One of the key responsibilities of parents is to help children learn to manage their emotions and behaviour. This supports children to become personally fulfilled individuals who can participate effectively in society. Parents can help children manage their emotions and behaviour through a variety of strategies including discipline, which might occasionally involve the use of negative consequences. However, physical punishment – causing a child pain or physical discomfort – is not only ineffective as a method of regulating children’s behaviour, but can also be harmful.

Why is this issue important?

The legal perspective 

The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (CROC) specifically requires state parties to protect children \u27... from all forms of physical or mental violence, injury or abuse, neglect or negligent treatment or exploitation\u27 (Article 19 [1], United Nations, 1989). Article 37 goes on to state that \u27... no child shall be subjected to torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment\u27

Centre for Community Child Health

English

Analysis and Policy Observatory (APO)

 No 20 2010 
 
Initiative of:                       
 
 
POLICY BRIEF 
Translating early childhood research evidence to inform policy and practice 
Physical Punishment 
One of the key responsibilities of parents is to help children learn to manage their emotions 
and behaviour. This supports children to become personally fulfilled individuals who can 
participate effectively in society. Parents can help children manage their emotions and 
behaviour through a variety of strategies including discipline, which might occasionally involve 
the use of negative consequences. However, physical punishment – causing a child pain or 
physical discomfort – is not only ineffective as a method of regulating children’s behaviour, but 
can also be harmful. 
 
 
Why is this issue important? 
The legal perspective 
The United Nations Convention on the Rights 
of the Child (CROC) specifically requires state 
parties to protect children “... from all forms of 
physical or mental violence, injury or abuse, 
neglect or negligent treatment or exploitation” 
(Article 19 [1], United Nations, 1989). Article 37 
goes on to state that “... no child shall be 
subjected to torture or other cruel, inhuman or 
degrading treatment or punishment”.  
These provisions are in place to protect 
children from the harms associated with injury, 
abuse and neglect. As a signatory to the 
convention, Australia accepts the provisions 
and is obliged to act accordingly. 
 
 
 
However, guidelines determining when 
punishment constitutes abuse are 
contradictory and unclear (Saunders & 
Goddard, 2010). Common law in a range of 
countries, including Australia, allows parents to 
injure their child during ‘reasonable or 
moderate physical chastisement’; definitions of 
what is reasonable differ in different 
jurisdictions.  
It is important to note, however, that the use of 
reasonable force to discipline a child is not in 
itself a parental right, but simply a defence in 
law (Saunders & Goddard, 2010). The defence 
of ‘reasonable chastisement’ has implications 
for: 
• the healthy physical, emotional and mental 
development of Australian children  
• Australia’s ability to consistently enact child 
protection legislation 
• Australia’s international obligations under 
CROC. 
CROC (2007) argues that there is no 
justification for physical punishment, 
irrespective of the level of reasonableness or 
moderation of such punishment, and that it is 
the responsibility of signatory states to remove 
such defence through law reform and other 
relevant measures. 
The child’s view 
Evidence shows that children who are 
physically punished: 
• are at increased risk for aggression, anti-
social behaviour, mental health problems and 
physical injury (Gershoff, 2008) 
• may think it is appropriate to use violence 
when they are bigger than another  
and/or when they believe they are right 
• are more likely to become adults who use 
violence and force with their families and 
friends (Douglas & Straus, 2006; Gershoff, 
2008) 
“…the use of reasonable force to discipline a 
child is not in itself a parental right, it is simply 
a defence in law.”  
Policy Brief No 20 2010:  Physical Punishment 2 
www.rch.org.au/ccch/policybriefs.cfm 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
• are more likely to perform poorly on cognitive 
tasks compared to children who are not 
physically punished (Straus & Paschall, 
2009) 
• may have increased stress levels;  
chronically high stress levels can increase 
the risk for long-term mental health problems 
(Sanchez & Pollak, 2009; Smider et al., 
2002).  
Additionally, children who are physically 
punished are more likely to become parents 
who use physical punishment on their own 
children, thus perpetuating the cycle.  
What does the research tell us? 
Public opinion in Australia on the issue of 
physical punishment is changing, but still 
divided. The Australian Childhood Foundation 
and Child Abuse Prevention Research 
Australia tracked community attitudes towards 
physical punishment in 2002 and again in 2006 
(Tucci, Mitchell, & Goddard, 2006; Tucci, 
Saunders, & Goddard, 2002). The review 
concluded that public tolerance of violence 
towards children was declining, with more 
parents indicating openness to alternative 
strategies (over 90% of parents indicated that 
discipline strategies should include grounding, 
sending the child to their room and/or stopping 
the child from doing something they like to do). 
Similarly, there is a growing professional 
sentiment calling for bans on physical 
punishment (Lunn, 2009).  
 
