Corrections (Mothers with Babies) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Corrections (Mothers with Babies) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:648;Page:17166] 
Corrections (Mothers with Babies) Amendment Bill 
In Committee 
Clause 1 Title 
JUDITH COLLINS (National—Clevedon) 
: 
 The National Party supports the Corrections (Mothers with Babies) Amendment Bill. In speaking to this bill I will first comment that prison is no place for a baby to be. Actually many of us would think that prison is no place for many people to be. Certainly the children whom we are speaking about are children at their most vulnerable—our very young children who are being breastfed by their mothers. Breastfeeding mothers who are in prison are in many cases some of our most vulnerable adults. In many cases they are people who if they do not have their babies with them have very little to live for. I cannot think of a worse thing as a mother than to have a baby taken away. I just cannot believe that that could happen in a civilised society. 
I know full well that this bill will certainly impact upon the Department of Corrections and I note that Mr Goff the Minister of Corrections has asked for certain provisions to allow the provision of facilities able to cope with young babies. However when this bill first came to National members we decided that we should give it a try that we should see whether the Law and Order Committee could come up with whatever changes were necessary to make it a workable bill. I know that there is a great deal of scepticism out in the community about just how this bill will work how it will operate for the children and whether we are being unkind to little children by having them be in prison. 
As I started off by saying prison is no place for children. But let us think practically about where many of these children come from—where they live and what their homes are like. If mothers are in such trouble with the law that they are in prison is it not better that their children are with them in a place where they are supervised their Well Child checks happen and somebody makes sure they are looked after and cared for? Many of these mothers have multiple challenges and difficulties to overcome and they will be in a place where they can be supported helped to be good mothers and encouraged to do the right thing for their children. As a mother when I think of the Kahui children Chris and Cru I would rather that those babies had been with their mother in prison under guidance and care than out in the community with their mother. I am not making any judgment about what happened to them and by whom. It is extraordinary that until today we have not acknowledged the fact that often babies live in places where they are not so much brought up as dragged up. Not all of us look after our children in the way that we should. 
This bill provides an opportunity for a mother to learn to be a mother. It provides at least an opportunity for children to be fed properly to be looked after and to have Well Child checks—to have an opportunity. It is also a chance for rehabilitation. If one thing will rehabilitate adults it will surely be the love of and their love for their child. I cannot think of anything else that would rehabilitate many of the people we are talking about. A woman who ends up in prison with a young baby will have committed some pretty nasty crimes. 
I think the concerns that people have about the safety of the children have been dealt with by the select committee. There is enough in this bill to ensure that. I know we are taking a risk by passing this bill but we take a risk every single day that we live. We take risks when children are born to parents who are not ready to be parents—yet they are parents. We cannot always judge situations by our own situations and certainly not by the way in which we were brought up. This bill is something we can do; we can give these young mothers and their children a chance. If this bill becomes law and it does not work we will look at it again. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Before I call the next speaker I bring to the attention of members that we are debating this bill clause by clause. I am sure that members were very pleased to hear the contribution of the last speaker but the debate is narrow. We are debating clause 1 “Title”. We are not to go outside that at all. The next clauses to be debated are clause 2 “Commencement” clause 3 “Principal Act amended” clause 4 “Purpose” and so on. That is the way it is unless someone would like to seek leave to do otherwise. Someone may do that. I am not suggesting that members should do that but it is possible for any member to seek leave that we have an overall debate then have separate questions on the clauses. That may be acceptable to the Committee. 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Corrections) 
: 
 That is a remarkably good suggestion. My understanding and I think the understanding of the earlier speaker was that we would debate all the clauses together. That would be quite sensible. There is a strong degree of unanimity about this bill and it would make sense to do so. I seek the leave of the Committee that we debate all the clauses together. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Leave has been sought for that course to be followed. Is there any objection? There is objection. Members will confine themselves strictly to the clause under discussion. We are debating clause 1. 
PAULA BENNETT (National) 
: 
 I would like to talk about the title of this Corrections (Mothers with Babies) Amendment Bill. I suggest that the title is in many respects possibly the best title for the bill. It deals with the corrections system it deals with mothers with babies who have been incarcerated and it is an amendment obviously to the Corrections Act. 
