Thursday, 30 July 2026

 Paul HAMER (Box Hill – Minister for Local Government, Minister for Youth Justice, Minister for Corrections) (10:12): Under standing orders I wish to advise the house of amendments to this bill, and I request that they be circulated.

 Brad BATTIN (Berwick) (10:13): I rise in relation to the Corrections Amendment Bill 2026 and also the amendments that have just been placed on the record by the Minister for Corrections. First and foremost, our position is that we will not be opposing this bill today on the corrections amendments. Obviously this bill was brought into this place because of, as I understand, legal action that went through in relation to open-air and restricted access for prisoners in Victoria to ensure that they can get reasonable access to the outdoors. Obviously offenders that are locked up for longer periods of time or who are getting locked down for days, whether it is for penalties, punishment or whatever else – for some of them it is for security reasons – can be locked up for 23 hours a day. What this says, effectively, is that they have already got a human right to access to open air but obviously with current restrictions and challenges within the system that is not always practical for staff. So the bill put forward today from the minister is in relation to ensuring that there are protections as well as understanding of the circumstances within our prison system.

I suppose that is where I will start. The corrections system and prison system here in Victoria faces many challenges. Some of those challenges are specifically around staffing, which has been raised with me on many occasions. I speak to a few of the corrections officers and have spoken to corrections officers, current and former, who have raised some of the issues that they are facing within the system, and their concerns around the staffing levels have been raised over a long period of time. I know that the government are well and truly aware of some of the pressures that are placed onto prison officers here in Victoria, particularly when they are short staffed. Because of safety concerns, the last thing anyone wants to see is a prison getting extra inmates coming in at the same time it is not seeing an increase in or the movement around of staff and that placing the staff at risk.

The staff that are reaching out to us have indicated an increase in assaults, an increase in threats and an increase in lockdowns within the prison. These sorts of things have almost automatically – we almost got a free slab there with the rules on the phone. Isn’t it that you get a slab?

But when we look at the prisons and we see the fact that the prisoners are being locked down for longer periods of time, whilst the community probably do not have a lot of sympathy for those that get locked down for a longer period of time due to staffing, the challenge there is actually back on the staff, because when you do lock down prisoners, you end up with a group of people who are generally a bit more angry and a bit harder to manage, and working in a prison system is about management. It is about managing the prisons. There are the arguments around rehabilitation et cetera, which are separate to this, but this is really just about the staffing and ensuring that they are protected and that we have got the best access and availability for them.

One of the challenges I think that the government should be addressing when they talk about this is that we have known for a while that crime has been increasing here in Victoria, and the government in 2023 changed the bail laws, which saw less people coming into the prison system. And we have seen sentencing change – less people are getting prison sentences since 2023. Since the increase in crime, the government have now come out with their so-called tough-on-crime approach, and that tough-on-crime approach that they are talking about now is swinging back around to seeing more people incarcerated, particularly those that are getting remanded here in Victoria. I know the government will pat themselves on the back and say, ‘How good are we? We’re tough on crime.’ But if they had not changed the laws in 2023, there is a very high likelihood that we would not have seen the increase in crime that we saw in Victoria, because there would have been serious consequences at the time, and therefore we would not have seen this chain where particularly younger men have gone through and continue to increase the amount of crime they do, more violent crime, and end up going onto a path of longer term sentences because of the crimes they are committing.

At the same time, when the government were weakening the bail laws here in Victoria and we saw sentencing change so more people were being freed out into the community, particularly dangerous criminals who were ending up back out in the community, the government made, I will say, a very bad decision, and that decision was to close Port Phillip Prison based on the fact of numbers. They spent billions on Western Plains prison. They were spending $33 million to $34 million a year to keep Western Plains prison empty. Effectively, they were air conditioning cells that had no prisoners in them. As we all know, money does not grow on trees, and that was an absolute waste. The government continued to see this money being put into a facility that had no prisoners in it. It had staff, and for obvious reasons – I will say it is obvious – you have to have staff in there, even if there are no prisoners, because you need to make sure that the prison does stay as secure as possible.

After a period of time, when the government started to feel the pressure – and I suppose, in the words of the new Premier, when they were reacting to polling rather than the reality of what was happening in the system and they were worried about community sentiment rather than about the actual safety of the prison officers in the prison system – they decided then to move prisoners across to Western Plains. The call was made to close Port Phillip. Let us be honest: that was a purely ideological position to close down a private prison here in this state – a prison that was more effective, was more efficient, had better outcomes, had safer staff, had less incidents and cost less to run. Every single report would say why they would have kept that one open rather than moving the prisoners across. When they made the decision to move them across to Western Plains prison, the government also decided they were going to, at that time, close down the entire prison. But afterwards, again, due to backlash, they realised that they had spent so many tens of millions of dollars on a hospital facility within Port Phillip that they had to go back and renegotiate a contract with G4S to keep that section of the prison open, because they do need to have a place to put prisoners who need health care within the system.

Let us be honest: it was one of the better places to put people, particularly end of life. It was again more efficient and more effective. The government also at the time were negotiating contracts with St Vincent’s around the secure ward that is currently here in Melbourne. All of these things have led to effectively the government having spent a lot more money to get a lot less outcomes, and now they are struggling to get more staff.

