SIMON POWER (National—Rangitikei) Link to this
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.
Hon STEVE CHADWICK (Minister of Conservation) Link to this
I am delighted to be given an opportunity to speak to this bill. It was very heartening to hear that the Opposition—which, I understand from Paula Bennett’s comments in the House the other day, does not have a women’s caucus—does support this bill. It is a very good thing to hear that, unanimously, everybody on the Law and Order Committee saw the sense behind supporting Sue Bradford’s bill to this second reading stage.
I congratulate Sue Bradford and the Greens. I think they are incredibly lucky in the bills that come out of the ballot. It is “Eat your heart out!” stuff, really, because they are great bills and they are about the social fabric of New Zealand. This bill really went to the heart of how we recognise parenting, and the attachment of mothers and babies—regardless of what happens on that infant’s journey through life. And these children would be the most vulnerable members of our community. They did not ask to be born into a circumstance where a mother had got into overwhelming trouble and was having to face imprisonment. These children would be the most vulnerable and they deserve the best opportunity in life, to break that cycle of the situation into which they are born. So I think it is a fantastic bill, which will support that bonding and attachment.
I want to point out that on hearing Simon Power’s speech I was a bit concerned when he talked about the infant as a possession of the mother. Infants are actually an intrinsic part of both of their parents and of a wider family, but the primary caregiver at that vital stage of life, whether or not they are breastfeeding, is their mother. It would be appalling to separate them, or for a child to be seen as a possession—that is not the way we look on these children. It is really important in this bill that we reflect how we can most effectively support these children. I think the Law and Order Committee has done a great job, actually, in its report back to the House.
This bill will have a fiscal impact, as was pointed out, and that is of some concern to us. A little newborn baby can be very, very easily accommodated, as we all know, but once a baby starts crawling, walking, and exploring the greater world he or she needs access to a very different physical environment. The prison environment is probably not the right place for mothers to be with their children. That comes to the point that Phil Goff raised in his speech—that we need to look at other sentencing options for mothers and children in the first place. Bail and electronic monitoring, where these mothers could stay at home with their children in a family environment, is, of course, where we would rather see them. We want to see law changes that support bail with electronic monitoring, because to take that unit away from the wider family will set them off on the wrong pathway.
This is a terrific bill, and I think the Committee stage, where amendments will come before the House, will be a very important process for the House to consider. I look forward to some of the amendments that may be tabled during this stage. I think that this bill builds on what the left—the Greens, the Māori Party, and Labour—have been saying, really, about all these initiatives that build strong, healthy, and resilient families. It also links back to the work we are doing in the Government about family violence. I believe we need more and more programmes to support breaking the cycle of family violence. Access to doctors and treatment for drug and alcohol concerns for mothers is a very important aspect. The Working for Families package is too: when that mother goes home with her little one they need more income coming into the family in order to break that cycle of poverty from which lawlessness often results.
I think this is a terrific bill. It adds to the fabric of the way we see the building of resilient families and it is putting children at the centre of all policy. I congratulate the Law and Order Committee on this bill, I look forward to the second stage amendments, and I commend this bill to the House.
Hon TARIANA TURIA (Co-Leader—Māori Party) Link to this
Tēnā koe Mr Assistant Speaker, tēnā tātou. The Māori Party comes to the Corrections (Mothers with Babies) Amendment Bill believing that when we focus on the intersection between mothers and babies in the criminal justice system there should be one essential principle that guides all others—that is, the principle of whanaungatanga. Whānau is whakapapa, or genealogy; whānau is kotahitanga, or about being united; and whānau is manaakitanga, or looking after one another. In fact, although whānau in Māori means “to give birth”, it also means “family”.
Whānau, to be quite frank, is more than merely a mum. A child who is born to a whānau belongs to us all. I have personal experience: I was not raised by my mother; I was raised by my grandmother and two aunts. I do not recall that that in any way hindered my development. In fact, it gave me greater opportunities, possibly, than I would have had had I been raised by my own mother. So although we, of course, support the importance of bonding, where that needs to happen, we also believe that bonding can take place within the wider whakapapa and that it must not be undermined by a reliance on one birth parent. Again, I refer to my own situation. I am raising a mokopuna. She knows her mother and her father, but I am her mama. I am the one who does everything for her, and she is the light of my life.
