in existence since 1961. This bill will change that and turn that length of time into 24 months. I think that there is an acceptance that in 24 months the child and the mother will be well and truly bonded and it gives the woman a chance to turn her life around in a way that she may not otherwise be able to do in the outside world. Of course it comes with strings attached. There have to be parenting agreements between the mother and the facility to make sure that she abides by the law goes to parenting groups cannot take drugs and so forth and that is fair enough too. But I think that this bill has potentially excellent outcomes for both mothers and their babies and I am delighted to speak to this purpose clause. Thank you. 
BARBARA STEWART (NZ First) 
: 
 On behalf of New Zealand First I am very pleased to rise and support this Corrections (Mothers with Babies) Amendment Bill and to talk to the purpose clause. We in New Zealand First believe that this is good legislation. We believe that it gives an opportunity for these young babies to be cared for in the best possible way and that it gives an ideal opportunity for mothers to learn the parenting skills they would not otherwise learn. We know that it is very difficult to get along to antenatal classes and many of the mothers we are talking about would not even have bothered to go. Going to classes is hard enough when mothers are working and doing everything right let alone when they trying to fit it into a life that is not ordered or very good. We believe this will be a controlled environment so that children will not be raised in the same environment their mothers were raised in and will have a far better opportunity. 
The good part of this legislation is that mother-child bonding can occur and we think this is an important part of every child’s upbringing. We in New Zealand First do wonder whether the children should be older than 24 months when they have to leave this environment because it is still a very big wrench for a child—a baby—to leave his or her mother when in such a secure environment. Potentially in the future the age could be increased again. Bonding is really important and we in New Zealand First believe that that is an essential part of this bill which we are very happy to support. 
Clause 4 agreed to. 
Clause 5 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 174 in the name of the Hon Phil Goff to clause 5 be agreed to. 
Amendment agreed to. 
Clause 5 as amended agreed to. 
Clause 6 agreed to.  
Clause 7 agreed to.  
Bill to be reported with amendment presently.