The staff that were made redundant and moved on from the Port Phillip Prison – we have spoken to a few of them. Believe it or not, there are a few of them that cannot get jobs in the public sector. The public sector is desperate to get prison officers in, but they are not speaking to those that have been made redundant from the private sector. They would be great questions, because some of them would raise some issues around the fact that they have been told that they were too involved with the private sector and that they would not know how it runs in the public sector. But most of them within that system could have come across and actually been great mentors in the public sector. The reason I say that is because you did see in the private sector with the prison system how efficiently and how effectively it was run. They had less lockdowns. If you have less lockdowns, you have less risk of being in breach of human rights and having people going out of their cells. They also held some of the highest-risk prisoners in the state. They had wards there for people who were unsentenced but were a risk to the community. The prison itself, as I said, had a lot of things going for it that were positives that this government over time has failed to address.

The other issue we get from prison officers still in the system is that this bill does not really address – and I know it goes in here about permanent exemptions for the charter of human rights, but it is partially compatible with the Statewide Treaty. Partially compatible is always a concern. This government brought in a treaty that they swore by. They said our side was totally wrong for opposing all the decisions in there, and then the pieces of legislation that I have seen come in: one they did not even go through the treaty with, and the second one here is only partially compatible. So we are spending a lot of money on the treaty for them to come in and make decisions and have a say on it, and then when they do disagree with government, the government just goes, ‘We’re not going to listen to you anyway.’ They have obviously put in here that it is partially compatible with the Statewide Treaty.

Natalie Hutchins interjected.

Brad BATTIN: I do not support the treaty. That was pretty obvious – we have already voted on that one. But the government who pushed it through – you would think they would listen to the treaty. I know the former minister wants to make comments from the back. She must be disappointed. I am sure the former minister is disappointed in the fact that the treaty has had its say and the government that she was part of then turned around and goes, ‘But we’re not going to listen to them.’ You know, ‘We’re going to spend all the money on them, but we are not going to listen to them.’ So they can put forward their views – that is fantastic – but the government who supported them and spent all the money on it are not going to be listening to them at a later date.

Some of the prison officers who I have been speaking to have been raising concerns around the risks to them and the treatment of some of the prisoners within their system. Now we are seeing more and more prisoners who are getting treated, I am going to say as good as, if not better than, people out in the community. We have seen recent reports – I know everybody knows about the Ozempic reports and availability of Ozempic in the prison system and who can access it. People who are within the prison system do not have to be pre-diabetic, but they can get it and not have to fund it. It has got to be paid for by taxpayer, so taxpayers are paying for Ozempic. Some of those people that have gone in there – I will not say they were overweight when they went in – have developed that and become overweight, and all of a sudden they have access to Ozempic that people in the community cannot afford. So people who are outside of jail cannot afford it, but people who are inside get it gifted to them. I think that is a huge problem here in this state.

One of the other items, when I am talking about people who are in there using Ozempic as a way to lose weight, I would say to most of them and to the prison system: change the system. You can use a prescription and tell them to maybe do some exercise – because I can tell you, I have worked in a prison and if there is one thing prisoners have, it is time. They have got plenty of time. Send them to the gym. If there is a problem with an excess number of Victorian prisoners putting on too much weight, change the food.

The government is in charge of that. The government can go through and allocate and ensure that the diet is amended in there. When I worked down in Won Wron prison, the prisoners were the ones that, obviously, cooked down there. We had a head chef who was a prison officer, and we had the rest that were cooking. But the food down there was exceptional – healthy. It was unbelievable what they did. Over time we have changed and moved away from this to foods that are processed and pre-made, and it is not to do with cost, it is to do with ease. If you can get the prisoners back into the kitchens and cooking again and giving them the skills that they need, then we are actually having a double win here in that when they do get out hopefully they can go into an industry where they can from there.

Part of the bill here, as I said – and that the minister was raising it specifically – is in relation to the outdoors and ensuring that the government of the day is protected. That is why we are not opposing the bill, because we do understand the current restrictions due to staffing and the current restrictions due to lockdowns and how difficult it is to always give someone the access to outside availability or to get them the hour of air that they are due, due to those operational circumstances that can happen. Some are caused by prisoners themselves who decide that they want to misbehave, and you can lock down a prison. Others are because of rolling action or strike action that could potentially be coming up soon, or there are just not enough staff in there. I think it is important that the management of the prison can make a decision in the best interests of staff, not in the best interests of prisoners, to protect the staff who are within that prison.

The other section of the amendments put forward by the department obviously are quite simply in relation to a change from the validation from the Corrections Amendment Bill – which, again, we are not opposing – that have come through there. I thank the minister for bringing those amendments to us. I will not be really having much to say on it. It is simply a change to ensure that a practice that has already been put in place is in legislation and made retrospective. It does protect the fact that those that are currently under orders will remain under orders in there.