I have to say from the outset that it is sad enough that tamariki get caught up in their mothers’ offending. Those children have committed no crime, yet in many ways they are the ones who pay the price. No child should be raised in a prison. It is a volatile and hostile environment—the very antithesis of what we expect our children to grow up in. So I support the kōrero of Ministers Phil Goff and Steve Chadwick when they say that ideally these children should be raised at home, with their mothers serving a home detention. Prison is hardly a safe environment for women, let alone babies and young children, and it is certainly not the best place in which to support the mental, emotional, and physical development of a child. But some women will offend, and some women will end up in prison, giving birth, and having to take their tamariki into that environment. So we acknowledge Sue Bradford for thinking of those women and children. The Māori Party recognises that there may be some women who do not have family to call on, yet seek to maintain contact with their children while they are incarcerated. Those women need all the support available to guide them in such a vital role. The well-being of our children depends on support and education being readily available, and on hand, to ensure that their needs are met.
Let me again return to the notion of whanaungatanga. This is the collective investment in the generations, the genealogical commitment to the well-being of the whānau, hapū, and iwi. This should be uppermost in our consideration of how best to provide for children under the age of 24 months. Children should be able to benefit from the unique bonding, caring, and nurturing of their mother, and also their father, whatever setting they are in. But the question I would ask is whether it has to be in a prison. Every newborn baby provides every whānau with a new opportunity to protect and respect the cultural heritage that he or she has emerged into. The sad thing for me is that too many of our parents become parents without ever having had the privilege of receiving the kind of support, and the kind of parenting, that enables them to be the very best parent possible for their child. The Māori Party welcomes the opportunity in this bill to give practical support to positive parenting. We were interested that the Law and Order Committee gave emphasis to the facilities, the accommodation, the treatment of inmates, and the institutional context in which these mothers with babies are found, but surely the key priority is in thinking about how to promote the value of being an effective parent.
There is also another critical component of this situation—that is, our children will not be our children forever. They will eventually become other people’s husbands and wives, the parents of our grandchildren, and the grandparents of our mokopuna tuarua. So it is important that we get it right for their sakes. The absolute irony in all of this is that we are discussing the beauty of having children, child rearing, and childcare within the context of incarceration. We know that Māori women are disproportionately represented in the penal system, and it stands to reason then that Māori babies will be overrepresented and, therefore, more likely to benefit from the provisions of this bill. We were pleased to see some flexibility added in as a result of the select committee deliberation. Mothers who are not breastfeeding are included in the provisions of the bill. Caregivers who may not be the children’s biological mothers are also able to apply for eligibility on this programme.
This bill focuses on the best interests of the child, and certainly that is what the Māori Party would expect. In a Māori world view, the best interests of the child include nurturing and promoting connections within his or her wider whānau. We wonder whether the parenting agreements, although currently fixed on the circumstances of the individual, could be expanded to include the wider whānau and hapū responsibility, not just for the child but for the mother as well. We noted the advice from the Law and Order Committee that the agreements be limited, in effect, only as far as our vision determines. If the list of obligatory conditions is truly to serve as a starting point, we would expect whānau responsibility and obligation to be inserted into that template. So, in the segments of the proposed parenting agreement where “the mother” or the “alternative caregiver” is referred to, we would be very keen to see a broader approach taken here also to transform the parenting agreement into a whānau arrangement.
We note the importance of international evidence to this debate. In New York there is a correctional facility for women that enables newborns to stay with their mother until the age of 2. At 2 years of age the child is then transferred to his or her extended family or the State system where the child can continue to visit his or her mum. The research concludes that this process is far healthier than taking away the baby at, say, 6 months of age. Some sceptics may say that babies will remember they were born behind prison walls and that they will never be able to get over the limitations of that early start. This bill gives us all an opportunity for another view—to believe that these babies may know that they were nurtured, breastfed, held, and loved by the person who brought them into the world. What this bill does not deal with, and what we must attend to, is the impacts of life after incarceration for children. In the state of Oregon three centres have opened, called the Centre for Family Success. The centres deal with parents who have been incarcerated, and provide services such as parenting, employment, mentoring, and counselling. The centres have also started parenting classes in both male and female prisons. These classes have been so successful that the waiting lists are apparently legendary.
