Power Simon: Corrections (Mothers with Babies) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Power Simon: Corrections (Mothers with Babies) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:647;Page:16163] 
SIMON POWER (National—Rangitikei) 
: 
 It was with some dismay actually that I was cut off after only 1½ minutes of making a contribution on the Corrections (Mothers with Babies) Amendment Bill on the last members’ day some 2 to 3 weeks ago. But I have emphasised to members of the House that the National Party will continue to support this bill. The bill of course amends the Corrections Act to allow children under the age of 24 months to be accommodated in the prisons where their mothers are incarcerated as long as certain specific conditions are met. This change to the legislation which was brought to the House by Sue Bradford and supported unanimously by the Law and Order Committee to come back to the House will bring New Zealand into line with most comparable Western jurisdictions. 
It is important to emphasise in respect of this bill that the interests that should be primary to any decision as to whether an infant baby remains in the possession or care of that infant’s mother—the primary considerations—have to be those relating to that child. The rehabilitative needs of the mother are not a matter of primary concern although certainly if addressing those needs is a by-product of the decisions this statute would bring into force we would hope that that also would bring positive outcomes. But the most important thing here is that if the interests of a child under that age are best served by being accommodated in the prison of choice then that is where we see the most significant factor lying. 
Eligibility to make such an application is an interesting matter and an amendment to new section 81A(1) inserted by clause 5 was in fact put in by the select committee. That section allows female prisoners to keep their children with them in prison up to the age of 24 months. As drafted originally the provision did not make it clear whether only biological mothers were eligible to apply for the programme. The committee recommended that that section be changed to indicate that the female prisoner who applies must be the child’s primary caregiver or that that is likely to be the case on her release from prison in order to allow for the situation of caregivers who for one reason or another may not be the children’s biological mothers. 
Clearly strict screening has to be in place before a decision on an application could be made. Again an amendment to new section 81A(1) was recommended by the committee requiring that the prisoner’s background be checked for previous convictions “involving sexual or violent offending against children;”. If a prisoner is found to have such convictions she would automatically be ineligible for such a programme. The committee also recommended that new section 81A(1) include a provision that women have to agree to be screened for mental health or substance abuse issues in order to become eligible for the programme. Indeed in the commentary on the bill we again emphasise that the child’s needs should be the primary consideration. 
So the House will see that there are a number of hurdles to be leapt before an application can be made to keep an infant child with his or her mother in prison. On top of meeting all of those criteria the ultimate discretion would remain with the chief executive of the Department of Corrections and in fact the committee recommended that section 81A(2) be amended by changing “must”—in other words an automatic triggering of the right—to “may”. That of course means that a discretion resides with the chief executive. Although we agree that the chief executive should approve a request where other criteria are met we still have to have that residual discretion remaining with the chief executive. 
We were advised by the department that significant alterations would be needed in order that sufficient space be available in one of the units—in other words there will be fiscal implications arising from this particular legislation. The bill I believe in the Committee stage will need to address that fiscal constraint and I know that Sue Bradford the member who is promoting the bill is aware of members’ concerns—well not concerns but members’ desire to make sure that we will not get a series of facilities that are not up to scratch or that bore into the core work that the department needs to do in some of these areas. 
It is also important for the mothers of these babies or young infants to realise that this measure is not a one-way street and that parenting agreements will be a major component of this bill under new section 81B inserted by clause 5. This section sets out the obligations of both the mother and the department when dealing with this particular placement. The arrangements of course will include health and well-being checks for the child Plunket checks counselling parenting visits and the like. Those things can be only positive for a child who is kept in the care of a mother who is incarcerated. There is an insertion of new section 81C(2) to include all babies’ types of feeding arrangements not only breastfeeding. Of course we await the Committee stage of this bill. 
In closing I tell Sue Bradford—through you of course Mr Assistant Speaker—that this bill was not without controversy when it was first introduced. National was pleased to be the first party out of the blocks to support Ms Bradford’s endeavours to get this bill through its first reading. The bill was not without the need for amendment at the select committee but that was a constructive and useful process. Ms Bradford’s sitting at those committee hearings made sure that the committee did not lose sight of her end goal in bringing the bill to the House in the first place. I think we will still need to make one or two amendments in the Committee stage but we will work our way through that process. As I indicated at the first reading National supports this bill at its second reading.