Corrections (Mothers with Babies) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Corrections (Mothers with Babies) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:650;Page:18792] 
Corrections (Mothers with Babies) Amendment Bill 
Third Reading 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Corrections) 
: 
 I move  
That the Corrections (Mothers with Babies) Amendment Bill be now read a third time 
. First I thank Sue Bradford for bringing this bill into the House as a member’s bill and I also thank the Law and Order Committee for the very bipartisan way in which it addressed the issues in the bill and for the thought and work the committee members put into improving it. This bill is being moved for a third reading by me because it is now a Government bill. 
The bill is really about acting in the best interests of the children of women offenders. It is about improving the life chances of some of our most vulnerable citizens. I welcome the clarification of that purpose through the proposed amendments that the committee endorsed. I also thank Sue Bradford and Parliament for supporting the amendment that I moved in Supplementary Order Paper 174. 
Back in the second reading of this bill I raised concerns not about the bill’s purpose but rather about the costs of implementing the changes required by it. When I consulted with the Department of Corrections its officials advised me that to fully meet the needs of women prisoners with children up to 2 years of age it would require an additional 24 places in three prisons which would have to be specifically designed and they put a cost on that of more than $1 million per place provided. When we look at that level of cost then we have to consider questions of priority against other needs including the benefits that for example that level of expenditure might deliver if directed to areas such as preventive work—to keep women out of prison in the first place—or programmes to prevent reoffending. 
I went back to the Department of Corrections and I asked it to come up with a more affordable way of delivering on the purpose of this bill. I also met with Sue Bradford at that time and we discussed together the options that might be available but that were less prohibitively costly and that would allow us to move quite early on the implementation of steps to deliver on the bill and have more immediate positive outcomes. We came up with a proposal to provide eight places in Auckland and Christchurch women’s prisons at a total cost of about $2 million in capital and with an ongoing operating expenditure of around $1.5 million. To implement that alternative required an amendment to the bill and Supplementary Order Paper 174 amended subsection (1) of section 81C as 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. That amendment means that the Government can now implement the bill in a more considered manner and ensure that the best interests of children are adequately protected. 
The amendment also allows for consideration firstly to be given to the impact the new community-based sentences are having on judges’ sentencing decisions and to the number of women being sent to prison. We now have the option of electronic monitoring—the ability to have people serve detention within their own homes—and in the case of those women with children who do not constitute a risk to the community this is obviously a preferable alternative. Ideally the new sentences will mean that fewer women offenders with dependent children will receive a prison sentence. Indications are that judges are using community-based sentences more when convicting women offenders. Between May 2007 and April 2008 4.5 percent of women convicted received a prison sentence. That is significantly down from a peak in 2004-05 when 7.4 percent of all women convicted received prison sentences. In the meantime it will be possible to provide a total of eight places at the Auckland Region Women’s Corrections Facility and the Christchurch Women’s Prison. The amendment allows us to take the time to assess the ongoing benefits of allowing children up to the age of 2 years to reside in prison with their mothers and how best to run the programmes that will surround that. 
This bill is a response to Parliament’s awareness that when women with dependent children are sent to prison their children may suffer as a consequence. The children are innocent yet they may be the victims of their mothers’ crimes well into their adult years. Children deserve better than that. The Corrections (Mothers with Babies) Amendment Bill is one way to reduce the impact of maternal imprisonment on children and it is supported by the Government for this reason. Again in finishing I acknowledge the strong cross-party support for this bill and commend it to the House. 
JUDITH COLLINS (National—Clevedon) 
: 
 On behalf of the National Party I speak in support of the Corrections (Mothers with Babies) Amendment Bill. I acknowledge the work that Sue Bradford has done on this bill and I thank her for bringing the issue to our attention. I also thank my colleagues in the National Party for the support they gave me and my colleague Katherine Rich when we took this bill to our caucus. I know that many National Party supporters will be a little puzzled that we think that this bill is worthy of our support but we live in the real world and we know that the world we live in is not quite as lovely or as safe for children as it should be. 
I would like to acknowledge at this stage that we have a dead police officer in Mangere and another one shot and fighting for his life. I am overwhelmed to find out that there was a young child in the house concerned. I understand that that is the real world for some people. When we think about a child spending any time in prison I ask frankly who in his or her right mind would think that that was an ideal situation but the sad truth is that for some children it is significantly safer to start their lives in prison rather than in the homes in which we allow them to be brought up in. 
Under this bill should the whole thing go ahead—and I note that rather than there being a set date the commencement date is to be decided by the Governor-General by Order in Council—babies will be in prison with their mothers if their mothers comply with certain requirements. The requirements are that those mothers are drug-free that they look after their babies properly and that they are being good mothers. Those are the sorts of things we would like for all of our children—that their mothers are drug-free are not into alcohol and are looking after them. There will be parenting assistance which will be of extreme value in these situations. Let us be frank: how many mothers do we know who end up in prison for a long period of time? There are not very many. As Mr Goff has said we now have home detention and it seems to be the preferred sentence for most offences but unfortunately some women will end up in prison and we need to give some thought to those of them who have young babies or who are expecting. 
This measure is not a new and outrageous situation. In fact I have in my hand a booklet put out by Her Majesty’s Prison Service in the UK entitled  
All About Mother and Baby Units.  
In looking through it we see that a lot of the issues in the bill are addressed in the booklet. It is about accepting that unfortunately mothers end up in prison sometimes for extended periods of time. They are the mothers of little babies. The fact that they are in prison does not necessarily mean that they are bad mothers but it does mean that we can give their children a start that they may not otherwise have. 
As a mother myself I can say that the bonding between a mother and her baby is surely the most important consideration. We know of many instances in our own lives where that bonding has not occurred. We see how the baby can be affected by that and we see that the mum will never be the good mum she wants to be. We also know that both the mother and the father are important in the bringing up of a child but we cannot have mums dads and babies all together in the same prison—that would be going a little bit too far. 
It is incredibly important that we stick to the provisions about testing for drugs. It is incredibly important that we accept that these mothers are our most vulnerable mothers and our most challenging mothers in many cases and that their babies will be our most vulnerable babies. If we simply allow mums to have babies in prisons and we do not put in place really sensible parenting programmes and really good schemes to make sure they come out of prison not only better people but better mothers then that would be a shame and a waste. 
