Repeal of Section 59

Swedish authorities do not remove children after single instances of smacking and neither will New Zealand authorities after the removal of Section 59 of the Crimes Act. In fact, both New Zealand and Swedish experts are outraged that some commentators continue to mislead the public and confuse the debate, according to a group of the most reputable and well-established child protection agencies in New Zealand.

Representatives of Save the Children, Barnardos, and Action for Children and Youth Aotearoa (ACYA) commented as oral submissions (including Ruby Harrold-Claesson's submission) are being made on Section 59 in Hamilton today. They emphasise that child protection is what they are aiming for with the repeal of Section 59, not prosecution of parents who have used single instance smacks.

Much has been made recently of the Swedish experience by anti-repeal campaigners. To clarify: legislative change occurred in 1957[1] in Sweden, followed by the introduction of a Children and Parental Code in 1979, which set no corporal punishment as a guideline for parents, without the power of prosecution. The law change and guideline has contributed to a considerable shift in public attitudes towards both smacking and child abuse in Sweden. Tolerance for physical punishment is very low in Sweden now.

There has been increased awareness of child abuse in Sweden and an increase in reporting of incidents following the introduction of the Code, but not an increase in prosecutions according to a large group Swedish experts working in the field of child welfare. Associate Professor Sven Bremberg[2] says, in response to the cases raised by Ruby Harrold-Claesson in recent media coverage, that they do not appear "representative of Swedish legal practice."

Physical child abuse in Sweden is much lower than in New Zealand, and as Karin Lunden of the School of Education and Behavioural Sciences, Sweden says, in the instance of prosecution, "it is never a question of just smacking. It is really a question of severe child abuse." Further, Lunden states that "it is not correct to use child physical abuse cases in connection with corporal punishment legislation as these cases are handled under totally different legislation."

She also points out that Swedish Child Protection Services give a lot of support to parents in the home. Some misleading statements have been made suggesting that children 'in care' have been removed from their home, when they are more likely to be receiving assistance and support while they are still living at home. Lunden goes on to state that "the maltreatment has gone on for many years before children are taken into care [away from their families]."

[1] This refers to the instance similar to what is being proposed in New Zealand – repeal of Section 59 of the Crimes Act = removal of the defence of 'reasonable force'.

[2] Responsible for Child and Adolescence Health Issues at the National Institute of Public Health, Stockholm.

Further information
Swedish experts on the misrepresentation of the effect of Swedish corporal punishment ban
[Adobe PDF, 10 Kb]
A selection of comments from Swedish experts relating to the Section 59 debate
[Adobe PDF, 16 Kb]
Letter from Karin Lunden regarding Swedish experience
[Adobe PDF, 19 Kb]