We must do all we can to ensure that the children of the incarcerated become the children of family success. Although the State can do so much, our greatest opportunity is to commit to family decision-making and to family success as our most important role. This bill values the significant relationship between mother and child and gives honour to the unique foundation such a relationship provides for every whānau and their future. We will be supporting this bill but we do so with some reservations. Our key priority is supporting children to be raised in loving whānau. We simply do not accept that a prison, no matter how much effort is made to humanise it, will ever be an appropriate environment for a child. We believe that all circumstances should be traversed. Kia ora.
Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Corrections) Link to this
Firstly, I acknowledge Sue Bradford for the work she has done in promoting the Corrections (Mothers with Babies) Amendment Bill and for encouraging us to recognise the negative impact of maternal imprisonment on the children of women prisoners. I think everybody in this House would recognise that the children of prisoners are amongst the most vulnerable members of our community, and that therefore anything we can do to support children in this situation is very important. It is important, in the context of this debate, that we address how we can most effectively support those children. I also acknowledge the Law and Order Committee for approaching this topic in a non-partisan way and for its contributions to the bill.
Tariana Turia has, I think, just drawn attention to one way to reduce the impact on children of maternal imprisonment, and that is, where possible, not to send women offenders with dependent children to prison. I like to think that our justice system today, in situations where it is compatible with public safety and the interests of justice, will use community-based sentences instead of imprisonment. The Government has taken a number of steps to strengthen sentencing options. Stronger community-based sentences are now available to judges, which means that home detention, community detention, and intensive supervision may often be suitable alternatives to a prison sentence. Such community-based sentences avoid our having to separate mothers and children. The sentences also allow women offenders more easily to be linked into a range of community and social services to support them, and allow communities to be much more active in their role in supporting women and leading them away from the path to reoffending. Most important, they would mean that children who are often in the position of not having a father at home would not lose a mother as well as a father in terms of their carers.
Having said all of that, which I think would be agreed to by most members of the House, I know that most of us also acknowledge that there are times when a woman’s offending means that a prison sentence is the only appropriate response. Currently, babies up to 6 months of age can reside in prisons with their mothers. The women and their children are housed in self-care units with other women offenders preparing for release from prison. But there are restrictions on who can take advantage of that arrangement. Women must have a minimum-security classification in order to participate in the programme for mothers with children in prison. The prison system also attempts to assist by having breastfeeding and bonding facilities available to women prisoners who do not have minimum-security classification or who, for example, may be on remand. The children can come in on a daily basis to feed and to bond with their mothers, but for the rest of the time they reside with alternative caregivers. I also accept Tariana Turia’s argument that often people in the wider family can care appropriately for those children.
Importantly, this bill seeks to make it possible, in appropriate circumstances, for more children to reside in prison with their mothers. It does that by raising the upper age that children can reside in prison from 6 months to 2 years. It also opens up participation to all women prisoners with dependent children under the age of 2, not just those who have a minimum-security classification. Our first instinct is that children and prisons do not go naturally together. If we are to allow older children to reside in prison, we need to make sure we have an environment that supports their developmental needs; otherwise there is a risk that we could do more harm than good. The existing self-care units are not specifically designed with older children in mind. Most of us who are parents understand that the developmental needs of a 2-year-old are vastly different from those of a 6-month-old baby, and that a 2-year-old requires more varied stimulation for growth and development.
The initial advice to me from the Department of Corrections was that to fully meet the needs of women prisoners with children aged up to 2 it would need an additional specifically designed 24 places in prison. This, the department said, would cost around $20 million in capital expenditure and around $6.5 million in annual operating expenditure. That cost is very difficult to justify when we consider other, competing needs; that $26 million might alternatively be used to, for example, assist disadvantaged children in the community. Those costs were based on building and staffing for separate accommodation for mothers with children to optimal standards in all three of New Zealand’s women’s prisons. If the level of demand did not fill those positions, it would be a very expensive and perhaps unnecessary provision. Of course, we hope that with alternative community sentencing we may lower the level of demand for women and their children to be accommodated in prison. Finding $1 million to accommodate a woman and her child is hard to prioritise against other needs.
As a result, I asked the Department of Corrections to come up with alternative, and perhaps more financially realistic, proposals to allow the department to respond to this bill and to have a more immediate impact in terms of avoiding separating mothers and children. The department did that. Its representatives came back and spoke with me. I met with Sue Bradford to discuss what we might do that would have an immediate impact and would be affordable in terms of the Budget. The department came up with a total of eight places in Auckland and Christchurch women’s prisons at a cost of about $2 million in capital and $1.5 million in operating expenditure. In addition, children at all three facilities, it said, could remain with their mothers for 9 months. I think this would certainly be a good first step.