I am concerned that this bill does not have a commencement date. We had assurances from the Minister of Corrections Phil Goff during the Committee stage that the matter would be addressed. In fact I recall the Deputy Prime Minister Michael Cullen making that clear. I do not know whether Ms Bradford has had any update on that. I am also concerned that there is no actual requirement that parenting facilities be put in place. The mother and baby units will be available only if they are built and the provisions are in place. I think that is something we should give some thought to. How can we introduce legislation that provides for mothers and babies in prison without having a real commitment to provide those services? I hope Ms Bradford who obviously is in discussion with the Government can tell us all about that. 
Breastfeeding is incredibly important for babies and for mothers but let us be frank not many mothers breastfeed these days. It is very difficult for a mother to start to breastfeed when she has been shoved out of hospital within 24 hours of her baby being delivered. It is incredibly difficult to get any sort of system going. It is very very difficult when Plunket does not even know that the mother has had a baby or if it does know it does not know where the mother is. It is very very challenging to expect that breastfeeding will suddenly happen for mothers with babies in prison and we are probably being a little bit hopeful in that regard. 
One thing I think we can say is that if this measure is done properly if it is supported by will rather than simply law we can ensure that for at least some months in a baby’s life the baby has a chance. We can also ensure that a mother who does not have the skills to be a good mother gets some assistance to change. I think that is really important. If we are going to try to rehabilitate people we have to give them hope. I cannot think of a better reason for a mother to have hope for the future than to have a child to look after. I cannot think of anything better than that. It is the one thing that will change some of these women’s lives. 
I am also aware—and Ms Bradford will no doubt remind me—that not all mothers in prison are there because of really bad situations. I think Ms Bradford reminded us of the times when she was arrested for protesting and was put in prison—but not for very long periods of time. Having said that we accept that not everybody is there because they are evil people but rather because they have got themselves into situations that they should not have been in. 
This situation is unusual in that we have multiparty support on the matter of mothers and babies in prison. I think it is an acknowledgment that we understand that life is not perfect. People often talk about crime prison and prisoners and about how terrible it all is but if we look a little more closely we see that most families have either somebody in prison or somebody who has been in prison at some stage; it may be a member of the wider family but for most families there is some connection. Actually we are not all perfect; families are not perfect. As I say to people we can choose our friends but we cannot choose our family—fortunately I like my family. But that is just the way it is. People have to live in the real world. 
In conclusion the National Party is proud to be able to support this bill. We would like—if it is the will of the people—to have an opportunity to implement it to take it from being just words and to actually put it into practice. 
SUE BRADFORD (Green) 
: 
 I am really pleased to see the Corrections (Mothers with Babies) Amendment Bill making its way through its final stages in the House just before we rise at the end of this term of Parliament. I acknowledge the Minister of Corrections Phil Goff and Judith Collins for the contributions they have just made and for their personal support and the support of their parties for this bill. It is fantastic. 
Although this bill marks a very small reform within the context of our whole problematic prison system it is certainly a change whose time has come. We had the first reading debate on this bill way back in June 2006—now over 2 years ago. It has been a much longer haul than I expected for a bill that has been nowhere near as controversial as for example trying to change child discipline laws or to abolish discriminatory youth rates. 
This bill achieves a few comparatively simple things. First once it comes into force some mothers in prison will be able to keep their babies with them for up to 2 years rather than the 6 months currently allowed. At the moment there is also at times a grace period of up to 9 months for some mothers—that is there is an extension of 3 months on top of the current 6 months. There may also in future be an extension on top of the 2 years in certain circumstances. 
Secondly in some circumstances mothers who are on remand or who are sentenced prisoners with a high security classification will for the first time have the option to have their babies live with them in prison. Thirdly the new law will provide more of a mandate to prison authorities to ensure that if a child in a mother’s care is being breastfed she will be given the opportunity and space to do so. At the same time the bill does not discriminate against mothers who cannot breastfeed or who are not breastfeeding. They will have the same option of keeping their baby with them as circumstances allow. 
There were two major reasons for my placing this bill in the members’ bills ballot in the first place. I was first of all struck by stories from groups working with women in prison of mothers being refused any chance to breastfeed their newborn baby and of prison authorities in some cases using the right to breastfeed as a way of keeping women in line to be granted or denied at the will of corrections officers. At a time when health authorities around the world and our own Government here at home are promoting breastfeeding as giving the best possible start in life where mothers can manage it it seemed unbelievable that the best interests of the child could be served so poorly and in such a cavalier fashion within our corrections system. 
On this matter I will quote from the commentary to the bill signed up to by all members on the Law and Order Committee which states among other things: “When there is no other reason to terminate the placement [of a baby with an imprisoned mother] we expect that removing access to breastfeeding will not be used as a tool of prison management or discipline.” I hope this message will be sent very clearly throughout the corrections service right away. It does not require special budgets or the building of new facilities. I also hope that there will be more encouragement within the corrections service for mothers to feed and bond with their babies breastfeeding or not even where they are unable to keep their babies with them full-time. 
The second primary motivating factor for my putting this bill forward was that I have for a long time been moved—as any one of us here today who has breastfed and nurtured their own children would be—by the torment suffered by mothers who either suddenly find themselves without their baby or have their baby removed as a result of imprisonment or of the rules around their security classification. I had also at one time in my life in the wake of the Springbok Tour gone through a High Court case where the risk of possible imprisonment was high at a time when I was breastfeeding my own newborn daughter. On the day the eight of us involved were about to be sentenced I realised the full horror of what it would mean to be separated from my baby Katie for months or years. I will always be grateful to that judge who gave us all a suspended prison sentence. 
There are heartrending stories some of which we heard during the select committee process of mothers who went through the emotional rollercoaster of being told while pregnant that they could and then could not keep their baby with them—on again and off again—in a way that was emotionally absolutely devastating and traumatic. We heard of the grief of mothers who had their baby taken from their arms after the allocated time was up. We heard of women who had turned their lives round after being allowed the privilege of keeping their baby with them. Evidence came to us that for some women the opportunity to keep their baby in prison was life-changingly positive. We have also heard of the opposite impact which happens when one’s baby is torn away—it has the reverse impact on rehabilitation and on one’s chances when one gets out of prison again. 
The bill we are passing today will not solve all the problems of all mothers with babies in prison but it will certainly improve things for some. Its priority—and this should be noted—is to put the interests of the child first and to ensure that mothers who are enabled to keep their babies with them are fit to do so. Babies will be placed with their mother only if she wants to have the baby with her and if she signs a parenting agreement with a wide range of conditions. Mothers will also be able to keep their babies only if suitable facilities are available in the prison system for mother and child. 
