The call to scrap the controversial bill that would deny prisoners their daily hour of outdoor time has come from an unexpected source: Victoria's First Nations voice to parliament. This intervention highlights the complex interplay between legal rights, human rights, and the evolving relationship between the state and First Peoples. It also underscores the importance of treaty obligations in shaping government policies.
The Labor government's corrections amendment bill 2026, which is expected to pass parliament this week with Coalition support, has sparked significant controversy. The bill would give authorities the ability to deny prisoners their daily hour of outdoor time, citing 'operational considerations'. This move has been widely criticized, including by legal, human rights, and First Nations groups, as well as the Victorian ombudsman.
The bill is seen as a direct violation of the state's Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities, as well as the new treaty with First Nations People. It also fails to adhere to the United Nation's Nelson Mandela rules, which set minimum standards for the treatment of prisoners, including one hour each day in the open air, weather permitting.
The intervention from Gellung Warl, Victoria's First Peoples' representative body, is a significant development. For the first time, it has exercised its powers under the Statewide Treaty Act to call on the government to withdraw the bill. The co-chairs of Gellung Warl, Meriki Onus and Djaran Murray-Jackson, argue that the bill is inconsistent with the spirit and intent of the Statewide Treaty, which aims to reset the relationship between First Peoples and the state.
They express deep concern that the government has concluded the bill is in part incompatible with the treaty, undermining the very principles it seeks to uphold. The Assembly's call for the government to withdraw the bill and listen to First Peoples and justice experts who oppose it is a powerful statement of the importance of human rights and treaty obligations.
The opposition to the bill is not limited to First Nations groups. The Victorian Greens leader, Ellen Sandell, has described it as a 'disgrace' if it passes without consideration of Gellung Warl's concerns. The Greens, Legalise Cannabis, Animal Justice Party, and Libertarian MP David Limbrick will oppose the bill, highlighting a broader consensus on the violation of human rights.
The case of George Marrogi, a convicted murderer and drug trafficker who was denied his legal right to be 'in the open air', further underscores the importance of these rights. The Victorian Supreme Court ruled in his favor, and Judge Claire Harris found that the authorities had violated his rights. This case serves as a reminder that the treatment of prisoners must adhere to international standards and human rights principles.
The rally planned by legal advocates and human rights groups outside the state's parliament on Wednesday is a testament to the public's concern over the bill. The intervention from Victoria's First Nations voice to parliament, along with the opposition from various groups, sends a clear message: the government must reconsider its stance on the bill and prioritize human rights and treaty obligations.
In conclusion, the call to scrap the bill is a call to uphold the principles of human rights and treaty obligations. It is a reminder that the treatment of prisoners must be in line with international standards and that the relationship between the state and First Peoples must be respected and honored. The government must listen to the concerns of First Nations groups and justice experts, and the public, and take action to ensure that the rights of prisoners are protected.
