Repeal of Section 59

The repeal of Section 59 of the Crimes Act was overwhelmingly supported by the majority of parliamentarians in June last year.

UNICEF NZ supported the repeal and is currently promoting post repeal information and education.

Find out more in our Current Issues section >> 

Facts about the repeal of Section 59:

• S59 had allowed the defence of"reasonable force" to correct children's behaviour in the event of parents being charged with assaulting a child.
  
• It was clear that the law was not working well. Several instances of extremely harsh physical punishment being judged as "reasonable" (even if children required medial attention for their wounds) gave rise to a movement of children's advocates and concerned people to have S59 repealed in the interests of child protection.
  
• It is well documented that many cases of child abuse begin in the name of discipline. Very small children (babies) have been assaulted and parents were able to plead that they were applying "reasonable force" to correct their behaviour.
  
• New Zealand has unacceptably high levels of child abuse....often beginning when children are very young. It is a serious and extremely damaging social problem.
  
• There is credible research both in New Zealand and abroad that points to physical punishment being not very effective at least and damaging at worst (ref. the booklet Children are Unbeatable)
  
• The call to have the matter decided through a Citizens Initiated Referendum is driven by a political lobby group which believes the State should not interfere with a parent's (perceived) right to punish children by hitting them
  
• The campaign for a referendum has been characterised by misinformation (shamelessly alarming parents that no hitting equals no discipline), bringing perpetrators of horrific abuse to support their cause (eg a woman recently sentenced to 9 months prison for a savage assault on her son and painting her as a victim of a "senseless law"), and promoting the idea that supporting children's right (to protection) means that parents are denied their rights. This is totally incorrect. See Article 5 of UNCROC.
  
• In December 2007, the police reported that they believed the law was working well - they have discretion not to prosecute if the offence is seen to be trivial, as in any assault case. So it is very unlikely that parents will be criminalised for minor offences.
  
• Role modelling non-violent and effective discipline is important. Hitting need not be in the parenting repertoire for well disciplined children - Playcentre has worked this way for 60 years.
  
• Children now have the same protection from assault as other people in this country - and that's a good thing for a society where we want a less violent future.
  
• NZ is again a leader in child protection and we should be very proud that our parliament has stood up for children to protect them from assault.
  
• We should wait for the proper review of the law in 2009, when enough information will have been gathered for a dispassionate and intelligent analysis of the situation, and not be persuaded by a spurious campaign that is using children's safety and protection as a political football!