As I said today, in the interest of time as well, because we have got a couple of bills to get through – and apologies, I know there are a few people want to speak on this – I will not be doing a full contribution. But I will be saying quite firmly on it that, as I said, we are not opposing, but I will be raising some of those issues, particularly around staffing. I think the government need to go back to the drawing board when they are seeing prisons become full. We know what happens when prisons get full. We end up with more people going into the remand system. They end up with the Minister for Police – he is here today. They end up in police cells, which puts pressure on the Minister for Police as well, who has to then justify why police cannot get out on the beat because they have got to stay in the class A cells. These are all challenges that from this side of the chamber on these sorts of bills we look at logically. We understand the impact that they can have on community safety. That is why we say to the government: it is really important that you get your corrections system back in order. We have had a few ministers come through when it comes to corrections here in Victoria, and all we have seen each and every time is a lot of money spent on projects and a lot of money spent on capital investment within the prison system, and a lot of that money has ended up in waste. We have got beds still closed due to black mould through prisons here in Victoria and arguments between the government and builders on who is responsible. At the end of the day, the government have to put their hand up and say they are responsible for the prison system here in Victoria. What we have seen so far is they have got no plans and no way to fix it. The best way to fix it would be to start off by reopening Port Phillip Prison so they have got the proper facilities and the proper access and they do not end up with an overloaded system or, worse, people stuck within police cells in Victoria, putting pressure on Victoria Police.

 Nina TAYLOR (Albert Park) (10:29): I am pleased to rise to speak on the Corrections Amendment Bill 2026, noting community safety is of course a top priority for our Carroll Labor government. To keep Victorians safe we have introduced the nation’s toughest bail laws and introduced the ‘adult crime, adult time’ laws. Those who commit serious violence should face the full consequences. We know as a result of these laws that we have seen a drop in the latest crime statistics. This bill is continuing our efforts to keep Victorians safe. There are two specific problems that this bill is seeking to surmount: one, legal and operational issues arising from the current right to the open air framework, and legal uncertainty caused by an administrative error affecting certain delegations – advanced practitioners in community corrections.

I am going to speak to the house amendment first. I will note the member for Berwick might wish to take care in taking the place of a medical professional. Obviously good nutrition and exercise is good for anyone but attempting to replace or in any way provide the advice that a medical professional might otherwise provide – I do not know; I would be cautious about that.

Coming back to the bill, community safety is a paramount priority for this government, and the community corrections system is an important part of that. Community corrections is about holding offenders to account for their criminal behaviour and keeping Victorians safe from crime. That includes requiring people on orders to do community work and to attend things like drug treatment or programs to address their behaviour. It includes holding people to account when they do not comply with court orders.

The Department of Justice and Community Safety recently identified an unacceptable error concerning the management of some offenders on community corrections orders between April 2024 and May 2026. The department did not update some paperwork following a change in job title of some of our hardworking community corrections officers. That reorganisation created a new role of advanced practitioner. The paperwork error means that actions taken by people working in the advanced practitioner role may not be valid on a technicality. Those frontline workers did nothing wrong; they did their job holding people to account. This is an administrative issue. Out of an abundance of caution, we are introducing this house amendment to retrospectively validate those actions beyond doubt. The offenders on community orders did what they did, and many of them pled guilty as a result. There is no concern that people have been prosecuted for actions that did not happen or received a different punishment as a result of this paperwork error. The house amendment will ensure that people who fail to comply with their orders face the full consequences of their actions, as they should. These are targeted reforms in response to legal, financial, operational and community safety risks. The house amendment ensures an administrative oversight does not create avoidable risk to community safety or undermine the corrections system. The government calls on all members to support the bill. I hope that that acquits the house amendment.

I shall now proceed to the other specific problem that is being addressed with this bill, and that is legal and operational issues arising from the current right-to-open-air framework. When we are thinking about this particular situation of the corrections system, the government of course must ensure prisons can operate safely for staff, visitors and people in custody, and that is no doubt a delicate balance. The bill recognises the importance of access to open air of course while acknowledging that this must be managed alongside operational realities. Those realities include the need to maintain good order and safety across the prison system, including managing the risks from and between certain prisoners, including high-risk prisoners. They also include that facilities are designed to mitigate a range of risks, including the risk of incidents, risk of contraband and, at the most extreme end, attempted escapes. Prisons manage those risks on a day-to-day basis in dynamic circumstances. Corrections officers deserve our thanks for doing that work day in, day out.

I know when I was Parliamentary Secretary for Justice I actually had the privilege of visiting a number of corrections facilities and meeting with corrections staff and really getting a very good understanding, as best as I can as an outsider who is not having to fulfil that very challenging role, of the delicate way in which they have to manage the often-changing dynamics of a prison, because of course we are talking about human beings. What also impressed me greatly with the corrections officers was the great respect and honour which they paid to their role and to making sure that they could keep that delicate balance at all times to the best of their abilities and really taking into account also the sentiments of those who have been incarcerated and are understandably in a very difficult situation.

I was really impressed by the level of care and concern. But also of course they have to manage their own safety, and that is why these kinds of provisions are making sure safety is managed in a very considered way.