The title indicates that the bill is about those mothers and their babies under 24 months and what it means for those babies to be with their mothers at that most critical time. It says to people that this bill is about more than women who have done wrong being jailed; it is about more than the punishment that society—certainly our courts—has deemed they need to receive; it actually talks about the babies. I think that that is what is most important about the title of this bill. It talks about our babies and it says that the bill is about our young ones under 24 months. At the end of the day I think this bill makes it pretty clear that it is about what is best for the children and certainly what is best for babies under 24 months old. 
The Law and Order Committee could have looked at other titles for the bill and there are a number of options that it could have looked at but I think it has chosen a title that describes the bill quite well. The title talks about mothers and it talks about their babies. Those babies are to be with their mothers while they are under 24 months. I wanted to stand up and take a quick call in support of the title of this bill. 
Dr JACKIE BLUE (National) 
: 
 I am delighted to speak on the title of the Corrections (Mothers with Babies) Amendment Bill and I congratulate Sue Bradford on bringing this bill to the House. It is a compassionate bill. The title says it all basically. The bill is all about mothers and babies and it is all about doing our best for mothers and babies. It is not about punishing the babies; it is about supporting the mothers and doing our best for the babies by letting them stay with their mothers. It is about bonding it is about any type of feeding—not just breastfeeding which is obviously the preferred way of feeding—and it is about continuity of care. 
Members will be interested to know that under the current law—until Sue’s bill does pass—mothers can have their children with them in prison until they are 6 months of age but that has not been feasible because we do not have the infrastructure. 
I think the title of the bill—Corrections (Mothers with Babies) Amendment Bill—is very appropriate. 
Hon Member 
: It’s a good title. 
Dr JACKIE BLUE 
: Absolutely. Under the bill babies can be with their mothers up to 24 months of age. No mother wants to have her children taken away but at 24 months one can have staged management of the removal of a baby that is still with the mother if the mother is still incarcerated. It is really in the best interests of the children that they are with their mothers. They should not be punished for the mothers’ crimes. It is all about reducing recidivism and intergenerational crime. 
This is a fantastic bill. It has the support of National members. The title—Corrections (Mothers with Babies) Amendment Bill—is very apt and we certainly support it. 
BARBARA STEWART (NZ First) 
: 
 On behalf of New Zealand First I am delighted to take a short call on the title of this bill the Corrections (Mothers with Babies) Amendment Bill. We in New Zealand First believe that the title is most appropriate and we believe basically that it says it all. It is relatively short and it is very specific. It is very easy to identify what the bill is about—the title tells one exactly: mothers with babies who are caught up in the justice system. So we believe that the title is very appropriate. 
We identify babies as being those young young children under 24 months and we believe to have babies with their mothers in prison is a win-win situation. We know too that most mothers actually want to be with their babies and to be in the justice system and away from one’s baby could be very traumatic. We believe the bill is in the best interests of children and we will be looking forward to following it through the Committee stage. 
JUDY TURNER (Deputy Leader—United Future) 
: 
 I want to take a call on this clause because I agree with the previous speaker that the title of this bill actually says it all. If we break it down the bill seeks to define a mother who is entitled to apply to have her child under 24 months of age with her in prison. I do not plan to take any future calls during the Committee stage so I will take my opportunity to speak now. 
I am pleased that the Law and Order Committee sought to check and adjust the definition of who can consider herself to be a mother and apply to have her child with her. Obviously the concept of a baby is well clarified as to the length of time of the accommodation and at what age it would cease. I think the interesting word in the title is “with” because the rest of the bill determines under what conditions an application can be made for a child to be with its mother and also what might happen during this 24-month period in terms of parent education and a whole lot of other areas that can be covered during the time that a child is with its mother. United Future is very happy to support clause 1. 
RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) 
: 
 The ACT party rises too to support the Corrections (Mothers with Babies) Amendment Bill. In fact it is surprising that it has not been a requirement before now. I think that is the only thing that amazes me because the concern clearly is with the best interests of the child. The idea that when we incarcerate a mother we think that we are somehow adding to either her punishment or her rehabilitation by keeping her apart from her baby and her baby apart from her has to be muddle-headed. Surely the concern should be with the child and how can any child be best cared for by being apart from his or her mum? 