 
 
 
However, in 2006, 45% of Australians 
surveyed still believed it was acceptable to 
leave a mark on a child as a result of 
administering punishment, and 10% believed it 
was appropriate to use a cane, stick, belt or 
slipper to hit a child. A wooden spoon was  
used by 14% and a small proportion believed 
shaking or hitting over the head was 
appropriate.  
There remains a high percentage of people 
who believe it is sometimes necessary to 
smack a ‘naughty’ child (75% in 2002 and 69% 
in 2006). 
Physical punishment as a discipline strategy 
Adults who punish children for doing 
something wrong rarely offer children 
opportunities to learn what is right (Marion, 
2007). Control of behaviour, and an 
understanding of what is right and what is 
wrong, remains with the adult and not with the 
child.  
 
 
 
 
Children demonstrate self regulation when they 
are able to control their impulses, postpone 
action or immediate gratification, tolerate 
frustration and plan and implement actions 
(Marion, 2007). Self regulation is learned 
through the interactions children have with the 
world around them (Marion, 2007).  
Adults who provide children with warm and 
nurturing care, set limits that keep children 
safe from external dangers and from their own 
behaviour, and who provide clear guidelines 
around what is desirable behaviour, can 
effectively lay the foundations for children to 
gradually acquire the skills to self regulate 
without the use of physical punishment.  
Additional influences on parents’ use of 
physical punishment 
Parents are more likely to use physical 
punishment if they were physically punished as 
children, if they live in a cultural or religious 
context that supports physical punishment, if 
they are socially disadvantaged and/or highly 
stressed (mental health problems, domestic 
violence, socio-economic exclusion) and if the 
child’s behaviour is such that it is hurting 
another or putting the child into danger 
(Gershoff, 2008). 
Abuse often results when parents lose control 
and injure the child (Saunders & Goddard, 
2010). 
 “…children who are physically punished are 
at increased risk for aggression, anti-social 
behaviour, mental health problems and 
physical injury.” 
“…in 2006, 45% of Australians surveyed still 
believed it was acceptable to leave a mark on 
a child as a result of administering 
punishment.”  
Policy Brief No 20 2010: Physical Punishment 3 
www.rch.org.au/ccch/policybriefs.cfm 
 
 
 
Such loss of control is more likely where 
parents are stressed, linking it more closely to 
parental state than child misbehaviour. 
The legal context 
As noted, Australian states and territories differ 
in their definition of reasonable chastisement. 
New South Wales was the first Australian state 
to attempt to define ‘moderate’ or ‘reasonable’ 
punishment: parental use of physical 
punishment would not be defined as 
reasonable if “... the force is applied to any part 
of the head or neck of the child or to any other 
part of the body of the child in such a way as to 
be likely to cause harm to the child that lasts 
for more than a short period” (Crimes Act 1900 
[NSW] S.61AA [2][b]). The Act requires that 
parental use of force be ‘trivial and negligible’ 
but fails to define these terms or what 
constitutes a ‘short period’.  
Legislation in Victoria, Tasmania and the ACT 
prohibits the use of physical punishment in 
schools, while other states and territories have 
guidelines and policies that discourage its use. 
However in the latter, the defence of 
‘reasonable chastisement’ continues to be 
available.  
In Victoria, physical punishment was banned in 
state schools in 1983 and private schools in 
2007. International experience suggests that 
banning physical punishment in schools often 
precedes a total ban (including parental use of 
physical punishment).  
 
 
Physical punishment has been banned in 24 
countries with Sweden leading the way in 
1979, and New Zealand becoming the first 
English-speaking country to enforce a ban in 
2007.  
The ban in Sweden was accompanied by an 
extensive public education campaign using 
brochures written in various languages which 
provided information on alternative behaviour 
management strategies, provision of support 
and assistance, widespread availability of 
parenting advice (for example on the side of 
milk cartons) and wide-ranging media 
reporting.  
Following the ban, parental support for 
physical punishment in Sweden decreased 
from 53% in 1965 to 10% in 1999 and the 
annual child death from injury rates declined to 
become the lowest in the world (Saunders & 
Goddard, 2010).  
In light of the achievements overseas in 
changing public opinion and subsequent 
reductions in child deaths, state and federal 
governments in Australia should be 
encouraged to institute a national ban on 
physical punishment of children. 
 