The reform is aimed at ensuring access to open air can be managed in a safe way alongside other legislative and operational obligations critical to prison functioning. The changes seek to reinforce and align with longstanding practice in the corrections system. The use of individual run-out yards is longstanding practice in the Victorian system and common practice in corrections systems around the world. These reforms provide an immediate and practical legislative response to a decision in a recent court case, noting the state is appealing the decision. So we will just have that on the record as well.

We know that communal exercise yards are not necessarily a workable universal alternative for many high-risk prisoners. Infrastructure changes are not always feasible or realistic without creating operational and safety issues or other unacceptable risks. I think the point that I am trying to get to is that you might solve one thing but create a rather undesirable domino effect that could risk the safety between prisoners and could risk the safety of those who work in the prisons or otherwise those who are visiting the prisons. There may be one-off unexpected non-routine or ongoing circumstances where open-air access is not reasonably practical. Again, I can recall when I did visit one of the corrections facilities that we were walking around the yard but had to be moved from that yard because it was anticipated an incident might occur. In those ever-changing and delicate dynamics this comes down to that particular skill of our corrections officers, who are having to intuit, knowing they have those day-to-day relationships with prisoners, and be able to adapt accordingly to exercise appropriate protocols, again, in the interests of their safety, the safety of the prisoners and, more broadly, community safety.

I think more broadly, if we think about the risk if we were not to pass these changes today, we would have continued legal uncertainty, financial exposure for the state, disruption to corrections operations and community safety risks. So I would contend and I think collectively my colleagues would contend that there are compelling reasons to pass these very nuanced reforms today in the interests of community safety, further important work in community safety, with an abundance of caution and prudence, to make sure that our prison systems can continue to function appropriately and also so that the community can have faith in that continued appropriate functioning of our prison systems. I really want to pay respect to those who work in our prison systems. I know that it is a challenging role, but it is certainly an honourable role and one that is very important. It certainly takes a lot of skill and a lot of discipline to be able to manage those difficult situations on our behalf.

 Tim BULL (Gippsland East) (10:39): I rise to make a contribution on the Corrections Amendment Bill 2026. I am aware we have a relatively busy program ahead of us today with a few things on the agenda, so I will make a few relatively brief comments. I understand that this bill addresses prisoner rights in corrections, and the background to it that was touched on in the wideranging contribution by our lead speaker is around the fact that we have had a case where the plaintiff, a fellow called George Marrogi, argued that he had been denied his statutory right under the Corrections Act 1986, which provides that prisoners who are not engaged in outdoor work are entitled to at least 1 hour each day in the open air, weather permitting, which I think is the term that is used.

Apparently, having read a little bit about that, we had scenarios arising that during staff shortages, lockdowns, operational issues – I think even COVID might have been one of the factors in that – some prisoners, this gentleman being one, did not receive their full hour of exercise on a number of occasions, and despite being a convicted murderer and drug trafficker, apparently his right to legally pursue this exists. The Supreme Court found that it was a statutory entitlement to have 1 hour in the open air; the department could not simply rely on operational difficulties or staff shortages as an excuse, which I find an interesting finding; and where the entitlement had been breached, prisoners could seek compensation in the form of damages from the state.

I also read that Justice Harris personally inspected the prison yards and held that whether an area is ‘open air’ depends on such factors as whether the prisoners can feel the sun, wind and rain, whether there is a genuine sense of being outdoors and whether the space is large enough to move around and exercise in – and also whether it is so enclosed by walls, roofs or mesh that it no longer feels like the open air. I am personally struggling a little bit to have a great deal of sympathy for the poor convicted murderer and drug trafficker that he cannot feel the sun, wind and rain in his hair and on his skin and enjoy that sense of being outdoors. We come into this place and we debate a lot of bills, and there is a lot of back and forth across the chamber, but I think most members in this place are scratching their heads when we find ourselves in a situation where a convicted murderer and drug importer is able to sue for compensation for not getting that feeling of being outside. One might suggest the world has gone slightly mad when that can happen. I do appreciate and respect that this bill is in the chamber to rectify that, and I certainly acknowledge that.

Of course we have had some of our fantastic civil libertarians in this state arguing that he has his rights and they need to be protected. But I do not really align to that theory personally myself, given that individual’s background. A convicted murderer suing the state because he missed some time outside during COVID and staff shortages is just simply not right, so I am pleased that this is now being rectified. I think as our lead speaker touched on, one does question whether that arose over staffing issues within the system, and I think that is certainly something that we have acknowledged has occurred in the past and a matter that needs to be rectified. But the bottom line is that we should not be paying money for this. This bill amends that open air right, if we can call it that, and certainly, as our lead speaker indicated, we are not opposing it. It also retrospectively removes the liability for compensation, and we also support that element of the bill. This person should not be getting compensation for this, and I would hope that no person would receive compensation for anything like this in the future.

I just want to point out the issue that has been touched on around our prison system and those within it being afforded, perhaps, luxuries, if I can call them that, that people in the outside world struggle to obtain, achieve or receive. We had that example of taxpayer-funded Ozempic being provided in prisons.