The bill allows the opportunity for the authorities to consider what is in the best interests of the child so the issue of the facilities in the prison and indeed the issue of whether the mother is a suitable mother—irrespective of the fact that she is in prison—will be taken into account. I think personally it is astonishing that that has not been the case all these years. 
Might I just add that I find it a bit disappointing following Mr Goff’s suggestion and the bill’s support that we are not debating the entire bill because it is members’ day and that is an opportunity—particularly for the Opposition—to make a point. I thought it was very generous of Mr Goff to make the offer. I have to say that I am very disappointed with the National Party whip who denied members on this side of the Committee the opportunity to debate the members’ bills and indeed to test the will of Parliament on their respective bills. 
Hon STEVE CHADWICK (Minister of Women’s Affairs) 
: 
 I want to take a call and I am disappointed that we cannot take a call on the content of the bill because although the title is self-descriptive its contents are the fundamental drivers of why we are having this debate tonight. We are trivialising it actually by sitting here and talking about mothers and babies or mothers with babies—whether it is an apt title. The content of the bill is what matters in this debate. The Opposition’s refusal of Mr Goff’s request to take the debate as a whole has actually trivialised the debate tonight but that does not surprise me. I also heard Opposition members talk about mothers and babies so they even got the title wrong; it is mothers with babies. 
But I think the sad thing here is that we have had to look at a bill in total and entitle it. The issue that concerns us on this side of the Chamber is that this bill is trying to encourage the bonds of attachment by making the child central to the bill not the mother and that the child’s best interests are at heart. When we are looking at offending at repeat recidivist offending and at incarcerating mothers in prison we are forgetting the outcomes of people who have lost their way in life. We have not supported strong attachment and bonding at birth—that absolutely critical stage—so there is no moral compass as those children grow up. 
I think this is a fantastic bill and it is interesting that Sue has had great success in getting her bills pulled out of the ballot. The title is apt for the bill. I look forward to better debate on the bill’s content the reason why we need it and of course why we support it. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I just make the comment that I do not see how the debate can be taken too much further because there is nothing new coming from contributors. I am willing to take another call but I have no intention of seeing this Chamber being made fun of as it were. 
COLIN KING (National—Kaikoura) 
: 
 The title of the bill is appropriate. When we see that the title is Corrections (Mothers with Babies) Amendment Bill we can appreciate that we are talking about a change here; it is definitely an amendment bill. No doubt those people who are employed within the Department of Corrections will have to undertake training and make changes in their approach when this bill is introduced into law. No doubt there would have been an initial concern. This bill with its title Corrections (Mothers with Babies) Amendment Bill will add a cost but when we look at it from that point of view we will see too that there is tremendous opportunity to ensure that the best possible outcome is achieved. 
It is of significance that New Zealand should be one of the last of the OECD countries to have an ability to accommodate mothers with babies inside our corrections system. There is a lot of history and a lot of material around this legislation. The people who will be administering the Act will see that the intent of Parliament has to be to disregard the cost of what needs to be built to make adequate provisions regardless of the security risk of perhaps the mother so that the corrections system can carry out this activity in the appropriate way. On that level I certainly support the title and I look forward to the bill becoming law as the debate progresses. I think that the title Corrections (Mothers with Babies) Amendment Bill is very appropriate. 
JEANETTE FITZSIMONS (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
Motion agreed to. 
Clause 1 agreed to. 
Clause 2 Commencement 
JUDITH COLLINS (National—Clevedon) 
: 
 I will now deal with the commencement part of the bill. When this bill went to the Law and Order Committee the commencement clause stated that the Act would come into force 90 days after the day on which it receives the Royal assent. I realise now on reading the bill that has come back to the House that the legislation might never come into force. There is no reason at all for us to presume that the commencement date will ever actually happen—certainly not on what we have heard so far. I say that because the commencement date in the bill presented back to the House has been amended and is now “on a date to be appointed by the Governor-General by Order in Council.” Why has this happened? 
