Corporal punishment (CP) is the most common and socially normative form of violence perpetrated against children and is legal in the home and some other settings in Australia. CP was made a common practice through its introduction by European settlers and Christian missionaries during colonisation. Furthermore, the defence of reasonable chastisement became part of the Australian common law in 1860 and is still used in some jurisdictions. Other jurisdictions have enacted criminal laws that have entrenched the defence in legislation. This article gives a brief historical overview of the origin of CP in the English common law, the defence of reasonable chastisement and how these concepts came to be entrenched in Australian law and culture. Moreover, this contribution examines the recognition of children's rights in international law and the significant global impact this has had in elevating the status of children. Then, this article analyses the current legal framework and the permissiveness of CP in Australian states and territories. Consequently, it is argued that states and territories ought to repeal legislation that permits CP, and all jurisdictions should insert a positive statement into civil laws that CP is no longer acceptable as a disciplinary measure.

Corporal punishment is lawful in the home in all Australian states and territories. In early 2021, the Tasmanian Commissioner for Children and Young People called for a repeal of s 50 of the Criminal Code Act 1924 (Tas) which permits the use of corporal punishment in the home, noting that society had moved on from the regular canings of the early 20th century when the law was passed. This article supports the call to abolish the defence of reasonable chastisement (lawful correction in NSW) by repealing s 61AA of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) so that children can have the same protections from physical violence as adults.

No abstract

Although Australia does not have a federally enacted Bill of Rights, Victoria, the Australian Capital Territory and Queensland have all adopted legislation to protect the human rights of their residents. However, despite this seemingly protective measure, corporal punishment in the home remains lawful under statute or common law in all three jurisdictions. This article examines the efficacy of these rights acts in protecting children from harmful and outdated forms of physical punishment administered by their parents and carers in contravention of articles 19(1) and 37(a) of the Convention on the Rights of the Child.

This article compares the law reform methods employed by South Africa and New Zealand to eliminate the defence of ‘moderate and reasonable chastisement’ to a charge of common assault, to determine the best possible law reform strategy for Australian jurisdictions, within the context of its federal system of governance. South Africa and New Zealand banned corporal punishment on a national level, with South Africa prohibiting the use of corporal punishment by way of the judicial condemnation of the Constitutional Court in 2019, and New Zealand’s legislation to ban corporal punishment through Parliamentary processes in 2007. Corporal punishment in the home is still legal in Australia if administered by parents or those in loco parentis. This article focuses on the three Australian States that have enacted human rights legislation—Victoria, the Australian Capital Territory (ACT) and Queensland—and the impact of this legislation on judicial law reform. In this regard, the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty is discussed in terms of its ability to limit public interest litigation’s viability to strike down inconsistent legislation. The article suggests that all three countries can learn from one another concerning the successes and/or failures of law reform. Furthermore, the article concludes by acknowledging that even though formal abolition is the norm in South Africa and New Zealand, corporal punishment remains widespread. Parents and those in loco parentis must be supported by continual education initiatives to bring about requisite social and cultural change.