Now, that is just not on. People outside of prison are paying a lot of money to have that medication for good reason, and we should not be providing that free when we have families that are struggling to put food on the table that have been prescribed that for health reasons having to pay. It is just another element where the priorities are wrong and we have got things slightly wrong, and we would like to see some rectification of that. I am sure that if we get a change of government in a few months time, this is one of the areas that we will be looking at, bringing some reality back into the rights of those that are incarcerated. Yes, they do have rights, but gee, there has got to be a line somewhere there where common sense prevails in relation to these matters.

I said I would not talk for too long on this. I know there are a number of speakers and time is limited as we have the apology coming up. But we do not oppose this bill. This is one bill that I am sure we all wish to pass through and deny this convicted murderer and drug trafficker the right to obtain compensation from the state for what really is a rather frivolous matter.

 Anthony CIANFLONE (Pascoe Vale) (10:46): I rise to support the Corrections Amendment Bill 2026. This is a bill that will provide for two things, essentially. One is to amend the right around people and those in custody to be in open air under the Corrections Act 1986 in response to those legal issues that have gone through the Supreme Court, as we have heard, and number two, through the amendment that has been moved by the minister as well, is to strengthen and rectify those legal safeguards around community corrections orders and the new role of advanced practitioners in response to what was an administrative oversight.

I would like to begin by acknowledging all of the justice ministers – the Minister for Corrections, the Minister for Police and others – for bringing this bill to the chamber. But I also particularly acknowledge the work of everyone across Corrections Victoria who works to keep us safe every single day through our justice, custodial and prison system as well. Corrections Victoria has a vision for safer prisons, safer people and safer communities. Our mission is to create a safer, smarter system with a skilled and supportive workforce that enables people in their care to make better decisions. Corrections Victoria is home and responsible for over 3000 staff and operates Victoria’s adult prison and post-sentence system as well. It runs, I believe, around 15 correctional facilities across Victoria as of June 2025. Victoria’s prison system had 6500 adults in custody – 95 per cent of them male, 5 per cent female – 40 per cent of whom are on remand and 60 per cent are on sentence.

As a result of our stronger bail and tougher laws around serious and violent crime we are continuing to see more people on remand, sentenced or in custody. Bail refusals are at record highs, with a 70 per cent increase – that is 10,000 more alleged offenders remanded. We have experienced an 84 per cent increase in bail revocations, and Children’s Court bail refusals are up by more than a third. As a result of these changes we have also been investing to strengthen our justice system and corrections system to accommodate this increase in people in custody – $727 million in the 2025–26 state budget to ramp up our custodial capacity, recruiting 700 new or more corrections staff as well, and for the new Western Plains correctional facility. The recent budget in 2026–27 invested overall $2.6 billion, including $229 million for further capacity increases and $43 million for programs to reduce reoffending and support rehabilitation within those settings. But of course along with these investments there is more we must continue to do in terms of legislation and reform to keep our corrections staff safe, to ensure people on remand or in custody are held in accordance with the laws and expectations of the state and in safe and fair conditions and to ensure overall that our community is safe as well.

In respect to updating legislation around open air, the current legal issue arose after the Supreme Court found that the rear and open-air courtyards attached to some high security and management unit cells did not meet the legal meaning of being in open air. That decision created legal uncertainty and exposed the gap between the wording of the law and the way staff have safely operated high-security units. Fresh air, of course, matters. Exercise matters. Contact with daylight and the outside environment in supporting physical and mental wellbeing matters.

Corrections workers must also protect staff, prisoners and the broader public as well. They cannot ignore escape risks, threats, gang conflict, self-harm, contraband or violence without the appropriate legal settings themselves. The law must recognise all of those realities at the same time and protect all within those custodial sentences.

This bill will amend the right for people in prisons to be in open air. Under the Corrections Act 1986, section 47(1)(a) provides that every person in prison who is not ordinarily engaged in outdoor work has the right to spend at least one hour each day in the open air, weather permitting. The bill provides that in addition to any weather considerations the right to be in open air may be limited where it is not reasonably practicable to provide the entitlement having regard to operational considerations. The amendments in the bill respond to the Supreme Court’s judgement. At the time of consideration of this bill in Parliament, that decision, I note, as the member for Albert Park did, is subject to an appeal being brought on behalf of the state. This bill addresses the legal, financial and operational risks arising from that Supreme Court case and ensures that Corrections Victoria can continue to manage access to open air safely alongside operational considerations critical to the safe, secure and effective functioning of prisons. As I said, the bill amends section 47 of the Corrections Act to provide that in addition to weather considerations the right to be in open air may be limited where it is not reasonably practicable to provide that full entitlement having regard to operational considerations. In broad terms they include the management, good order or security of the prison; the right to safe custody or welfare of the prisoner; and the right to safe custody or welfare of any other prisoner in the prison too.

The bill takes two clear actions, as I said, with respect to those changes. It also allows decision-makers in the prison to consider management, good order and security of the prison and the right to safe custody and welfare of the prisoner too. These factors really do matter, because moving one high-risk prisoner through a communal area may require several officers, expose another prisoner to attack, interrupt access for an entire unit, or create an escape or contraband risk. One rigid rule can produce an unsafe and unfair result for everyone.