In the final stages of the bill the Government made it clear that there are fiscal limitations—as Minister Goff has just pointed out—on how fast the corrections service will be able to develop more suitable housing for babies and mothers both in terms of babies staying in until they are up to 2 years old or even 2 years and 3 months old and in regard to the way in which different classifications of prisoners are required to be kept separate from each other. It is for this reason that the Green Party accepted the Minister of Corrections’ Supplementary Order Paper 174 which was introduced during the Committee stage. It means this legislation will be applied only as and how facilities exist and are developed but I have also accepted the Minister’s assurance that money will be invested immediately to begin to extend the facilities available. Because of the substantial cross-party support for this bill it is my sincere hope that whichever combination of parties forms the next Government this commitment will continue and grow to allow more and more mothers where possible and desirable to keep their babies with them. 
I realise that with a member’s bill like this it would not be realistic to expect a huge Budget allocation in the first instance given the pressures on Government Budgets in general and on the Department of Corrections in particular but at the same time without any financial commitment at all the bill would have been meaningless. I offer hearty thanks to Minister Phil Goff for his understanding of and support for what is being attempted here and for that initial Budget allocation. 
I also extend my sincere thanks to the parties in this House that are voting for the bill and have done so right through from beginning to end. Labour New Zealand First United Future National the Maori Party and the ACT party are all I understand voting for this bill. I think this support is a tribute to the compassion of the MPs and the parties concerned and to their understanding that this bill is above all about the welfare of babies whose need and right to bond with their mothers from birth if at all possible should be paramount in our thinking. 
I further acknowledge my fellow MPs on the Law and Order Committee that dealt with this bill and who are not a crew with whom I normally work. I thank all of those members but particularly Martin Gallagher from Labour who chaired the committee and Simon Power from National who proved to be an astute voice and sounding board for many of the issues arising from our consideration. I thank also the select committee staff and Government officials who helped with all the backroom work on the bill. 
Similarly I give a big thankyou to all the submitters. We had 58 submissions in all which is quite a large number given the small size of the bill the lack of controversy around it and the fact that it deals with only a tiny segment of the population. However my remarking that this bill was not particularly controversial is not to say that it does not have its critics. I was particularly struck by submissions from some who said we should not have any mothers with babies in prison at all. I agree with them but unfortunately the Green Party has not so far been in a position to be able to champion things like the piloting of habilitation or community justice centres outside prison walls much less many other much-needed reforms to our corrections and justice systems. 
I see the measure we are taking today as just one stage on a much longer journey towards the progressive reform of our prison system. Once again I acknowledge all those who have helped us take this small but critical and much-needed step forward. 
KATE WILKINSON (National) 
: 
 I rise today with pleasure to speak also in support of the Corrections (Mothers with Babies) Amendment Bill. Like other parties in this House the National Party has supported the bill through all of its stages and continues to do so at its third reading. 
We have heard that the bill amends the Corrections Act 2004 extending the time that mothers can keep their babies with them in prison from 6 months up to 2 years with a 3-month grace period. It brings New Zealand in line with other international jurisdictions and is certainly not out of step with current trends. Of 27 countries including 8 Australian states I understand only Slovakia does not allow children in prison with their mums and in its case Slovakia defers imprisonment of a pregnant woman until the baby is born. Upper age-limits vary from 12 months in places like Hungary Ireland Japan Malta and Sweden to 6 years in countries like Germany and Spain whilst England’s upper age-limit is 18 months and Scotland’s is 6 years. New Zealand is looking at 2 years. Mothers will be able to look after their children for that time even though they may be in prison so that care bonding and feeding can be maintained and continued throughout that time. Two years is considered an optimum time for separation given the circumstances of average sentences ability to visit alternative care and whether the mother with the baby is able to access programmes and tuition to learn proper parenting skills. 
One of the biggest debates has centred on the idea that prison is not a suitable environment for a child or a baby. I think that everyone in this House will agree that prison certainly is not the ideal place to raise a baby and given the choice I am certain that no mother wants to bond with her new baby in a prison cell. It is an unfortunate situation but it is one we are none the less faced with in this country as the number of women in prison continues to grow according to the Ministry of Justice 2006 forecast. According to that forecast the women’s prison population is expected to increase to 532 women by 2014. However unsuitable an environment prison is we also agree that the health safety and well-being of the child are paramount. If we agree on that then surely we must also agree that to house a baby with its mother even within the confines of the prison walls where that baby is warm fed and cared for by the most important person in its life really is in the child’s best interests. 
Current statistics have been gathered from a couple of snapshots as at 31 January 2004 and again in 2006. In that period only 22 female inmates had babies with them in self-care units. The female prison population doubled from 186 to 370 in that period. The number of female prisoners older than 40 years increased from 14 percent to 24 percent of the prison population but the greatest growth was in the 14 to 29-year-old age group which now represents some 46 percent of the prison population. Inmates with children aged 2 years or under totalled 160 in 2006 with 140 of those children being aged from 2 to 5 years. We were told that 36 percent of inmates served short-term sentences being less than 2 years and becoming eligible for release at 12 months. Of the 43 percent of those serving long-term sentences half are sentenced to 3 years or less and are eligible for parole at one-third of that sentence. So the vast majority of children will be in prisons for less than 12 months. 
I want to relate a situation that I did speak about in Committee stage which actually reflects the good intention and purpose of this bill. It was a true story in Central Otago. A young mum offended. She had a 3-month-old baby. One of the local lawyers there told me that at every court date the judge struggles with what to do with dependants such as these that really fall through the cracks. The judge stated in his judgment that the defendant should have been given a sentence of community detention but because it was not offered in that area he could not give her that sentence. She had a 3-month-old baby. She had no family outside Central Otago because she had grown up there and so she had no support outside Central Otago. That mum was sentenced to 4 months’ imprisonment. She has to serve the entire 4 months. The baby has now been left with her grandmother. The mother was still breastfeeding the 3-month-old baby who was left with her grandmother. The lawyer quite rightly stated at the time that that situation was outrageous. The Corrections (Mothers with Babies) Amendment Bill will go some way to ameliorating that situation. 
