更生人因經過刑事司法程序而被貼上負面標籤，尤其監獄烙印羞恥，對於重新融入社會更是面臨無數挑戰與障礙，從而增加再犯機會以及監獄收容人與日俱增現象。根據澳洲調查統計，新南威爾斯州是全澳擁有最龐大的矯正系統， 近年來收容人成長比率卻明顯負成長，使政府相信更生保護制度發揮功能。因此該州更生保護成就具有代表性，殊值借鏡。根據我國法務部統計資料顯示， 更生人之再犯比率居高不下，如何落實更生保護，預防再犯，始終為我國刑事政策的重要課題。 本研究透過文獻探討，從法制面及組織面介紹新南威爾斯州更生保護制度； 再闡述我國更生保護在法制面及組織面困境之梗概；接續進行兩國制度之比較； 最後，提出新南威爾斯州殊值我國參考之六項作為或觀念。「他山之石，可以攻錯」最後針對以上各項，本文臚列( 一) 適度檢討分流之任意性及強制性更生保護；( 二) 重構檢察和矯正機關之更生保護定位及全民意識；( 三) 更生保護應聚焦出監更生人並明定聲請之期限；( 四) 建構全程照護及深化個案輔導之更生保護制度；( 五) 檢視更保工作指引關注更保人員之身心；( 六) 明定轉介修復為更生保護措施，以彰顯更生價值六點建議，作為我國更生保護制度未來改革方向。

Rehabi litated people who have gone through the criminal justice system are often labeled negatively, particularly with the stigmatization of prison branding. They face numerous challenges and obstacles when trying to reintegrate into society, thus increasing their chances of reoffending and imprisonment. According to Australian statistics, New South Wales's correctional system is the biggest in Australia, and in recent years, the growth rate of the prison population has significantly declined. The success of the correction system in this state is representative and worth learning. In Taiwan, however, the recidivism rate among rehabilitated people remains high. Therefore, implementing rehabilitation protection and preventive reoffending are critical issues in criminal justice policy. This study explores and compares the rehabilitation protection system in New South Wales and Taiwan from a legal and organizational perspective, followed by an explanation of the challenges in the rehabilitation protection system in Taiwan. Finally, this article proposes six recommendations for the future reform of Taiwan's rehabilitation protection system: (1) moderately review the diversion of voluntary and compulsory rehabilitation protection; (2) reconstruct the positioning of prosecution and correctional agencies in rehabilitation protection, as well as raise public awareness of rehabilitation and protection; (3) specify the deadline for submitting rehabilitation protection applications and focus on inmates released from prison; (4) establish a comprehensive care system that deepens case counseling for rehabilitation protection; (5) review the guidelines for rehabilitation protection work; and (6) explicitly designate restorative justice referrals as rehabilitation protection measures.