I recently had the pleasure to visit, in the lead-up to this bill coming before the Parliament, the Metropolitan Remand Centre to see the very complexity of this case firsthand. I want to thank Vicki Ryan, the general manager, Fiona Murphy, the assistant commissioner, and Rebecca Allen, operations manager, for their really detailed and thorough tour of a lot of the MRC precinct. They explained the pressures staff manage and showed me how the centre combines security, health care and rehabilitation. I want to place on record my deep thanks again to corrections workers across Victoria: prison officers, community corrections staff, clinicians, educators, case managers, program staff, health workers, administrative staff, intelligence teams and everyone who keeps our prisons secure and communities safe. Most Victorians will never, ever see the work they do or the inside of a prison, but the work they do behind those walls and secure doors does matter and is very, very important. They manage sometimes very difficult and dangerous circumstances. They support victims by enforcing court orders that protect the public and so much more as well.

I actually had the opportunity to visit the very cell block, the high-security cell block, which these reforms go to the heart of. Basically, walking in you have a very confined arrangement there with a bed and a TV that is behind a closed, safe plastic or glass-type cabinet. They have obviously amenities there. But then stepping out they do have a secure courtyard which does have a mesh roof over the top of it, which does technically provide for that daylight, that wind and that open-air environment for that person in custody to experience at certain times of the day. But obviously the court has ruled that more needs to be done to provide further access out in the backyard, which also adjoins a confined back courtyard.

As part of the tour, I had the pleasure of visiting other parts of the MRC precinct as well. I just want to say, the amazing work that happens behind those doors again will not be seen by many Victorians. But even seeing the woodworking facilities that are there, the technical facilities that are provided to many of the prisoners to not only help their rehabilitation process but actually help them learn new skills or refine or maintain their pre-existing skills before having gone in, means they can come out at the other end of their sentence with something to contribute and offer and get their life back on track once they are released as well. It is also around the social interventions within the prison as well: parenting programs to help parents reconnect with their children, and post sentencing as well. There is a lot of work going on behind the scenes that I just want to acknowledge and commend as well.

But as the member for Pascoe Vale, I of course also represent a community that carries a lot of Victoria’s corrections history, having been home to the former Pentridge Prison. It is now a very entertaining hospitality venue, but once upon a time, obviously from 1850, when it first opened as a stockade, right up until its closure in 1997, it was basically the final arm of Victoria’s criminal justice system. Pentridge also housed the panopticon blocks, which are very relevant to this bill, and they isolated people in custody for 23 hours a day in dark, cramped and damp cells. The 1870 royal commission heard that these conditions caused profound mental illness. Victoria eventually dismantled them, but there are still the foundations of at least one of them at Pentridge that you can go and visit as part of a tour. You can have a coffee and go up to Palace Cinema and watch a movie as well, if you like, as part of that National Trust tour.

But Pentridge of course was also home, infamously, to H Division and Jika Jika, some of the most notorious prison and custodial centres in this country’s history, through which we have obviously gathered a lot of learnings around custodial sentences to apply to a modern, contemporary setting, where prisoners are held in accordance with the expectation of the community but also there are humane facilities and safe arrangements for staff as well. I commend this bill to the chamber.

 Chris CREWTHER (Mornington) (10:56): I rise to speak today on the Corrections Amendment Bill 2026. As mentioned by the member for Berwick, this is a short and targeted bill, but its legal consequences are significant. It changes the operation of the statutory entitlement of prisoners to spend at least 1 hour each day in the open air, excludes the new operational provisions from the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006 and retrospectively limits the state’s financial liability. The bill responds to the Supreme Court’s decision in Marrogi v Secretary, Department of Justice and Community Safety, which found that certain enclosed rear courtyards at the Metropolitan Remand Centre and Barwon Prison did not constitute access to the open air for the purposes of the Corrections Act 1986.

No reasonable person doubts that prisons are complex and difficult environments. Corrections officers must manage dangerous offenders, competing security risks, separation requirements, medical and welfare concerns, staffing pressures and indeed the safety of every person within a prison. Those officers must have the practical authority required to maintain order and protect lives. The bill provides that the daily open-air entitlement need not be provided where it is not reasonably practicable, having regard to operational considerations. Those considerations include the management, good order and security of the prison and the rights, safe custody or welfare of other prisoners and so forth. There will plainly be circumstances in which temporary restrictions are necessary. A serious incident, an immediate threat, the need to separate prisoners or an operational situation affecting the safe movement of prisoners may make normal access impracticable. The law must be workable in the real conditions faced by corrections staff.

However, the operational considerations in this bill are expressly non-exhaustive. The legislation leaves scope for other considerations to be relied upon and contemplates that restrictions may continue for extended or ongoing periods. This is where Parliament must exercise care. A broad discretion may be necessary, but broad discretion should be accompanied by clear accountability. The government should explain why it has chosen a non-exhaustive and largely undefined test and what protections will prevent a temporary operational response from becoming a prolonged administrative convenience. When access is restricted for more than a brief period, there should be proper safeguards. That could include written reasons, mandatory review after a defined period, regular health and welfare assessments, reporting to an independent corrections oversight body and additional protections where a restriction continues for several days or longer. These safeguards would not prevent corrections officers from acting quickly in an emergency. They would ensure that extended restrictions are justified, reviewed and recorded. Operational flexibility and accountability are not competing objectives; a sound corrections system requires both.