Although we can criticise the fact that community detention is not available in all areas and was not available in areas such as Central Otago—we understand because of the lack of cellphone coverage—this is a real-life situation that demonstrates how this bill can do great things for that mum with a 3-month-old baby. Certainly the mother had offended but the offence was to the extent that the sentence was only 4 months’ imprisonment and her baby had to be left with her grandmother even though the mother was still breastfeeding. In this sense it was a bit of justice by geography but the judge had no choice. The judge admitted it was deplorable and after the enactment of this bill hopefully that situation will not occur again. 
I think it is fair to say that nobody believes that prison is the best place to bring up children but there are situations like that Central Otago case where this is the only fair and reasonable thing to do. At the end of the day what is the alternative? The alternative is where children and babies are separated from their mothers for an extended period of time and often get shipped between family members or foster homes from one house to another. This benefits no one. Under this bill parenting agreements will be set in place setting out obligations of the mother with the Department of Corrections for as long as the mother is in that programme—obligatory conditions that arguably provide conditions in upbringing considerably better than that child may have otherwise received in the home. 
National believes that mothers and babies deserve this chance to bond in those first few months of life. This sentiment was shared by a number of submitters including the Families Commission which said it is vital that babies form a strong attachment to one person within the first few years of life. From this grows a sense of security and trust self-esteem and the capacity to form loving relationships with other people. Developmental experts advise that children should not be separated from their primary care giver between the ages of 6 months to about 2½ years to 3 years for this reason. The effect of successful bonding is so profound that it relates to nearly all the aspects of the child’s future life. The interest of the child was National’s main concern in making decisions about the placement of children of prison inmates. We feel comfortable knowing that by allowing mothers to have their babies living with them in prison we are providing the opportunity to encourage those families to build stronger relationships which will hopefully continue to flourish once the term of imprisonment ends. 
Historically the vast majority of women have received short sentences and most continue to receive prison sentences of less than 2 years. The average I understand is about 11½ months. Currently those who are serving a sentence of 2 years or less are automatically released after serving half of their sentence. Therefore the number of children separated from their mothers will be kept to a minimum and through this extension we are significantly improving the status quo. 
There are some exemptions. There are some mothers who will not be eligible to apply to bring their children into prison. These exceptions include those who have committed unforgivable crimes against children. Those mothers will not have their applications approved and this is entirely appropriate. 
We have heard that significant changes to New Zealand’s three women’s prisons will be required in order to accommodate children under 2 years of age. But this is a cost that I am sure will be outweighed by the benefits to our society. We are protecting the safety and the well-being of our children. We are reiterating the importance of bonding and attachment between mothers and babies. We are helping to move towards the rehabilitation of the mother and quite possibly we are reducing recidivism. 
It is also important to remember the general consensus that during the toddler years the child will have no idea of its surroundings. It will have no recollection of time spent growing up in prison. It will not care. However that baby will know who its mother is. This change brings New Zealand into line with most comparable Western jurisdictions and focuses on the best interests of the child while potentially being very beneficial to their mothers and also to our country as a whole. 
I am pleased to stand and to continue National’s support on this bill. I also congratulate the original promoter of the bill Sue Bradford on bringing it to the House. We are pleased that it has had such wide cross-party support and we are certainly pleased to continue our support for this bill. 
HEATHER ROY (Deputy Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I rise to speak to this third reading of the Corrections (Mothers with Babies) Amendment Bill. The ACT party will be supporting this bill. Before I begin to speak to the bill itself I will take a moment to thank and to congratulate the bill’s author Sue Bradford on both her initiative and her efforts in promoting this very worthy cause. If we are to improve the outcomes for children born into families under often less than ideal circumstances and if we are to improve the outcomes for the benefit of society we must look to this sort of initiative. 
The ACT party sees this bill as a win-win situation for those involved. Firstly it is a win for babies who will now have the opportunity to spend those very important first few months and years of their lives with their mothers when that opportunity might previously have been denied them. Secondly it is a win for mothers who will now have the opportunity as I have just outlined to form that bond with their babies. Thirdly we hope in anticipation that it will be a win for the greater society in terms of the benefits those children will have for their futures. 
One aspect that ACT was particularly concerned about was striking a good and clear balance between promoting what was best for the child and ensuring at the same time that the mother’s obligation to society—the reason for her being in prison in the first place—was met. Some key amendments to the bill have resulted in that balance being struck. ACT believes that the parenting agreements for example which create a code of conduct are vitally important in that area. Furthermore it is important to note the amendments to the bill to ensure the safety of the child while also allowing for increased support for the mother. Those include new section 81A(1) inserted in clause 5 which ensures that screenings for mental health and substance abuse issues are completed in order to evaluate the mother’s ability to look after the child as well as to create the potential to offer the mother extra support in the future and that screenings identify that the mother has no previous convictions for an offence involving sexual or violent offending against children. As Sue Bradford outlined in her speech the parameters are reasonably rigorous and ACT supports them. 
More flexibility has been introduced into the process in that non-biological mothers and non-breastfeeding mothers are still eligible for the programme. While we recognise that the World Health Organization recommends that a mother breastfeeds her child exclusively until the age of 6 months and then up to 2 years after that we know that it is important to allow mothers not to feel boxed into a corner and pressured to breastfeed in order to be eligible for this programme. 
Retaining a parent’s choice about the best option for the family’s circumstances is paramount and something that is important to the ACT party. Too often children have been used as a tool in the behaviour patterns and decision-making processes that go on in prisons. There is less scope now for that to occur due to the obvious clause that allows children to stay with their mothers until they are 2 years of age. But that provision has been furthered by introducing clauses such as that requiring a child development specialist to be involved in the consideration of ending a placement rather than this being the role of solely the chief executive of the Department of Corrections. The provision creates a more robust decision-making process which is of very high importance when it involves the potential separation of a mother and her child. 
The international standards and experiences surrounding that very issue are also of particular interest to ACT. Article 2.1 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child deals in part with discouraging the unnecessary separation of children from their parents. It follows that this applies also to the separation of babies from their birth parents. Article 3.1 of the convention also establishes the key principle that the best interests of children shall be a primary consideration in any decision concerning them. Naturally all of this would be lost if a baby were unnecessarily separated from its mother after it was born because the mother had an obligation to serve out her sentence in prison. International experience indicates that it is frequently considered to be in the best interests of both the child’s health and development and the rehabilitation of the mother for the child to be accommodated with the mother in prison for a period of up to 2 years or more. In fact a study in the United Kingdom has shown that the detrimental impact on the behaviour of children deprived of parental care through parental imprisonment is greater—greater—than the impact on children who lose or who are separated from their parents in other ways. That just demonstrates further how important this bill is. 
