Rich Katherine: Corrections (Mothers with Babies) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Rich Katherine: Corrections (Mothers with Babies) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:632;Page:4032] 
KATHERINE RICH (National) 
: 
 Tonight I am pleased to speak to the first reading of Sue Bradford’s Corrections (Mothers with Babies) Amendment Bill. I would like to acknowledge the contribution that Sue has made in bringing this bill to the attention of the Parliament. It is a well written bill with good intentions and as a result I am pleased to say that the National Party is supporting it going to the select committee. There we will hear from experts and the public about the benefits and costs of the proposal. 
The areas of key interest to the National Party are protecting the safety and well-being of the child; the benefits of bonding and attachment; the promotion of breastfeeding; the role this idea can play in the rehabilitation of the mother; and the contribution this bill could make to reducing recidivism. Although the academic and practical information on the latter issue is scarce we recognise the strong belief that encouraging bonds between an inmate and her child plays a key role in helping that mother to go straight. 
I have been interested in this issue since 2001 and not coincidentally since I became a mother myself. My interest was sparked by a letter to the  
Dominion 
 in June of that year. It was a short letter but one that was very moving. Margaret Long of Otaki made the comparison between me—a new mother breastfeeding my baby and having the freedom to do so—with the situation of another woman who had just weaned her 2-month-old baby so that she could begin her 15-month stint in prison for stealing money from a bank. Members will know that 2 months of course is well short of New Zealand and World Health Organization goals for breastfeeding. The correspondent made a plea for Ms Foia to continue her feeding and made the point that a breastfed baby in prison is “a cheap guest”. She also asked the question: “Why cannot Ms Foia care for her baby in prison as Ms Rich will do in Parliament?”. Apart from likening Parliament to a prison I understood her point. 
After that I started to ask some questions about the numbers of women and babies in the same situation. At the time my interests coincided with a lot of good initiatives being promoted by Matt Robson the then Minister of Corrections who was at that point establishing the mother and baby units in New Zealand women’s prisons. A few years later I worked for another inmate who had been handcuffed during labour—something that is against the rules. She and her mother were most distressed to be told that she had to dry off her milk because she would not be able to breastfeed and she would not even have the opportunity to apply for one of the units. 
It has been some years now so I think it is timely that we check whether Matt Robson’s mother and baby units have succeeded. I have to commend his courage in putting the units in place. It was a new concept for New Zealand but it was commonplace in prison systems around the world. Members will be interested to know that countries we have studied except Sweden allow mothers to keep their children till varying ages. Although regulation 55 of the Penal Institution Regulations 1961 allowed mothers who gave birth to keep their babies with them up until the age of 6 months in reality there were few resources to support this. So although there are mother and baby units here in New Zealand there has been feedback that they are underutilised and lacking in resources meaning that some women who should be eligible just do not get the opportunity. One of the cases was that of the constituent I have mentioned. 
It is important to know that the mother and baby units around the world are run to a certain routine and standard. They are not free and easy nurseries where inmates can do as they please. If one looks at those in the UK one sees that there are well established systems. There is a stringent selection process. The rights welfare and safety of the child are paramount at all times. There are strict rules such as no smoking no smacking no drugs good care good feeding etc. If the rules are not followed then those mothers are removed from those units. 
There will be two big debates I think. The first will be around whether prison is a good place for a baby and the second will be around the age of the child—to what age is it OK to keep a baby in prison? I do not think there is a person in this Chamber who would say that prison is a great place for kids. Certainly it is not an ideal place and as a country we would like to see no women in prisons let alone mothers. Likewise I do not think there is a mother on the planet who dreams of experiencing those first few months behind bars. The reality is that we have this situation and we have to accept that fact. 
Some adults might not think that babies should be in prison at all. That is Sweden’s view and I think it is funny given its progressive attitudes in other areas of child welfare. To those who think babies should be banned from prison I say that babies do not care. The baby does not have a clue where it is; what it does know is that it is warm it is fed and it is in the arms of someone who cares. Yes there is a financial cost but there is a financial cost to the State in any case be it via Work and Income Child Youth and Family Services or foster care. 
I cannot help but think that some of those babies will be a hell of a lot safer in the mother and baby units than in homes such as the one that has dominated debate in the last 3 weeks. Opponents need to remember that 33 percent of woman inmates have dependent children when they enter prison and many will have more children when they get out. We need to accept that they are there for a wide range of reasons. The mother I mentioned before had been stealing and the other was up for armed robbery. We need to accept that some of those crimes are not crimes that mean the women cannot be mothers. Our system is designed to remove the liberty of the mothers but we overlook the fact that we are removing the rights of those babies to be breastfed and to be cared for by the most important person in their lives. 
There will be some women who will not be eligible. Some crimes against children are unforgivable. A woman who has been a child abuser or has committed some kind of crime that puts children at risk will never be eligible to care for her child in prison. The Tracey Lee Sutherlands and the Tania Witikas of this world will never be eligible for these units. 
 Mothers need to buy in to strict agreements if they are going to take part. One of those agreements is that they take part in extensive parenting education. Such programmes capitalise on the fact that there is literally a captive audience for good parenting advice and there is an opportunity to assist them to become better mothers. These programmes offer good parenting advice on things like nutrition constructive play and the importance of early childhood education. All of us who talk tough on crime must always be able to speak credibly about rehabilitation. Some of the rehabilitation courses in our corrections system have had pathetic results but I do believe that appealing to a mother’s instinct to look after her baby cannot help but make the difference in getting that mother back on track. 
I hope the select committee will hear from the child development experts on what the best age is. I hope officials have up-to-date information on the results from Australia and the costs of that initiative. 
I have a message for those who think National’s support of this bill is a bleeding heart liberal lurch to the left. It is not. The mother and baby unit model is a practical and common-sense approach. This bill requires reasonable reciprocal obligations and responsibilities and that is in keeping with our principles as a party and our interests in rehabilitation and responsibilities. All the research shows that bonding and attachment as a baby contribute hugely to long-term development. Although any intervention for the mother might be seen as an ambulance at the bottom of the cliff for a baby it could be the fence at the top. That is why National supports this bill going to the select committee.