RIS: Safeguards for physical exercise entitlement exceptions

Read the complete RIS: Safeguards for physical exercise entitlement exceptions PDF, 2.4 MB

Summary: Problem definition and options

What is the policy problem?

The current statutory provisions allowing Corrections to deny the daily one-hour physical exercise entitlement do not provide sufficient safeguards, oversight, or guidance to support lawful, transparent, and proportionate decision-making across prisons.

Physical exercise is an important minimum entitlement that supports prisoners' health, wellbeing, and rehabilitation. Existing statutory exceptions are regularly used in practice, with recent operational data indicating that prisoners were denied access to exercise under the existing statutory exceptions on 509 occasions during April 2026. However, the current provisions do not clearly provide staff with the authority to deny exercise in some situations where it is not reasonably practicable or safe. For example, when safety risks are present, necessary search operations take place, prisoners have prolonged medical appointments or health centre attendance, and necessary inter-prison transfers are undertaken).

This increases the risk that prisoners are denied an important minimum entitlement without sufficient safeguards, oversight, or transparency about decision-making.

What is the policy objective?

The objectives of this proposal are to:

• minimise negative impacts on prisoners by strengthening safeguards around decisions to deny the physical exercise entitlement, to better protect prisoners’ rights, dignity, and wellbeing
• ensure there is a clear and transparent statutory basis for consistent decision making, and for prisoners and monitoring entities to understand how those decisions are made
• [withheld], and
• ensure any proposed changes are practical and financially manageable, while supporting Corrections’ core responsibilities for public and prison safety.

Success will be assessed against whether the preferred options uphold prisoners’ rights, humanity, dignity, and wellbeing; support prison safety and security; support clear, transparent, and lawful decision-making; and are financially manageable and practical to deliver. Success will also be assessed through monitoring trends in the use of exercise exceptions over time, including whether exceptions are being applied consistently, lawfully, and only to the extent necessary.

What policy options have been considered, including any alternatives to regulation?

The preferred options strengthen safeguards for prisoners while providing clearer statutory authority for decisions where it is not reasonably practicable to deliver the daily one-hour physical exercise entitlement.

These options would:

• expand the existing safety and security exceptions to include present safety risks and necessary search operations (Option 3)
• create a targeted exception for prolonged medical appointments or health centre attendance within prisons (Option 4), and
• expand exceptions to include inter-prison transfers where same-day exercise cannot reasonably be provided (Option 5).

These options are preferred because they better align the legislation with operational practice, while improving transparency and scrutiny in decision-making to better protect prisoners’ rights. Each option includes the following statutory safeguards to ensure decisions to deny exercise remain proportionate, transparent, and subject to a higher level of oversight than is currently the case:

• prison manager approval (or equivalent). For planned search operations, approval would generally be required in advance, with retrospective oversight for unplanned search operations or medical appointments
• a statutory limit of no more than two consecutive days without exercise
• a requirement for Corrections to record, retain, monitor, and analyse the use of physical exercise entitlement exceptions across the network. This would occur at a
  national leadership level to identify patterns of repeated use or disproportionate impacts on particular prisoner cohorts, and
• clear staff recording requirements to demonstrate that use of the exception was reasonable, necessary, and proportionate.

Retaining the status quo was considered, alongside non-regulatory options

Under the status quo, the existing exception provisions would remain unchanged and Corrections would continue to rely on workarounds. There would continue to be insufficient safeguards and oversight for operational decision-making.

A non-regulatory option included updating operational procedures, staff training, and workforce planning to improve the application of existing statutory exceptions, reduce unnecessary use of those exceptions, and strengthen processes by requiring prison manager approval. Corrections also considered whether significant infrastructure and operational changes could improve delivery of daily exercise in some circumstances. However, those changes would require substantial investment, lengthy implementation timeframes, and broader system redesign, and would not address the underlying statutory and decision-making issues identified in this RIS. As a result, they were ruled as out of scope for this RIS, and were not progressed for detailed analysis.

What consultation has been undertaken?

No targeted consultation was undertaken on this specific proposal relating to physical exercise exceptions, as it was developed after the main consultation phase on the Corrections (Management of Prisoners, and Prisoners’ Property) Amendment Bill. As a result, there was no separate public consultation with prisoner advocacy groups or direct engagement with prisoners or people with lived experience.

To inform consideration of prisoner perspectives, publicly available evidence was reviewed, including court proceedings, prisoner complaints, and independent oversight reports.

This evidence has been incorporated into the analysis of this RIS. It indicates that physical exercise is viewed as an important minimum entitlement, and repeated restrictions can negatively affect prisoners’ wellbeing, routine, meaningful human contact, and opportunities for activities outside cells.

Recent High Court litigation concerning Auckland Prison¹ included evidence from prisoners about the harm they experienced from prolonged periods with little or no access to exercise. The Chief Ombudsman’s 2016 Investigation into prisoner’s right to exercise at Auckland Prison also recorded prisoner complaints about restrictive regimes limiting access to one hour of open-air exercise.

Independent oversight reports reinforce these views. The Office of the Inspectorate’s 2024 Special investigation Report into the provision of minimum entitlements and the operating regime in units 11, 12, and 13 at Auckland Prison identified repeated restrictions on daily
exercise over extended periods. Prisoners reported that these restrictions had impacts on mental and physical wellbeing, meaningful human contact, and activity outside cells. The Chief Ombudsman's 2023 Kia Whaitake Making a Difference investigation also identified
broader concerns about inconsistent delivery of minimum entitlements (including daily exercise), partly due to staffing constraints and operational pressures.

Is the preferred option in the Cabinet paper the same as preferred option in the RIS?