 
 
 
Alternatives to physical punishment 
There is a range of programs available to train 
parents to manage children’s behaviour. Many 
are effective in improving children’s socio-
emotional outcomes in the short-term, though 
there is little research available to determine if 
these changes are long lasting (Barlow, 
Parsons, & Stewart-Brown, 2005).  
A Western Australian review of one such 
program, Triple-P, (Zubrick et al., 2005) 
demonstrated that there were significant 
decreases in self-reported dysfunctional 
parenting behaviours and parent-reported child 
behaviour problems. Parents also reported 
improvements in mental health, marital 
adjustment and levels of conflict over child 
rearing.  
Triple-P has also been evaluated with children 
who have disabilities and found to be effective 
with children with developmental and 
behavioural problems (Roberts, Mazzucchelli, 
Studman, & Sanders, 2006) and 
attention/hyperactivity disorder (Hoath & 
Sanders, 2002). 
Evaluation studies of another program, The 
Incredible Years, indicate that it results in 
reductions in child behaviour problems in 
comparison to control children and that these 
behavioural changes are maintained a year 
after participating in the program. Interventions 
that combined parent, teacher and child 
intervention were more successful (Webster-
Stratton & Reid, 2010). 
 
“Following the ban, parental support for physical 
punishment in Sweden decreased from 53% in 
1965 to 10% in 1999 and the annual child death 
from injury rates declined to become the lowest 
in the world.” 
“…loss of control is more likely where parents 
are stressed, linking it more closely to parental 
state than child misbehaviour.” 
Policy Brief No 20 2010:  Physical Punishment 4 
www.rch.org.au/ccch/policybriefs.cfm 
 
These are only two of a number of successful parenting programs that  
commonly focus on: 
• teaching developmentally appropriate guidance combined with high 
levels of warmth in a manner that is responsive to children’s needs 
• demonstrating that boundaries, limits and expectations can be conveyed 
clearly, kindly and consistently  
• teaching adults to use persuasion rather than force to help children 
understand, with the aim of teaching self regulation rather than punishing 
transgressions 
• teaching these strategies in a framework that emphasises parental self 
control, the development of parental communication and problem-solving 
skills and the ability to create a personal support network to reduce 
parental stress. 
What are the implications of the research?  
• Children have the right to protection from violence, injury, abuse, neglect 
and exploitation.  
• Children who are physically punished are at increased risk of health and 
behaviour problems.  
• While the defence of ‘reasonable chastisement’ remains:  
- some Australian children remain at risk for poor outcomes 
associated with physical punishment 
- it may be impossible to consistently enact child protection 
legislation 
- Australia may remain in breach of its obligations under CROC. 
• It is important for the implementation of effective child protection 
legislation that there is a clear understanding of the difference between 
child abuse and appropriate and acceptable child discipline.  
• There are differences across jurisdictions and between judges as to what 
constitutes lawful discipline. 
Considerations for policy and programs 
• Both state and federal governments should commit to banning physical 
punishment of children. 
• State governments should develop and implement relevant legislation to 
repeal the defence of ‘reasonable chastisement’ of children by parents or 
others. 
• In conjunction with the federal government, state governments should 
develop, fund and implement a major national public education 
campaign that focuses on reducing acceptance of physical punishment 
and teaching parents, carers, teachers and coaches a range of 
alternative, positive discipline strategies. 
• All citizens should be encouraged to support the rights of children as 
identified by CROC. 
Policy Briefs 
Policy Briefs aim to stimulate 
informed debate about issues 
that affect children’s health and 
wellbeing. Each issue draws on 
current research and 
international best practice.  
 
A multi-disciplinary team from the 
Centre for Community Child 
Health produces these Policy 
Briefs.   
 
An editorial board of national 
experts, and an advisory group of 
international experts in children's 
policy and service delivery 
provide peer review and advice.  
 
 
References 
A full list of references and 
further reading used in the 
development of this Policy Brief 
is available from: 
www.rch.org.au/ccch/policybriefs.cfm 
 
 
Next Policy Brief 
Policy Brief No.21 will address 
Evidence-based practice. 
 
 
 
Subscribe 
To receive Policy Brief e-alerts 
please visit:  
www.rch.org.au/ccch/mailinglist.cfm 
 
 
The Centre for Community Child 
Health is at the forefront of 
research into early childhood 
development and behaviour. The 
Centre is committed to translating 
research to inform public policy, 
service delivery and practice.  
 
 
 


Physical punishment

http://apo.org.au/sites/all/modules/pubdlcnt/pubdlcnt.php?nid=53076&file=http://apo.org.au/files/Resource/physical_punishment_final_print.pdf

Physical punishment

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Analysis and Policy Observatory (APO)