The bill in fact allows New Zealand to catch up with the rest of the world in relation to this issue. I note that many other countries’ time periods far exceeded our own status quo of 6 months. In particular the time varies in Australia from between 6 years in Victoria to 1 year in Tasmania. The time period is 4 years in both Malaysia and Canada; 3 years in Singapore Hong Kong and Thailand; and 2 years in Indonesia and Viet Nam. Korea has a time frame of 18 months as do the Republic of Ireland and the United Kingdom; and it is 1 year for Japan. To my mind we are doing absolutely the right thing here in Parliament today by extending the right of mothers to retain their babies with them in prison until the children reach the age of 2 years. 
At a very practical level and as outlined by Judith Collins some children who will now have the ability to stay with their mothers in prison in their early years will actually have a better and a safer start to life. ACT has always promoted mentoring as the best possible way to assist families at risk. Hopefully this bill will assist mothers and babies in this way with both perhaps having more support than they would ever be likely to have had if that early start had been in their own homes. 
This issue is something that I feel strongly about. Simply being confused about the situation is no excuse for not doing something about it. The United Nations Commission on Human Rights stated: “There are no simple solutions but the complexity of the situation cannot be an excuse for failing to protect the rights of children who have a parent in prison.” The ACT party agrees with that statement and agrees with this bill. We happily give our support to it. 
BARBARA STEWART (NZ First) 
: 
 On behalf of New Zealand First I rise to support the third reading of the Corrections (Mothers with Babies) Amendment Bill. Firstly I must congratulate Sue Bradford on her success in getting this very important member’s bill now a Government bill to this stage. It is a very important initiative and one we are pleased to support. It is good to see a bill like this having considerable support from right across the House. This is also an opportunity to show that we are serious about ensuring that all children get the best possible start in their early years—far better than perhaps some of those babies would have had when their mothers were in prison. 
The Corrections (Mothers with Babies) Amendment Bill provides for a prison environment—unfortunately—that will support a child’s health. It will reduce social hazards and all of the conditions that affect a child’s well-being such as poverty gambling smoking or drug abuse. This bill has generated a very worthwhile debate. New Zealand First will be interested to monitor the results because it will ensure that any mother who is imprisoned with her baby will be able to continue bonding with and caring for that baby in a very controlled very secure environment with some supervision and oversight of the health and welfare of the baby. We can see that the benefits for the baby will be great. It is excellent that the baby will be able to bond with the mother. 
New Zealand First believes that this area needs to be carefully monitored so that mothers as a condition of having their babies with them have to attend parenting classes regularly if they are to continue enjoying having their child with them. The early years are very very important and many of these mothers would not have attended any parenting courses at all. This is an opportunity for this group of people to learn those very important parenting skills in a controlled environment and also for them to form a secure attachment to their child. Prison will be beneficial—unfortunately—for this group of vulnerable people with no drugs or alcohol with nutritious food with support for the mother and the baby and with well child checks being carried out which we believe is absolutely essential. With regard to those mothers who choose not to have their babies with them we say that that is their choice as well. We know that it is not compulsory. 
I was talking with my colleague Ron Mark and he reminded me that some groups of people do not necessarily agree that this scenario—a baby in prison with its mother—would benefit the child. Their argument is that a child is raised by a village and the wider whanau and that it was not unusual for the whanau to take a child from the mother when that was the best option given the mother’s lifestyle and/or drug or alcohol habits. This is a very valid argument and it reinforces the fact that a choice can be made. New Zealand First recognises that the well-being of children is absolutely paramount and that all children deserve the best possible start in life. It reminds me of a quote that we often heard from the Hon Brian Donnelly who was responsible for teaching children. He said that the future we give our children determines the future we receive. 
All of the reports we have read emphasise the advantages throughout life of having a mother and her child bonding. New Zealand First has some concerns about the separation of the mother and child when the child turns 2 years of age. It can be far more traumatic for a child to be separated from his or her mother at 2 years of age than as a baby; and as a mother I know that this separation will have to be very carefully managed for both the mother and the child. We believe that we have made a step forward but it may very well be that the age limit will need to be reviewed and even extended—and I can see that Sue Bradford actually agrees with that. 
It is unfortunate that children are the innocent and unfortunate victims in these cases. It has been mentioned previously that some young women may deliberately get pregnant prior to going to prison so that they will have an easier term in prison. Well that is definitely not a factor that any law can control in any way but it is to be hoped that if that is the case then both the child and the mother will benefit from the controlled environment they find themselves in and that the outcome will be far better than it otherwise would have been. 
We are pleased that Minister Goff has announced and ensured that there is a budget to support this legislation. We are aware that resources are needed and we understand too that there may be a brief lag between the passing of this legislation and its implementation. It is an unfortunate fact as earlier speakers have said that life is not perfect but this is an opportunity whereby some babies can have a better start in life than they might otherwise have had in some environments. We are pleased to be catching up with the rest of the world. We have had the statistics quoted to us and we are aware that we are behind in this area. 
So in conclusion I just say that New Zealand First supports this bill and it thanks Sue Bradford for bringing this matter to the attention of the House. 
TE URUROA FLAVELL (Maori Party—Waiariki) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Deputy Speaker a kia ora tatou katoa e noho nei i roto i te Whare i tenei rangi. 
[ 
Greetings to you Mr Deputy Speaker and to us all seated about the House today. 
] 
Unfortunately my co-leader Dr Pita Sharples has been called away but he has provided me with some words that he would have said with regard to this Corrections (Mothers with Babies) Amendment Bill. In offering up this korero I acknowledge the work that Pita has prepared for the House today. According to Dr Pita Sharples this is what he believes—and what we in the Maori Party believe I might say; I had better say that. 
I heard a story yesterday about a girl called Sally. Last summer Sally decided school was not for her. She just did not want to go. It turns out that when the class went swimming she had been put into the embarrassing situation of having to tie her shoelaces a task she was not prepared to perform. After having suffered the shame of being taunted about having a parent in prison she just did not want another hassle in her life. Teaching her to tie shoelaces had been just one of the things that slipped by as the family coped—or did not—with the situation of incarceration. 
I have to admit that this bill has wreaked a little bit of havoc on our normally serene caucus. We have been literally torn apart by the complexity of associating children with prison. We all know that children who suffer the fate of losing their parent to prison feel vulnerable stigmatised and at risk. They experience the full gamut of emotions from embarrassment and shame to rebellion and anger. They live with the grief of loss. They feel the fear of the unknown unable to protect their parent who is now caged beyond prison walls. Being separated from our loved ones is sheer and utter hell. If we as parents suffer the misfortune of being kept away from our families because of the job we love just imagine how hard it is for children to be separated because of crime. 