Yes.

Costs (Core information)

Outline the key monetised and non-monetised costs, where those costs fall (e.g. what people or organisations, or environments), and the nature of those impacts (e.g. direct or indirect).

The preferred options are expected to result in limited implementation costs for Correct ions. This includes updates to operational policy, approval processes, oversight arrangements, recording and reporting processes, and staff training to support implementation.

Ongoing administrative impacts are expected from increased documentation, monitoring, oversight, and prison manager approval requirements associated with the expanded statutory exceptions.

Where exceptions are lawfully applied, some prisoners may experience reduced access to daily exercise, and associated short-term impacts on t heir wellbeing, routine, and access to an important minimum entitlement. These impacts may be significant for affected prisoners, even where the overall number of prisoners affected is limited. However, clearer statutory thresholds and stronger safeguards (such as prison manager approval, recording requirement s, and increased monitoring and oversight) are expected to reduce inappropriate, disproportionate, or repeated use of exceptions. Updated procedures and training should also support staff to apply the exceptions appropriately, while continuing to prioritise delivery of exercise where practicable.

No significant monetised costs or competition impacts have been identified.

Benefits (Core information)

Outline the key monetised and non-monetised benefits, where those benefits fall (e.g. what people or organisations, or environments), and the nature of those impacts (e.g. direct or indirect).

The preferred options are expected to deliver non-monetised benefits, particularly for prisoners, by strengthening safeguards where decisions are made to deny the daily one-hour physical exercise entitlement. Clearer statutory thresholds, stronger oversight, and explicit safeguards are expected to improve transparency and accountability in decision-making, reduce inappropriate or repeated use of exceptions for affected prisoners, and encourage alternative exercise opportunities where practicable.

The preferred options [withheld] support more transparent decision-making for frontline staff where the current statutory provisions do not align well with operational practice. The options will also provide greater certainty for prisoners and oversight bodies by specifying the circumstances in which exercise exceptions can be used and the safeguards that apply.

Broader benefits include reduced complaints [withheld] (which impact prisoners, Corrections, and monitoring entities), and improved public confidence. No competition impacts have been identified.

Balance of benefits and costs (Core information)

Does the RIS indicate that the benefits of the Minister's preferred option are likely to outweigh the costs?

The preferred options involve clear trade-offs. While some prisoners may experience negative impacts if exercise exceptions are applied more often than they are currently, the preferred options are expected to provide a more robust statutory basis for decision-making, improve transparency, and support the management of safety and security risks in the limited situations for which the changes are proposed. The proposed safeguards are intended to minimise inappropriate or disproportionate use of the exceptions, and may reduce their use overall. On balance, t he preferred options are considered a proportionate response to the identified problem, and are expected to deliver greater overall benefits than maintaining the status quo.

Implementation

How will the proposal be implemented, who will implement it, and what are the risks?

The proposed legislative amendments will be progressed through amendments to the Corrections Act 2004.

Implementation will be led by Corrections and will require the following: updates to operational procedures, targeted staff training, communications to prisoners, and new approval and oversight arrangements that include recording and reporting processes.

Key implementation risks include inconsistent application, inappropriate use, or overuse of the exceptions. These risks will be mitigated through clear statutory safeguards, including: prison manager approval requirements, limits on consecutive days without exercise, robust assurance processes (such as improved recording of daily exercise exceptions), and new procedures requiring staff to provide alternative exercise opportunities where practicable.

Limitations and Constraints on Analysis

There are some limitations in the available data and evidence used to assess the full impacts of the options.

We were not able to obtain detailed data indicating whether exercise entitlement exceptions are experienced differently across prison sites or prisoner groups (for example, women, young people, prisoners with disabilities or complex needs, or different security classifications).

Data exists on t he number of exercise entitlement denials and the prison sites where they occurred. However, it does not provide enough detail to assess whether decisions made by staff to deny exercise aligned with the current statutory provisions, reflected the operational situations these proposals are intended to address, or whether staff may have chosen not to deny exercise because t he legal basis was unclear. As a result, interpretation of the available data has been informed by operational experience of frontline staff about the circumstances in which exercise entitlement exceptions are applied.

There are also limitations in assessing infrastructure-based approaches to improving delivery of the exercise entitlement.

During the development of this RIS, Corrections considered whether significant infrastructure and operational investment could improve the delivery of daily exercise in relation to inter-prison transfers. However, this RIS has been prepared on the basis that
options need to be implemented with in existing funding baselines and operational timeframes. Accordingly, infrastructure-based approaches were not progressed for detailed analysis.

Infrastructure-based approaches would require funding beyond existing baselines. They would also require substantial infrastructure investment, detailed site-by-site assessment of prison and police jail facilities, workforce capacity, transport arrangements, and day-to-day operational requirements. Recent prison infrastructure projects have demonstrated the substantial financial investment and lengthy implementation timeframes associated with upgrading prison facilities.

Given the scale and complexity of this work, reliable cost estimates could not be developed within the timeframe of this RIS.

Despite these limitations, Cabinet can still make an informed decision. The analysis draws on operational evidence from Corrections staff, exercise entitlement data for prisoners across the network, relevant judicial cases and complaints, consultation with government agencies, and international comparisons.

I have read the Regulatory Impact Statement and I am satisfied that, given the available evidence, it represents a reasonable view of the likely costs, benefits and impact of the preferred option.

Marian Horan
Manager Legislative Policy
17/06/2026

Read the complete RIS: Safeguards for physical exercise entitlement exceptions PDF, 2.4 MB

¹D& Ors v Attorney-General [2025] NZHC 4028.