I can see from the report back to the House that there is concern that new facilities need to be constructed and that they obviously have not been constructed yet from what I can see in the report back to the House. There is a recommendation to the Government from the select committee that the work to make the necessary improvements should be made as soon as possible. I am not sure whether those facilities have in fact been built and I would be very interested to hear from the Government or even from the proposer of the bill whether they have been built. I see that a lot of people are shaking their heads that no they have not yet been built. So the commencement date to the bill is completely in the future. We are not working to a particular date and we have no particular reason to believe that the facilities will be in place because the legislation is not actually in force. 
That is something we should be concerned about—that we could be leading people down the garden path into thinking that there will be this provision and that we will have these facilities when the facilities have yet to be built. Certainly it does not seem to me on the face of it that there is any provision whatsoever that this needs to take place by any particular time. I would be very interested to hear from others on this matter. 
Dr JACKIE BLUE (National) 
: 
 I concur with my colleague Judith Collins regarding the commencement date. As reported back to the House there is an amendment to clause 2 that the actual date be appointed by the Governor-General by Order in Council because there has to be the infrastructure in place so that mothers with babies under the age of 24 months can be catered for. There are three women’s prisons in New Zealand and the current situation is that mothers can keep their babies up to the age of 6 months but that has been a rare occurrence simply because we do not have the infrastructure for that as it stands let alone for babies up to 24 months. I think that is an indictment on our current prison system. 
There are also a lot of strings attached to this deal for mothers to be able to keep their babies for 24 months. They have to have access to facilities for counselling and for treatment. They have to undergo drug testing and participate in parenting education programmes. It is quite a big deal and those facilities might not already be in place at the current time. Time is needed; the provision has to be planned for carefully. There is nothing worse than bringing something in when we are not ready for it—it will all just fall to pieces. That is not good for morale. It is not good for anybody—certainly not for a mother with a baby up to the age of 24 months. I think it was appropriate that the select committee took that into consideration and made the amendment that the date should be appointed by the Governor-General by Order in Council. That is the way forward. Hopefully the commencement date will not be extended by a very very long time. Hopefully it will be done in a matter of months. But it is certainly the right thing to do to make sure that the right infrastructure is in place so that when mothers in prison can keep their babies up to the age of 24 months everything is set up and is there to be successful and to work. 
SUE BRADFORD (Green) 
: 
 I am grateful to the member Judith Collins for raising the point about the commencement date. I would like to seek some assurance from the Minister the Hon Phil Goff—because this is a member’s bill and it is a slightly different situation from normal—about those parts of the bill where there are provisions that do not require the building of new facilities. I know there will be debate about this under clause 5 when we deal with the Minister’s Supplementary Order Paper. Substantial parts of this bill relate to what happens with mothers with babies in prison now without any necessary reference to the building of new facilities. I would hate to see as the member Judith Collins said the rest of the bill delayed indefinitely. I seek some assurance from the Minister that that will not happen. 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Corrections) 
: 
 In response to the question raised by the sponsor of the Corrections (Mothers with Babies) Amendment Bill Sue Bradford given that agreement has been amicably reached on the amendment to the bill that deals with the problems of affordability of the provisions and about making final decisions when the impact of the new sentencing regime—hopefully keeping more women with children out of prison—is known I do not see a problem in bringing this bill into effect quite early on in the piece. I do not personally have responsibility for that so I cannot commit the Government but I think that given we have reached agreement on support for the Supplementary Order Paper in my name there are no particular reasons that I can see that would delay bringing this bill into effect other than the obvious efforts of the Opposition tonight to delay getting the bill through its Committee stage. 
COLIN KING (National—Kaikoura) 
: 
 The commencement date has been well covered and canvassed from the aspect of having adequate facilities funded and resourced so that they can meet the needs of mothers and their babies regardless of what security status the mothers may have. There is one other thing that needs to be seriously considered which is that it is quite appropriate that the commencement clause states: “This Act comes into force on a date to be appointed by the Governor-General by Order in Council.” from the point of view of the special needs and training that Department of Corrections officers will require in order to care for these babies and their mothers. 