I want to acknowledge the amazing work of PILLARS Nga PouWhakahou which goes on year after year with approximately 12000 children every year who are sentenced to separation from their imprisoned parent. Despite this PILLARS suggests that the children of prisoners remain largely invisible. PILLARS has a simple statement that sums up this bill: “Paying for crimes they did not commit.” What crime did the newborn baby born to a woman who finds herself in prison commit? What crime did the 6-month-old baby commit that rips the baby from the breast of his or her mother? What crime did the 1-year-old child commit that is punishable by separation? I think of my mokopuna and the absolute last place in the world I would wish them to be would be prison. I think of my children and if any one of them had the misfortune of being imprisoned I can but imagine the agony they would experience in being torn from their children. 
The dilemma we face with this bill concerns how one evaluates the true impact on a child of losing a parent to prison. We simply do not know. We know that since the self-care units have been established at Arohata Women’s Prison the floodgates have hardly opened. There were four women in 2004 six in 2005 and four in 2006. That is 14 in all—hardly enough to get excited over. Yet clearly the Minister of Corrections got pretty excited. The initial costings to meet peak periods of demand were estimated at approximately $19.6 million in capital expenditure and $6.5 million in annual operating expenditure. The facilities must be pretty flashy at that sort of costing. Faced with the multimillion-dollar proposal the Minister then came back and responded that the women could make do with existing accommodation. What he said was: “subject to the availability of resources.” We have all heard that before. The Minister may as well say: “No means no.” 
We in the Maori Party asked for further clarification about the financial projections for this bill. We asked whether it included medical facilities for the mothers and babies and whether the facilities were of the dormitory type individual rooms cells or independent living facilities à la flats. We asked whether there were shared flatting arrangements. We asked for details on staff numbers specialist services available and the types of rehabilitative programmes available. We did not get a response but the questions still remain. Really that is symptomatic of our collective view of this bill—the questions remain. 
If our aspirations are for children to be nurtured under the protection of their mothers would not our efforts be put to better use in promoting the increased use of community sentences? Surely it would be preferable for children to be raised in their own homes with their mothers serving home detention than to have the violent brutal prison environment inflicted upon them? We wonder what the international empirical evidence says. Will adults remember that they were born and raised in a prison for the first couple of years of their lives? Will they remember the bars the guards and the prison walls? Or will they remember being nurtured breastfed held and loved by the person who brought them into the world? Much of what shapes these formative years may well be alleviated through design and attention to detail. Many of the women’s prisons across America have taken on a major transformation in their visiting rooms. Instead of children paying for crimes they did not commit by being ushered into dark cold unattractive corridors they are playing freely in rooms decorated with Disney characters toys books and child-friendly decor. 
We can all accept that the early childhood attachments are crucial for child development but the jury is out on how best to support and promote that early bonding experience. In New York there is a correctional facility for women where their babies are allowed to stay with mum until the age of 2. At that time the child is transferred to the extended family or the State while still continuing to have the benefits of visits with mum. The research from that facility indicates that these children have a much higher chance of being healthy than if they were removed and raised in a home where the early nurturing did not take place. There is no room for absolutes and certainties. Some children are far better off being cared for by family members. Some children fare far worse through being nurtured in a home limited by poverty and economic hardship. Other children flourish in environments where there are consistent caring adults assuring them they are loved and secure. The point is that there must be opportunity for children to be nurtured to have access to support and to enjoy all the experiences that build strength and vitality. 
Is such an ideal possible in prison? The Government clearly believes so. Is it possible that a prison can provide safe abuse-free and secure environments for children to grow up in? These are just some of the many many questions our caucus has struggled with throughout the consideration of this bill. Ultimately however we know that every child born is a child born into whanau hapu and iwi. We know that those same whanau hapu and iwi must each in turn ask questions of themselves as to what is the best possible outcome for their babies their mokopuna. The bill sets in place a process by which the mother enters into a parenting arrangement. Our preference would be that these parenting arrangements are agreements with the wider whanau giving credence to the premise that our children are truly at the heart of the family. 
Finally we congratulate Sue Bradford on bringing this important issue to Parliament. Today I can tell her that we have three votes in favour. For far too long these children have been ignored in the public debate a debate that tends to focus on crime and punishment rather than the fate of dependent children. What we say is that if our way of life fails the child it fails us all. 
Koina te korero o te Takuta Pita Sharples. 
 [ 
That is what Dr Pita Sharples said 
.] 
That is an offer of congratulations to Sue from our co-leader Pita Sharples who is not here today and also on behalf of the party. On a personal note although we have some issues in respect of the whole notion about babies in prison at the end of the day we did some research and touched base with people who have been at the coalface—some who have been in that situation. They confirmed that having children in prison at an early age is far better in some ways for many but of course it depends on the individuals involved. It was a very difficult issue for us to come to grips with but at least today I can say that the Maori Party is with the member and we offer our congratulations. Ka nui te mihi ki a koe huri noa i te Whare tena koutou kia ora tatou. 
[ 
Congratulations to you of the highest order and to you collectively throughout the House greetings thank you 
.] 
Hon STEVE CHADWICK (Minister of Conservation) 
: 
 I am pleased to take a call on the Corrections (Mothers with Babies) Amendment Bill. I was not involved with the bill at the select committee so it has been fantastic to hear the contributions from all parties to the debate today. We congratulate Sue Bradford. This is a bit of a Green day today. I say well done on the very issues that drove her into Parliament. This was one issue that was of great concern to me too from my background and to hear her story shows the pragmatic grassroots approach that she has to politics that is leading her to make a difference in this House to people’s lives. 
I used to be in the maternity care profession and I recall very clearly that three issues used to concern me: firstly the age of young mothers having their babies; secondly adoption where we were party in my practice days to young babies being removed from their mothers and put into care pending the arrival of the adoptive parents; and the third issue that had a profound effect on me was when mothers who were in prison came to the maternity unit to give birth and then had to return to prison without their baby. It was something that profoundly moved me. There was that moment when the mother like every mother holds her child—with a partner there in most instances—and she wanted to invest everything to make sure that that child with her parenting would break the cycle of the life of dysfunction hopelessness and no opportunity that she had had and then we took the baby away from the mother to find a family member who would care for it while the mother returned to incarceration. 