The charter provisions also require close scrutiny. The entire corrections system is not being placed outside the charter. The exclusion applies specifically to the new operational considerations qualification and the related new section of the Corrections Act. Even so, the exclusion is significant because the bill removes the ordinary five-year expiry mechanism that applies to a charter override.

Unless a future Parliament intervenes, the exclusion will operate indefinitely. The government has acknowledged the new provisions may be incompatible with charter rights. It is not adequately explained why an indefinite exclusion is necessary. Even where Parliament accepts that safety may justify restricting a statutory entitlement, it does not follow that the charter must be displaced permanently. A sunset clause, a statutory review or a more narrowly framed exclusion would provide a more proportionate response. At the very least, Parliament should be given a future opportunity to examine how the provisions have operated in practice, whether they have been used only when necessary and whether the indefinite exclusion remains justified.

Also, I note that this links to a whole range of things that we have been considering in this Parliament over this term in relation to crime, corrections, the criminal justice system and more. We have a situation in Victoria where crime is at a level that still is way, way too high. Even though recent changes have been made to bail and much more, more needs to be done. This is seen plainly in Mornington, where there are quite a number of issues – issues in terms of crime in Mornington in particular and issues at places like Mornington station, which has had its hours reduced. We in the opposition have committed, if we are elected into government, to increase the hours at Mornington police station as well as a number of police stations right across Victoria. We also have a situation where police are doing a terrific job, but they are struggling under the pressure of insufficient resources in Victoria and insufficient staffing levels. That is why we in the opposition have committed, if we go into government, to recruit 3000 additional police officers. That is needed. It will be needed when the member for Berwick is police minister in a new government, because he is a person who is experienced in this area. He has worked in the police, he understands what is needed, and we need this in Victoria.

We also need to go beyond this act to do things across the criminal justice spectrum, such as ‘break bail, face jail’, adult time for adult crime and so much more. As I mentioned as well, with crime being a major issue continually, the community deserves a fully functioning criminal justice system. We need a 24/7 police station and front counter hours, because Victorians deserve confidence that when they need police, police will be there. Every Victorian deserves to feel safe in their own home. Every shop owner deserves confidence that crime will be taken seriously. Every police officer deserves the resources they need to protect the community. Each corrections officer in our prison system needs a safe working environment as well. It is time for this tired government, whether it is under Andrews or Allan or now Carroll – we have had three Premiers now in one term – to get out of the way –

The ACTING SPEAKER (Juliana Addison): Correct titles are required, please, member for Mornington.

Chris CREWTHER: Yes. In any event, this is a Labor government that is tired. It needs to get out of the way, and we need a Liberals–Nationals team, a Liberals–Nationals government, to implement our plan and to put community safety first. We need to put community safety first, because on the Mornington Peninsula alone we have had more than 12,000 criminal offences even just in the last 12-month period. Mornington continues to be one of the peninsula suburbs with the highest number of recorded offences. I saw this firsthand when I met in the last year with residents of Beleura Hill, where 66 people attended the first Beleura Hill Safe Neighbours meeting and around 200 expressed interest in joining. One resident had his car broken into and then stolen, before three youths allegedly entered his home and moved through it for 18 minutes while he and his son slept inside. He was left questioning whether he should sell his home and leave the neighbourhood altogether.

No Victorian should be driven from the community they love because they no longer feel safe in their own home, nor should residents have to organise private patrols, install additional cameras and turn themselves into a neighbourhood security network simply to protect their families and properties. We have seen alleged drug activity, firearms and prohibited weapons uncovered in suburban Mornington, bringing the threat of organised and violent crime closer to ordinary families. One constituent also contacted me in June on behalf of their daughter, who had been dragged from her car, punched, thrown to the road and threatened by machete-wielding offenders in a terrifying carjacking whilst simply trying to get to work. This is something that should not happen in Victoria. We need police who are protected. We need a community who are protected. We need corrections officers that are protected.

We need a safe working environment for police. We need a safe working environment for corrections officers. But importantly, this is about a safe environment for our community in the Mornington electorate, on the Mornington Peninsula and right across Victoria. Whether you are a young person or an elderly person in your home or you are a family, you should not feel unsafe. Yes, this bill today is about open access amendments in our prison system and makes a number of administrative changes, but we need to go much further than this bill. We need to make changes that do protect Victorians. We need to make changes that this government simply have not made sufficiently over the last four years, or indeed over the last nearly 12 years now, or indeed over the last 23 out of 27 years that they have been in government.

 Martha HAYLETT (Ripon) (11:06): I rise to speak on the Corrections Amendment Bill 2026. This is a targeted bill that deals with two specific issues in Victoria’s corrections system. It is not a broad rewrite of corrections law – rather, it is a practical response to legal and operational issues that have emerged and that require Parliament’s attention. To keep Victorians safe, our Labor government has introduced the nation’s toughest bail laws and introduced the ‘adult crime, adult time’ laws. We have seen a drop in the latest crime statistics, so we know that we are heading in the right direction. This bill continues those efforts to keep our community safe. It is about making sure Victoria’s corrections laws are clear, workable and fit for purpose. The bill is technical but with a straightforward purpose. It will improve community safety and recognises the reality of the corrections system. The bill clarifies how the right to open air should operate within prisons and validates certain actions taken by advanced practitioners in community corrections where a delegation oversight has occurred. Importantly, the bill does not abolish access to open air. It clarifies that the right does not apply where it is not reasonably practicable, having regard to operational considerations. This is consistent with limitations in other jurisdictions.