We have to remember that all too often this House sees things in high-dimensional terms and when it comes down to providing a service sometimes our plans go awry. So from that point of view it is very appropriate that the commencement date be built around the level of ability to provide to a very high standard the training facilities needed by the staff who will be caring for these babies and their mothers while they are under the control of the Department of Corrections. I must commend the Law and Order Committee for obviously taking on board the submissions that would have pointed out that situation. The change the committee made was quite appropriate. 
I think it will be quite a challenge to attract train and retain those specialist people. It will be very important as that process goes forward—not only as we build the facilities to look after the babies and their mothers adequately but also as we make sure we have the best-practice model of how that should be conducted. Again there is a little bit of time as we see in clause 2 which states: “on a date to be appointed by the Governor-General by Order in Council.” I think that is very appropriate and I congratulate those people who made submissions. The select committee took them on board and we look forward to having a well-trained staff to provide that care. 
BARBARA STEWART (NZ First) 
: 
 I will take only a very short call. It is very rare to see a bill come into the House with this type of date requirement in it. It is rare for a commencement clause to state: “on a date to be appointed by the Governor-General by Order in Council.” rather than mention a specific date. We know why this is happening. It is because the facilities are not built. But we have to be aware that these facilities do have to be set up and they have to be managed extremely well. These facilities basically have to meet the criteria and the standards required of any other institution that currently cares for children. 
The prisons will need resources such as qualified and trained staff for when mothers are attending programmes and we know that staff resources are usually fairly rare in this particular area. The prisons will need rooms that meet the size requirements. We have to ensure that babies are kept separate from toddlers as they are in other institutions. We also have to provide some indoor and some outdoor play areas and of course there will be many other areas that have not been mentioned. These facilities will need to be added to the existing prisons and we want to see them set up and managed extremely well. This is an area that cannot afford to fail through inadequate resources and we were pleased to hear the reassurance from the Minister that those resources will be available. New Zealand First will be very keen to follow this debate through the Committee stage. 
Clause 2 agreed to. 
Clause 3 Principal Act amended 
JUDITH COLLINS (National—Clevedon) 
: 
 Clause 3 states that this Act amends the Corrections Act 2004. Clearly this clause is important; otherwise the bill would become an Act that would exist outside of the corrections system and that would not be of any use at all. I was pleased to hear the Minister Phil Goff deal with the issue I raised as to when this amendment to the Corrections Act would actually come into force. I was very pleased that he took the opportunity to let us know that we and the submitters were not simply wasting our time in relation to legislation that might never come into force. It is certainly a situation where I think the Corrections Act itself has had a great deal of work done on it and it is an area that is incredibly important. 
This bill is yet another step forward for the Department of Corrections in terms of the humanisation of some of the situations people find themselves in—certainly in relation to the Corrections Act which deals primarily obviously with offenders and those who are imprisoned. I think it is important to realise that although—as Mrs Chadwick said—this bill is primarily about the welfare of babies it is somewhat foolish to think that it is about only the welfare of babies. The Corrections Act itself acknowledges that this has to be not just about the welfare of babies but also about the longer-term benefit to them as children. When their mothers are incarcerated and dealt with under the Corrections Act 2004 and now its amendments their situations will be changed because they have had a better situation with their mums. Also their mothers will be changed because of the bonding and the love they have received from their children. That is really all I want to say on this particular clause. 
PAULA BENNETT (National) 
: 
 Clause 3 of the Corrections (Mothers with Babies) Amendment Bill says that it amends the Corrections Act 2004. I experienced one of the many firsts that happen in the House when I got to speak on the same side of a debate as Sue Bradford the member in charge of the bill. I actually got to sit on the same couch as her and speak in favour of this amendment to the Act and say what it would mean for mothers and their babies. I have not spent even 3 years in the House but I have had a series of new experiences and surprises—and I hope that my future years here will see more—and one of those has been to sit with Sue and the Greens and to see the merits of this amendment to the Act and what it would mean. 
At the end of the day I saw that the bill was a good thing for babies. I took a little bit of grief from a few people who were surprised that National was actually in favour of and supporting something Sue Bradford had proposed. But I can say that we on this side of the Chamber saw it as being quite an easy thing to do. We very much saw this legislation as being not about punishing the mothers—the prison system does that in its own way—but about doing what was best for babies. 