It is great to see 20 years later that members in the House across the board are supporting this bill today. I congratulate all parties on their attitude and their contribution to this debate. 
I want to look at the number of women who are involved here—4½ percent of women who are convicted receive a prison sentence. Although we too agree that prison sentences are not the best approach for these women in this case it is the judge’s decision that they require incarceration in prison. I think that this bill now makes sure that the child is central to the family and the child’s interests are of paramount concern and that fits with the approach of the convention on human rights and the articles that we as a country are signatory to. Labour believes that every child counts and deserves the best opportunities for the best start in life. This folds in with many other initiatives that we have focused on to make sure we build strong and resilient families that can take the knocks that society will deliver to some. We are not calling them vulnerable families but some people do not share the same opportunities along life’s pathway. 
This bill goes a long way towards making sure that children start to have the bonding and attachment that will give them the resilience to endure some of the knocks they will have and towards making sure that that fierce instinct of motherhood remains in terms of attachment because mother and baby have not been separated. It is as simple as that. We know that all the indices across life including physical and mental health academic achievement social skills employment and for the children themselves the risk of offending and not being able to break that cycle themselves because of the circumstances of their birth will be dealt with by this bill. 
Labour is proud to be part of this. We know that women carry out most of the primary caregiving responsibilities for their children. They have a stronger attachment by the mere process of carrying the child and giving birth and the strong instinct of protection of their child that gives them the natural advantage over good fathers as to attachment at birth which is quite a fierce instinct that we have. 
Women are also much more likely than men to be sole parents. They are also more likely to face greater difficulties in finding alternative caregivers for their children. The family unit is much more likely to break down when the mother is in prison than when the father is in prison. We are looking at the integrity of the family unit wrapping around the child. Of course it is so much better to have babies with their mothers in prison and we all seem to have reached that same conclusion which is really great. We need to ensure that our children do not become lost in the system and disadvantaged and victimised by it. 
I heard Te Ururoa Flavell mention prison sentencing. I absolutely agree with him that we should be looking at home detention community detention and intensive supervision. Those three new sentences came into effect as from October 2007 and that is great. I hope judges will take them into account when they are looking at sentencing women offenders who come before them in the courts. They now have new tools to change the thinking that incarceration is the best approach. 
I am really pleased too to see parenting agreements mentioned in the bill. It is about mothers learning that they may have to undertake parenting classes just like the SKIP classes we provide out in the community. Those classes are a wonderful opportunity for women to share in the collegiality of other mothers in prison to learn about the fundamentals of parenting good nutrition diet exercise and how mothers need to parent. They may never have been exposed to educational parenting programmes. 
Other things that are absolutely essential for children who are literally incarcerated with their mothers are access for the other siblings in the family and for their fathers and having a rehabilitation programme when the mother and child leave prison. It is not just about providing the right environment around these mothers while they are in prison. 
I want to make a correction in terms of the capital and operating costs—funding that has been put in place as a result of this bill. There will be eight places in Auckland and Christchurch women’s prisons at a capital cost of $2 million and $1.5 million in operating costs. The Minister has factored that into the decision in our support of this bill. I congratulate those who raised that issue. 
The other issue that is vitally important is that the children receive all their health entitlements their well child screening as they would if they were out in the community. Another aspect Labour is particularly proud of is that all newborn babies now have a hearing screening and hearing assessment. That means these children will not have barriers to learning and through that screening of newborns they will achieve educational outcomes probably better than those of their own parents. That is a great initiative. So we should remember those points about access by the family and a rehabilitation programme that we will have to wrap around the parents. 
I heard the National Party talking about poor breastfeeding rates in this country. I want to correct that for the record in  
Hansard 
. This Government has invested in a breastfeeding action plan for the country to improve breastfeeding rates and we are proud of the gradual improvement in those rates. We know that breastfeeding is where attachment and bonding between mother and child takes place and that this bonding—including with the father—is really primary to the well-being of the child into the future. 
So this is a fantastic bill and it is well done. It goes with all of those other initiatives we put in place to say that every child deserves the best opportunity in life and we in Labour believe that that is absolutely fundamental. 
JUDY TURNER (Deputy Leader—United Future) 
: 
 I will take a brief call in the third reading of the Corrections (Mothers with Babies) Amendment Bill to reassure the House that United Future remains in full support of the passage of this bill. We think it makes sense at a whole lot of levels. 
If members have not taken the time to attend a Brainwave Trust conference at any stage then I recommend that they do because in doing so they will begin to understand the science of attachment that underpins what Sue Bradford has sought to achieve in her bill. The science goes like this. Although babies are born with fully mature organs albeit small ones and their brain is fully formed it is not fully wired. In the first 3 years of a child’s life one of the significant developments is that his or her brain becomes hot-wired. The Brainwave Trust goes beyond telling people just that scientific fact. It tells them that the most significant consideration in terms of the healthy wiring of a child’s brain is attachment—not just attachment to a group of nice people around the child but to significant people like the child’s mother and father. Often it even specifically mentions the role of breastfeeding and of the mother in forming that attachment. 
This bill ensures that babies born to women who are serving time in prison are not themselves disadvantaged by the imprisonment of their mothers but are able to access all that a baby needs in order for attachment to occur. That makes huge and perfect sense. I am pleased to hear other members of Parliament talk about the need for resourcing to be provided for the implementation of this legislation and we are happy to hear that the Government has allocated some funding. I guess over time we shall see whether it is enough; I suspect it will not be. But certainly we would support the ongoing resourcing of this initiative as it is rolled out because we think it has a huge potential to do a huge amount of good. 
We have a couple of other concerns that we think need to be considered beyond the passage of this bill. For instance it is unclear how access for dads who want to be actively involved in their babies’ lives is to be organised—whether it is to be a case-by-case issue worked out with the prison service and the father. And taking that principle to the extended family of grandparents aunts uncles brothers and sisters it is unclear how we can make sure that an attachment is being facilitated for the mum while also considering what is happening for other family members and in particular for the father. United Future would like to continue to monitor that area in order to ensure there is an equitable approach for the sake of the child. 