I took the time to discuss this with Sue Bradford, because I knew we shared the same objectives and wanted a realistic way in which to deliver those particular objectives. Sue Bradford said to me—and she will respond in the House—that she thought this was a sensible approach that was capable of being built on for the future. To do it, however, I needed a Supplementary Order Paper. Otherwise, we would have to find the $26 million upfront. Therefore, I have circulated Supplementary Order Paper 174 to all members. It amends subsection (1) of section 81C, which is 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. This would mean we could bring this in in a way that lowers the costs without sacrificing the objective. It would mean we could phase in necessary changes in accommodation, giving us time to see how our new sentencing practices work in terms of avoiding the need for mothers and children to be in prison, and allowing the department to build up the required facilities gradually and in a more cost-effective way.
I have had the chance to discuss this alternative with a range of members of Parliament from different parties, and there appears to be quite a strong level of support for proceeding in this manner. I therefore commend this amendment for the consideration of the Committee of the whole House. Again, I thank, particularly, Sue Bradford for the concern and hard work she has put into this. I also thank all members of Parliament who have risen above the sort of politicking that often comes up in a discussion relating to prisons and law and order in order to look at how we might best do something that will make a real difference for these children, and in a way that also preserves the integrity of our justice system and the safety of the public. Once again, I thank Sue Bradford for her contribution to this debate, and I thank members for their consideration of the Supplementary Order Paper that is on the Table of the House in my name.
JUDY TURNER (Deputy Leader—United Future) Link to this
United Future is happy to support the second reading of the Corrections (Mothers with Babies) Amendment Bill. Like everybody else, I want to congratulate Sue Bradford on bringing this matter to the attention of the House. I also congratulate the Law and Order Committee on the work it has done and the changes it has made during the select committee process.
I am interested, however, in a couple of issues that I raised in my first reading speech—issues that I would have thought would come under the parenting agreements section of the bill. I still do not see any reference to the fact that all the provisions around parenting agreements listed so far are limited to the mother and the child, and to the arrangements that will best support them. There is no mention of the fact that there may be a father who wants access to the child, and to how that would be facilitated in terms of parenting arrangements. I find that an interesting oversight, as also is the lack of mention of the ability for grandparents and the wider family, who also want regular contact with the child, to have visiting rights and so on, as they would if the child were being raised out of prison. There is currently nothing mentioned in the bill. I accept that it may be intended at a later date to add more under the parenting agreements schedule, but I find it interesting that currently the select committee has overlooked that. I agree with the Māori Party that although the intention of this bill is to ensure that appropriate bonding, and everything that goes with babies and mothers, is not disrupted by prison, a child has needs that are a lot wider than just the bonding that happens with his or her mother. I think we need to be really mindful of that.
I agree with the Hon Phil Goff’s comments previously. Let me put this to the House: if a mother is safe enough to have her child in prison with her, then are we not saying she is safe enough and of such low risk that a community-based sentence would be a more appropriate response to that woman? United Future would be hugely interested in hearing whether there is some ongoing investigation around that; I think that it is quite possible. I am interested that the Australian Government has signalled that it is looking at some new mechanisms for much more intensive case management of certain at-risk families in the community—around management of their benefits, and a whole lot of things like that—where there has been a real history of problems. I am unaware of anything that is being considered in the New Zealand context right now, but it occurs to me that with community-based sentences for mothers, these kinds of things could very easily be done so that there was some consequence for the actions that put the women before the court in the first place. So it is not a getting away with a crime that we are talking about here but actually a facilitation of a mother’s ability to be with her family and do the job that is of the highest priority to her while serving out a community-based sentence. I think there is a huge amount of potential for that to be developed in the future.
I also accept that if we extend the age at which a child can be housed in a prison facility from 6 months to 2 years, then the resourcing for that really does need to be put in place. I am interested in the Supplementary Order Paper the Minister has just referred to, because I think it is an important issue. However, I would hate to think that this matter was stymied by an unwillingness to supply resources or to move at pace to see what can be done. It does not sound to me to involve the kinds of costs that are on the high end in terms of Government expenditure, but if there was the will to do it—and certainly, regarding the situation in this bill, we have demonstrated in the House there is a real openness for that to be the case—then surely it means that regardless of who is leading the Government after the election, this matter will be advanced and progressed in some way that is measurable, with some time lines around it so we can see that it is implemented as soon as possible.