Every piece of evidence we saw supported this amendment to the Corrections Act. It was not a hard decision to make to stand up and recognise that this legislation was about something bigger than those women being imprisoned; it was about their babies getting the best possible start. That was our feeling about it and why we are supporting it. Thank you. 
COLIN KING (National—Kaikoura) 
: 
 Clause 3 is titled “Principal Act amended” and it is appropriate that it is. The Corrections Act 2004 is not in isolation any longer because it is our intention to include babies being accommodated in prisons while their mothers are incarcerated as long as certain conditions are met. On that basis there is not such a facility within the principal Act at the moment and it is therefore quite appropriate that that be done. It is also quite relevant that this Act be amended because it keeps us in line with a lot of other Western countries. 
I pick up on a point that Judith Collins made which was very very appropriate I thought and that was the humanisation of the Corrections Act. I think that is something we need to keep foremost in our minds as we look at that principal Act as amended because as it stood there was no provision or ability to go forward and do all the things we are talking about which needed to be done around making this bill the Corrections (Mothers with Babies) Amendment Bill a reality. We do not actually have those facilities available. We do not have the trained staff available. Therefore it makes that much more sense that the principal Act is amended so we can look forward to this provision becoming a reality so that babies can get the best possible opportunity and so that we continue to grow as a caring and loving society. 
Clause 3 agreed to. 
Clause 4 Purpose 
JUDITH COLLINS (National—Clevedon) 
: 
 The purpose of this bill is something I have spoken about a little bit already in this debate but I think it is quite worthwhile to have a look at how the purpose has actually changed as the bill has progressed through the select committee. Certainly when we first saw this bill the purpose was “breast-feeding and bonding provided that this is in the best interests of the child and that certain other conditions are met.” So it was quite clearly about breastfeeding and bonding. After the course of the select committee the purpose has been changed to being “for the purposes of bonding feeding and maintaining continuity of care provided that certain criteria and conditions are met.” 
We do not have to look very far to realise that there has been acceptance that breastfeeding is not actually being promoted by this bill now; it is about feeding. It does not actually say “breast is best” which is what those of us here who are mothers were always taught. So I am a little bit concerned that breastfeeding facilities and clearly breastfeeding assistance and support need to be available. I know that some people say that that is being a bit too tough on the Department of Corrections. But I think it might also be a reality—and we accept the reality—that many of our mothers today are kicked out of hospital after only one day and in fact they never get breastfeeding established. Certainly I recall that it took about 4 or 5 days for breastfeeding to get established when I was a young mother and that is a really— 
Sandra Goudie 
: Mastitis! 
JUDITH COLLINS 
: Oh do not talk to me about mastitis I say to Mrs Goudie; I could tell the member about that and the House really does not want to hear about it! 
I think it is extremely important that we acknowledge that breastfeeding is one of the problems. Clearly it is better for babies to be breastfed— 
Sandra Goudie 
: And for the mother. 
JUDITH COLLINS 
: —well I am not sure about that—and all the statistics and all the evidence tells us that. I think it would be so much better if we could encourage breastfeeding much more for mothers in prisons but let us be real here. If these mothers come into hospital have a baby and are kicked out within 24 hours—in other words they are moved out somewhere—how are they ever supposed to get breastfeeding established? The mothers we are talking about here are mothers who have multiple challenges in many cases so it is probably unrealistic for us to expect that there will be this push in support of breastfeeding for our mothers with their babies in prison. 
However the purpose of the bill is quite clearly to assist young children who are the children of female prisoners. I think it does not hurt to acknowledge that those young mothers will also benefit from the opportunity to continue to be active mothers to breastfeed if they can and to be actively involved with their babies. One day those mothers will come out of prison and if they have had no bonding with their babies how can we expect them to suddenly become good mothers? How are their babies supposed to react to the stranger they have not seen or if they have have seen only once a week? That is not the way in which we bring up children and clearly that will not establish bonding. So it is incredibly important that we accept that this bill is not about punishing people; it is about helping babies. 
Progress to be reported presently. 
House resumed. 
The Chairperson reported progress on the Corrections (Mothers with Babies) Amendment Bill and no progress on the Waste Minimisation Bill. 
Report adopted.