The other issue—which I think others have mentioned—we would like to signal an interest in is the better use of alternatives to prison. Surely if a mother is deemed to be safe and able to care for a small baby then do we not raise at the same time a question as to whether imprisonment is the best response to dealing with her breach of the law? We understand there would need to be some flexibility but because allowing these women to keep their babies is to be based on the fact that they are safe to do so then I think that raises a whole lot of other questions that we would welcome some discussion on beyond the passage of this bill. “Home detention” “community-based sentencing” and “intensive supervision” are all words that are being bandied around. They all have merit. They are all part of a range of options that could be considered and United Future would like to put on the record our support for further investigation of those options for mothers who find themselves in this situation. 
We are very pleased to see the provisions in the bill around parenting agreements. Yes the mother is responsible for the care of her child while the child is in prison with her. However alternative caregivers have to be identified to meet the needs of the child if there is an emergency or if another placement is required. The chief executive is required to ensure that the mother participates in parenting education programmes. The health and well-being of the mother and child are to be monitored treatment is to be offered in a timely way should it be needed and the mother must agree to participate in treatment or counselling if there is an identified mental health problem or a substance abuse issue. A whole lot of very positive things and conditions are included for a mother who has her baby housed in prison with her. I think those are very sensible practical things. 
One of the concerns that United Future has had about prisoners is the fact that often we do much less than we should around the treatment and reintegration of all prisoners back into society. I think personally that the good fruit from this initiative is yet to be realised. I think that although our primary concern must be the good of the child—and what this bill proposes is good for the child—beyond that initial goal is the potential for some very fine outcomes to be achieved in terms of women being fully reintegrated back into society and moving on in a positive direction in their lives motivated by their love for and the bonding they have with the child. For that reason United Future is extremely pleased to see this initiative. We congratulate the sponsor of the bill and we are very pleased to support its third reading. 
CHESTER BORROWS (National—Whanganui) 
: 
 I appreciate the opportunity to speak to this Corrections (Mothers with Babies) Amendment Bill. I congratulate not only Sue Bradford on having some forethought in bringing the bill before the House but also the members of Parliament—the whole 121 of us—who got in behind this bill and made the decision to support it because I am quite sure that if we looked across the country and took advice from every man and his dog who tends to have a view on these things we would find that support was not unanimous. I am pleased to see that on this particular occasion the information laid before members of Parliament has won through in some good sense around this particular issue. Although a number of us were lobbied by people outside who were saying: “What are you doing? This is crazy stuff. A prison is no place for a baby.” there was unanimous resolve across the House that in certain circumstances prison is the best place for certain babies. 
We have only to look at the demographics of those people who go to jail to realise the wisdom behind the position that every party in this House has taken in respect of this bill. The mothers of children who grow up and go to prison have several hallmarks in common. They often have several children by the time they are 20 usually to multiple partners. The mothers of children who grow up and go to jail usually leave school with few or no qualifications they usually have their baby when they are very young they are usually employed in low-wage jobs or are on a benefit they usually have had no significant family care or engagement they are usually dependent on alcohol or some other drugs and they are usually tobacco smokers—and if we can identify the father he usually comes from within that same demographic too. That means that the vast majority of the people who end up in jail fall into the category of people who do not have those home supports or the ability or potential to readily succeed. 
Another point that must be made very strongly is that the whole purpose of this bill is to give paramountcy to the child and not to the mother. So those people who look baldly at this legislation and say that women will run off and get pregnant—or they use that colloquial term “fall pregnant”—however they manage to do that in order to have a softer time in jail are nuts because women will not. And if the mothers were of that mind then they would become pregnant in any event and would probably be in the category I have outlined earlier many many times. 
We need to look at our role as a society in order to take responsibility and to do the best we can by the child and the mother in circumstances where we are able to actually effect some purpose. There needs to be some discussion and understanding of the drivers that see young mothers in jail in the first place. Although we would love to be in a position to wind back the clock and to put in the education or safeguards that would prevent young people going to jail this provision is not exclusive. Just because we have this provision—and thank God that we do and that it will soon be implemented—does not mean that we do not do the other things around education or have those other societal fixes that need to be put into effect early. 
There is a real tension to the argument between the paramountcy of the child’s interest and consideration of the community-based sentence. I notice for instance that the Minister and other speakers talked about our ability now to enact home-based sentences and home detention is one of those sentences. I really hope that the cart does not get put before the horse in respect of these sentencing options. I do not believe having seen a lot of homes where prisoners come from including a lot of homes with young babies—the children of female offenders—that home detention will be the best option in every case in any event. 
The words of Dr Pita Sharples were related very well to us by his whip Te Ururoa Flavell in respect of children in prison. That speech asked whether the child would remember being raised in prison. Well I wonder whether a child of the same age maybe under 2 years old is able to remember everything that went on at home and how positive that experience was. For instance if a mum who fitted within the demographics I outlined at the beginning of my contribution lives in a house that is cold and damp a house that is shared by many other adults or a house where alcohol abuse or drug-taking happens on a frequent basis will the child remember that? Will the child benefit from remembering that as his or her first home life experience? 
Will the child remember growing up in a house with few toys where little interest is taken in the child and where not a heck of a lot of reading to the child is done or other parenting skills are displayed? 
When we really look at this situation we have to ask whether home detention is the best option for a person required to be sentenced for some other crime. For instance would it not be far more appropriate for the mother of a young child to be placed in a mother and baby unit within a prison—that is in a flatting situation—where carers are alongside prison officers living with that mother where parenting skills are taught on a daily basis and where the precursor for a mother having her baby in prison is that a parenting agreement is signed? In that situation the child’s interests are paramount and come first and a written contract negates drug-taking and other negative behaviours. The baby will be raised—albeit within a prison—in a warm environment with soft blankets with care and attention in a drug-free environment and with regular feeds. There will be access to regular medical checks like well child checks. The certainties that go with a regime that accepts the paramountcy of the child’s interests are right there as a key. 
I do not believe that that regime is available in some homes especially in the homes of those who end up going to jail. We have heard today for instance of the tragic death of a policeman in South Auckland and at the centre of that home which is now cordoned off by the police was a young mum and a 5-month-old child in circumstances where some offenders are living within that house. But as I say at the core of the situation is a 5-month-old baby. 
You know we cannot dictate in virtually every situation around this country where our babies live but we know that these babies are our babies. They are not brown babies or yellow babies or brindled babies; they are our babies. And it is our role as representatives in this House—people in a privileged position—to put the security of the most vulnerable in our society right at the forefront of all we do. 
I am proud to be part of the National Party which has supported this legislation all the way through. Once again I thank the sponsor of the bill and I say that I appreciate the support that has come from across the House on this very crucial issue. Thank you. 
Bill read a third time.