So United Future is happy. We are pleased with what the select committee has done. We think that this is an issue we need to progress deliberately but to observe mindfully in order to see what else needs to be done around its edges. I am particularly interested in the extended family having access to those children and the ways we facilitate that, and in looking at the whole way we sentence mothers. I really do accept and believe that if we are saying a mother is safe enough to have her child with her in prison, then we are also saying she is safe enough for a community-based sentencing provision. Again, let this not be the end of the story but let us take some really strong steps in that direction to discover what could be accomplished.
NANDOR TANCZOS (Green) Link to this
I would like, first of all, to thank my colleague Sue Bradford for bringing this bill before the House. I also thank the different parties in the House for their support—I think that that support is now universal—and all the previous speakers for their universally thoughtful and considered contributions to this debate. It is an important issue, and it goes to the heart of how we see the criminal justice system. It seems there is a general abhorrence across the House for the practice reported by some inmates that access to their babies and breastfeeding rights are being used as a disciplinary and control measure by some Department of Corrections staff.
It seems that there is recognition across the House of the importance of contact between mothers and babies, both for the well-being of the babies and to enhance the rehabilitative prospects for the mothers. It seems also that there is a general recognition that in relation to mothers with babies the justice policy needs to humanise rather than dehumanise—not just to rehabilitate but, in the words of the Roper report, to habilitate.
So although I welcome the support for this bill, I think it is worth extending that thinking, that approach, a little bit further and having a look at how a more humanised approach might improve the prospects not just of imprisoned mothers and their babies but of imprisoned women and men more generally. We in this country have the second-highest rate of imprisonment in the Western World, after the United States. We know that some 80 percent of inmates reoffend within 3 years of release. For young people, offending tends to become more serious once they have entered the prison system, and bizarrely, given those facts, we know that over half of the prison population is inside for non-violent offences. So although I agree with Mr Goff that sometimes prison may be the only appropriate sentence, and in particular where there is a need for containment to ensure the safety of others, I have to say that that condition occurs far less often than prison sentences do.
The rate of imprisonment in New Zealand is just too high. We need to look at a better way forward, and many of the ingredients of that way forward are already clear to us. A number of speakers have referred to the increased use of home detention for mothers with dependent children, and I support that. Judy Turner made the point that we need to look at sentencing, because if we consider that mothers are safe to look after their babies in prison, it would seem, on the face of it, that there is a good case to say that a community sentence would be appropriate.
But it actually goes much further than that. We need to move much further in reforming the criminal justice system if we want to see something that works all around. Meaningful recognition and support for the needs of victims of crime is crucial both to improve the system for victims of crime and because it can have rehabilitative value as well. The recent Justice and Electoral Committee report offers a number of ways forward on that, including better use of and greater access to restorative justice as a key alternative justice path.
We need to see better access to mental health services in the community and in custody, and a full implementation of the mental health blueprint. We know there are high numbers of untreated mental illness among inmates and offenders. We need to see substantially better provision of addiction treatment services for gambling, and for alcohol and other drugs, both in the community and in custody and, in particular, in youth residential facilities.
In particular, we need to see much more focus on early intervention at community, family, and individual levels. We need to strengthen families and parenting skills, promote non-violence and effective communication skills, and address poverty, poor housing, truancy, and school suspensions. Those last few are actually vitally important. Judge Becroft has said that the single biggest thing we can do to deter youth offending—and, by implication, later adult offending—is to keep young people in education. Yet many of our schools still see the expulsion of young people as the easy way out in the face of sometimes relatively minor problems. The Court of Appeal case taken by Lynfield College is, I think, a demonstration of that mentality.
Even for those in prison we can do much, much more in providing addiction treatment, employment guidance, and reintegration strategies such as maintaining healthy connections with family and community, and other initiatives. This bill is obviously one step in that direction towards greater reintegration of people in prison. Again, I thank Sue Bradford for the bill. I thank members for their support of the bill, and I hope that all parties will continue to demonstrate the same insight that they have shown on this bill on wider justice policy issues.