When we discuss corrections legislation it can be easy to focus only on court cases, legal principles and technical amendments, but behind every correctional facility are real people doing difficult work every single day. I want to take this opportunity to acknowledge the prison officers and corrections staff who work across Victoria, including the dedicated staff at the Hopkins Correctional Centre and Langi Kal Kal Prison in the electorate of Ripon. These are men and women who turn up every single day to work in a challenging environment. They manage complex behaviours, they maintain order and security, and they protect their colleagues, visitors and those in custody. They play a critical role in rehabilitation while also making sure that our prisons remain safe places to work and operate. Much of their work goes unseen by the public, yet our justice system depends on them. They deal with situations that can change rapidly. They make difficult decisions. They manage risks that most of us will never encounter in our working lives. Their professionalism and commitment deserve recognition from this Parliament, and I am honoured to represent so many prison officers that live in Ararat, Beaufort and surrounding communities in the electorate of Ripon.

The bill before us recognises an important reality: corrections systems do not operate in theory; they operate in the real world. The current law provides prisoners with a right to be in the open air for at least 1 hour each day if weather conditions permit. This bill will not abolish that right. What it does, though, is clarify that there may be circumstances where providing that access is not reasonably practicable because of operational considerations. That is a sensible change. Prisons must constantly balance a range of competing responsibilities. They must protect safety, they must maintain good order, manage security risks and separate prisoners when necessary and they must respond to incidents and emergencies. They prevent violence, the movement of contraband and, in extreme circumstances, escape attempts. The staff at facilities such as the Hopkins Correctional Centre and Langi Kal Kal Prison understand these realities better than anyone. If a serious incident occurs, if a prisoner needs to be separated for safety reasons or if there are significant security concerns, corrections officers need the ability to manage those situations appropriately. The law should recognise those operational realities, rather than pretending that they do not exist.

The bill responds to a recent Supreme Court decision involving Mr George Marrogi that raised questions about how the right to open air should operate in practice.

The government is appealing that decision, but it is also taking action to provide clarity in the legislation. Importantly, the bill recognises that some prisoners present particularly complex management challenges. In certain circumstances, particularly involving high-risk prisoners, providing access to open air may not be reasonably practicable because of safety, security and operational considerations. The legislation provides a framework for recognising those circumstances while still preserving the underlying right in ordinary situations.

I know there will be some who raise concerns about this bill. Those concerns deserve to be heard and to be considered, but I believe that it is also important that we listen to the people working on the front line of our corrections system. Corrections officers understand the operational consequences of policies and legal decisions. They understand what can and cannot be achieved safely within the physical constraints of prison infrastructure. They understand the challenges of managing high-risk offenders. Their practical experience matters. This Parliament has an obligation to make sure that the laws we pass are workable, not just well intentioned. The bill also addresses the state’s financial exposure arising from past claims relating to limitations on open air access before the commencement of these reforms. The purpose of this measure is to provide certainty and to reduce the risk of ongoing litigation and compensation claims that could create significant financial exposure for Victorian taxpayers.

The second aspect of the bill relates to a technical delegation issue involving advanced practitioners in community corrections. As outlined in the explanatory material, a departmental restructure created the role of advanced practitioner. An administrative oversight meant that delegation instruments were not updated appropriately, despite those officers continuing to perform their duties in good faith. These practitioners were undertaking important responsibilities, including issuing directions and commencing proceedings in relation to community correction orders. The bill validates actions taken during the affected period and provides certainty that those actions remain effective.

Again, I think it is important to remember the human element. This situation was not caused by frontline staff acting improperly. These officers were doing their jobs in good faith and serving our community. The amendment ensures that administrative oversight does not undermine the work they performed or create unintended risks for community safety. For communities across regional Victoria, community safety is not an abstract concept. People in communities across Ripon expect our government to maintain a corrections system that is effective, accountable and safe. They expect prisoners to be managed appropriately, they expect community correction orders to be enforced and they expect corrections staff to have the legal certainty needed to carry out their duties. This bill supports those objectives.

I particularly, again, want to acknowledge the staff at Hopkins Correctional Centre and Langi Kal Kal Prison. Their contribution to our community is huge. They perform difficult work with professionalism and resilience, and they help keep Victorians safe, often without public recognition. This bill recognises the realities that they face every day. It supports the safe, secure and effective operation of correctional facilities. It provides greater legal certainty and it addresses operational risks and protects the integrity of both the prison and community corrections systems. For those reasons, I support the Corrections Amendment Bill 2026, and I commend the bill to the house.

Sitting suspended 11:15 am until 11:32 am.

Business interrupted under resolution of house of 18 June, as amended today.