Should going to prison mean never being allowed to hug your partner or child? Is denying physical contact a just punishment, or does it harm families and human dignity? And what do human rights have to say about it?
Known in Victoria as the residential visits program (sometimes called conjugal or extended family visits), these visits allow eligible prisoners to spend extended private time with approved family members or partners without supervision by prison officers. Visits usually take place in a motel-style unit or on a nearby property outside the prison grounds and may last between 3 and 24 hours, depending on the prisoner’s stage in the program.
In Australia, these visits are rare. Victoria is the only state that still permits them and only at five prisons: Beechworth, Fulham, Loddon, Marngoneet and Tarrengower. Approval sits with prison management and can be granted or withdrawn at discretion. Outside Victoria, residential visits are no longer allowed.
There is no publicly available data on how many residential visits are approved. In 2017, a Corrections Victoria spokesperson said the department could not comment on approval numbers or processes for security reasons, noting that the program had been “significantly strengthened in recent years”, with special-category offenders subject to a much higher approval threshold. In a recent request for comment, a Victorian Department of Justice and Community Safety spokesperson said: “We recognise that maintaining a person in custody’s support network is critical in helping them successfully return to the community. We will facilitate residential visits for eligible prisoners in appropriate and safe settings.”
The program in Victoria has strict eligibility criteria, including matters such as sentence length and the relationship between the prisoner and the intended visitor, as well as the security, conduct and good order of the prison. Prisoners must be classified as minimum or medium security and serving a sentence of at least 18 months. Visitations of this nature are not automatically guaranteed and are individually assessed. There are two types of visits: intimate contact visits between a prisoner and their partner or spouse and extended visits with children. These programs operate under the Corrections Act 1986 (VIC), which allows contact and residential visits under specific conditions defined by the state. Visitors may be searched under the Corrections Act and can be refused entry or restricted to non-contact visits if security risks are identified.
Should going to prison mean never being allowed to hug your partner or child? Is denying physical contact a just punishment, or does it harm families and human dignity? And what do human rights have to say about it?
Known in Victoria as the residential visits program (sometimes called conjugal or extended family visits), these visits allow eligible prisoners to spend extended private time with approved family members or partners without supervision by prison officers. Visits usually take place in a motel-style unit or on a nearby property outside the prison grounds and may last between 3 and 24 hours, depending on the prisoner’s stage in the program.
In Australia, these visits are rare. Victoria is the only state that still permits them and only at five prisons: Beechworth, Fulham, Loddon, Marngoneet and Tarrengower. Approval sits with prison management and can be granted or withdrawn at discretion. Outside Victoria, residential visits are no longer allowed.
There is no publicly available data on how many residential visits are approved. In 2017, a Corrections Victoria spokesperson said the department could not comment on approval numbers or processes for security reasons, noting that the program had been “significantly strengthened in recent years”, with special-category offenders subject to a much higher approval threshold. In a recent request for comment, a Victorian Department of Justice and Community Safety spokesperson said: “We recognise that maintaining a person in custody’s support network is critical in helping them successfully return to the community. We will facilitate residential visits for eligible prisoners in appropriate and safe settings.”
The program in Victoria has strict eligibility criteria, including matters such as sentence length and the relationship between the prisoner and the intended visitor, as well as the security, conduct and good order of the prison. Prisoners must be classified as minimum or medium security and serving a sentence of at least 18 months. Visitations of this nature are not automatically guaranteed and are individually assessed. There are two types of visits: intimate contact visits between a prisoner and their partner or spouse and extended visits with children. These programs operate under the Corrections Act 1986 (VIC), which allows contact and residential visits under specific conditions defined by the state. Visitors may be searched under the Corrections Act and can be refused entry or restricted to non-contact visits if security risks are identified.
Debates about residential visits in Australia often centre on safety, cost and fairness. Critics argue that intimacy is a privilege that should be removed as part of punishment and that these visits place extra strain on prison resources. Others raise concerns about inequity – that some prisoners qualify while others never will – and about public perception, particularly fears of appearing soft on crime.
Internationally, conjugal visits are more normalised. In Nordic countries such as Norway, Sweden and Denmark, conjugal visits are seen as a way to help people in prison maintain close relationships. Based on the principle of “normality” – a central tenet of the Nordic prison model – prisoners keep many everyday rights and responsibilities, including intimacy, often in private rooms. Brazil, Canada, France and Mexico allow family visits in many forms, and even prisons in the Philippines allow for conjugal visits between legally married spouses. Supporters believe that maintaining these connections helps to improve mental health, reduce violence in prisons and improve reintegration prospects, lowering the chances of reoffending after release. When people leave prison feeling connected rather than isolated, communities tend to be safer and the negative impacts of imprisonment on families are also mitigated.
Australia’s stance on these visits therefore doesn’t align with these principles, which are also outlined in international human rights. The United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners (the Nelson Mandela Rules) highlights that imprisonment should not cut individuals off from the outside world. They stress the importance of regular contact and visits with family and friends, showing how vital maintaining family ties and community contact is for successful rehabilitation and reintegration.
Given that other countries permit residential visits, Australia should question why such visits are restricted or unavailable in many places and consider the harm this may be causing to prisoners, their families and long-term reintegration. Prison is already brutal. The real question is whether cutting people off from human connection makes anyone safer in the long run.
Debates about residential visits in Australia often centre on safety, cost and fairness. Critics argue that intimacy is a privilege that should be removed as part of punishment and that these visits place extra strain on prison resources. Others raise concerns about inequity – that some prisoners qualify while others never will – and about public perception, particularly fears of appearing soft on crime.
Internationally, conjugal visits are more normalised. In Nordic countries such as Norway, Sweden and Denmark, conjugal visits are seen as a way to help people in prison maintain close relationships. Based on the principle of “normality” – a central tenet of the Nordic prison model – prisoners keep many everyday rights and responsibilities, including intimacy, often in private rooms. Brazil, Canada, France and Mexico allow family visits in many forms, and even prisons in the Philippines allow for conjugal visits between legally married spouses. Supporters believe that maintaining these connections helps to improve mental health, reduce violence in prisons and improve reintegration prospects, lowering the chances of reoffending after release. When people leave prison feeling connected rather than isolated, communities tend to be safer and the negative impacts of imprisonment on families are also mitigated.
Australia’s stance on these visits therefore doesn’t align with these principles, which are also outlined in international human rights. The United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners (the Nelson Mandela Rules) highlights that imprisonment should not cut individuals off from the outside world. They stress the importance of regular contact and visits with family and friends, showing how vital maintaining family ties and community contact is for successful rehabilitation and reintegration.
Given that other countries permit residential visits, Australia should question why such visits are restricted or unavailable in many places and consider the harm this may be causing to prisoners, their families and long-term reintegration. Prison is already brutal. The real question is whether cutting people off from human connection makes anyone safer in the long run.
