Debate resumed from 21 November 2007.
BARBARA STEWART (NZ First) Link to this
I rise to support the Corrections (Mothers with Babies) Amendment Bill and also the recommendation of the Law and Order Committee that the bill be passed with appropriate amendments. The amendments do improve the bill.
New Zealand First congratulates Sue Bradford on her bill and on the very worthwhile debate it has generated, but we have some reservations about the bill and will be interested to follow the bill’s progress through the House. We will want to be reassured about the concerns we have. As Ron Mark said to me, we need to remember who these people are and why they are in prison. We have to be realistic. He also pointed out that the cost considerations implicit in this legislation are fairly high. He emphasised that a cautious approach to the bill is absolutely essential.
As the bill states, this provision would apply to all female prisoners, regardless of their security classifications or whether they have been convicted or sentenced. We have to be realistic and support the premise that any mother imprisoned for any offence associated with child abuse would not be eligible to have her baby with her in prison. That is exactly how it should be. When it comes to females imprisoned for serious offences, security issues have to be considered. Self-care units are minimum security areas at the moment. If the number of people who are eligible for placement in them is extended, New Zealand First would raise concerns about security issues that currently do not need to be addressed.
We have some concerns about the resources that will be needed in order to allow this legislation and initiative to succeed. It has to be set up well, and has to be managed very well. The facilities provided will have to meet the criteria and standards required of other institutions that currently care for children. Prisons will need resources such as qualified, trained staff when mothers are attending programmes; rooms that meet the size requirements, etc.; the ability to keep babies separate from toddlers; and indoor and outdoor play areas. There will be many other things that we have not mentioned. These areas will need to be added to existing prison facilities, so it is reasonable to assume there will be a time lag between the passing of this legislation and its implementation. New Zealand First believes that resources are an issue. It would be great to say that they are not an issue, but the reality is that they are, and that the resources needed in a prison environment are definitely greater than they are out in the community.
I was most interested to hear from Ron Mark, a member of the select committee, that Māori and Pacific Islanders do not necessarily agree with the arguments of middle-class social workers that this scenario would best benefit the child. They argued that a child was raised by the village and the wider whānau, that it was not unusual for elders to take a child from his or her mother, and that it was often the better option to do that, given the mother’s lifestyle and/or drug and alcohol habits. That is a valid argument and one that we will be interested to hear further discussion on.
In New Zealand First we recognise that the well-being of children is absolutely paramount, and that all children deserve the best possible start in life. It concerns us as to what will happen when the child turns 2 years of age. It can be far more traumatic for a 2-year-old to be separated from his or her mother than for a baby, and that issue needs to be very carefully managed. It may mean that the child’s age, or the time that the mother is with her baby, should actually be increased. There is the fact, too, that female prisoners have become older over the last 5 years, and that the greatest growth has been among prisoners in the 15-29 year age group. That is the group of women who are most likely to have babies, so we can see an increase in the number of mothers who already have, or who apply to have, their babies in prison with them.
The more cynical among us could say that young women who face a prison sentence may deliberately get themselves pregnant prior to being sentenced, as the environment may be a little easier or a little nicer for them while they are in prison. That means, again, an increase in the required resources. I also read a paper arguing that there is a danger that more women with babies may end up in prison as, when this bill becomes law, they will definitely be able to keep their babies with them. Hopefully that will not be the case.
On the positive side, New Zealand First believes that this is an excellent opportunity for those mothers to learn some parenting skills, which otherwise they would not have had the opportunity to learn or would not have bothered to learn, in a very controlled environment. Of course we are very aware too of the child’s developmental needs and of the need for bonding with other family members, and we say that is important. We believe that this initiative will benefit the child and the mother in the best possible way, because we believe that it is essential that a mother-child bond is formed. But, of course, the focus always has to be on what is best for the welfare of the child. The reality is that children may be better looked after in prison than if they are separated from their mothers, because the prison environment is a very controlled environment and one where the resources that are provided will ensure that children get the best possible care.
New Zealand First will support this bill, but I must point out that we do have some reservations about it. We will be looking to have those reservations clarified as the bill proceeds through this House. Thank you.
SIMON POWER (National—Rangitikei) Link to this
I want to make a contribution on the Corrections (Mothers with Babies) Amendment Bill. I start by saying I was delighted that the National Party was able to be the first party to formally support this bill at its first reading following its introduction by the Green Party, as I believe it has real merits in the longer term. Most important, and just to put Barbara Stewart’s mind at rest, I tell members the Law and Order Committee spent some time on making sure that the legislation made it perfectly clear that its principal purpose was to provide for what was in the best interests of the child. In fact, we as a committee amended the original purpose clause to make that the paramount consideration when a placement of this nature is considered by the Department of Corrections.
It is worth spending a bit of time this evening on looking at the eligibility and screening of applicants for such placements. We did recommend that the chief executive of the department “may” make a placement, not “must” make a placement, upon application, although it was the expectation of the select committee that where the criteria were met, the chief executive would approve such a request. I cannot emphasise enough, though, that the primary interests of this legislation are not with the mother but with the child who would be the subject of the placement.