Right: football club president and commentator Eddie McGuire publicly supported the actions of mother Claire Davidson when her use of a wooden spoon on her daughter was investigated after being reported by the girl's school.
.Arguments against it being made illegal for parents to smack their children
1. Smacking a child is not assault
Many claim that smacking is a minor chastisement which should not be confused with abuse. There is a hell of a difference between a tap on the bum with a hand and abuse.
The Australian Families Association has claimed that parents were entitled to use moderate physical punishment to discipline their children and that the case which has attracted current media attention was 'nonsense'.
Mr John Morrissey, a spokesperson for the Australian Families Association has stated, 'Paddling or spanking to reinforce the idea something is wrong or bad and dangerous is not assault and that is ridiculous.'
Child psychologist Dr Michael Carr-Gregg, while preferring other means of shaping children's behaviour has stated,'An impulsive smack on the bum is not going to traumatise a child. I prefer parents not to do it but I am not going to criminalise them for doing it.'
There does, however, appear to be a difference between a parent striking a child using their open hand (a smack) and striking the child using an object.
At present it is unlawful to injure a child deliberately using great force or to assault them with an object, but it is not illegal to smack if no obvious physical damage is done.
Those who support parents' right to punish their children physically tend to argue that both commonsense, and the law, suggest it is a matter of degree. So long as the child is not struck with a
weapon and there is no physical injury sustained, then assault has not occurred.
2 . There are already laws to protect children from physical abuse
There are already a range of laws in place which either outlaw physical assault or are specifically designed to protect children from physical abuse. Among these laws are: in New South
Wales, the Children and Young Persons (Care and Protection) Act 1998; in Victoria, the Victoria Children, Youth and Families Act 2005 and the Child Wellbeing and Safety Act 2005; in Queensland, The Child Protection Act 1999; in Western Australia, the Children and Community Service Act 2004; in South Australia, Children's Protection Act 1993; in Tasmania, Children, Young Persons and Their Families Act 1997, in the Australian Capital Territory, the Children and Young Persons Act 1999 and in the Northern Territory, The Community Welfare Act.
Across Australia there is a system of compulsory reporting of child abuse in place. Any care giver, notably doctors, nurses and teachers, who has reason to suspect a child is being physically or sexually abused is required to report this to the authorities.
The case that started the current debate is cited as an indication that this system of compulsory reporting is generally working.
Eddie McGuire, in an opinion piece published in The Herald Sun on October 18, 2009, stated, 'On Thursday we saw Yea Primary School mum Claire Davidson on the front page of the Herald Sun after the school reported her to authorities for giving her nine-year-old daughter Anna a crack on the legs with a wooden spoon...
First up, congratulations to the school and the authorities involved in investigating the case...
When Anna dobbed in mum for whacking her with the wooden spoon the complaint deserved to be investigated.
Aside from some media annoyance the next day and maybe some red faces in the short term, mother Claire's parenting was vindicated while it was proved that Anna was in a safe environment.
Mission accomplished for the school and the authorities.'
3. Smacking may be necessary to preserve a child's safety
It has been claimed that there are some circumstances in which the only way to try to ensure a child's safety is to use moderate physical punishment.
Gail Kavanagh, writing for the online opinion site Helium, has stated, 'According to the British Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents, accidents in the home are the commonest cause of death to children under five in that country. Most of these fatal accidents occur in the living room.
In 2003, the Palm Beach County Child Fatality Review and Prevention Project (CRR) found that preventable accidents and injuries was the number one killer of children across the USA.
You may well ask what statistics like these have to do with smacking children? Because accidents, no matter how vigilant we are, will happen. When a child runs out into traffic, its only hope is that a quick-witted parent or other adult will grab it in time and administer a quick, sharp slap. Why? Because it is better the child associates the action of running out into traffic with a slap from a caring adult rather than the impact of a car.
When children do stupid or reckless things (and they will) they need to know that these things can cause pain. A slap on the hand that is trying to insert a nail into an electrical socket is considerably less harmful than an electric shock but the child understands that the action he or she was engaged in causes pain.'
It has further been argued that young children are too young to be amenable to reason and therefore physical punishment may sometimes be necessary. Carrie-Ann Campbell in an opinion piece. also published on the online opinion site Helium, stated, 'Simple fact- children of five years and younger in general cannot reason. There is no point whatsoever in attempting to calmly reason with a howling, screaming child in the midst of a tantrum ... there is no point in attempting to reason with little children because by nature they are unreasonable- little children are by nature self-centred, and they will not grow out of it unless they are shown it is unacceptable.'
4. Most parents only smack their children as a last resort
It has been claimed that most parents exercise a range of control measures to manage their children's behaviour and only have recourse to physical punishment as a final strategy or when it appears that nothing else is likely to be effective.
Cheryl Critchley, in an opinion piece published in The Herald Sun on October 17, 2009, claimed, 'Parents I know who smack are usually at the end of their tether and use it as a last resort. Many feel awful afterwards.
Smacking is usually triggered by an incident putting the child or someone else in danger, or the child repeatedly breaking a basic rule.
One friend with three small children has hit them on the bottom after something serious like biting or continually ignoring requests not to do something destructive.'
Bill Muluehenberg in an opinion piece published on the John Marks Ministry Internet site has similarly stated, 'Most parents know ... that a smack done in love, as a last resort, is often the most loving thing they can do. It is part of parental control. The anti-smackers usually say reasoning and discussion is much better than smacking. Do these experts actually have any kids of their own? Many don't, I suspect.'
A 2007 Scottish Executive study, Growing Up In Scotland, revealed that 42 per cent of parents surveyed agreed or strongly agreed with the statement: 'It may not be a good thing to smack, but sometimes it is the only thing that will work.'
5. A majority of Australians believe parents should be able to smack their children
More than 93% of some 8000 respondents to a poll on The Herald Sun's Internet site, heraldsun.com.au and other News Ltd websites, said parents should be allowed to smack their children if they see fit.
Nationally, the online poll results were:
heraldsun.com.au (Victoria) - 92 per cent in favour, 8 per cent against
dailytelegraph.com.au (New South Wales) - 95 per cent in favour of smacking, 5 per cent against
couriermail.com.au (Queenslnd) - 95 per cent in favour, 5 per cent against
news.com.au (Australia-wide - The Australian) - 94 per cent in favour, 6 per cent against
adelaidenow.com.au (South Australia) - 92 per cent in favour, 8 per cent against
perthnow.com.au (Western Australia0 - 92 per cent in favour, 8 per cent against
A total of 7860 people voted nationwide.
It has been claimed that any change in law would be very difficult to implement as it is not supported by a majority of parents.
6. A law against parents smacking their children would be unenforceable
It has been claimed that any law attempting to ban the smacking of children, especially within the home, would be unenforceable.
The witnesses to such a supposed 'crime' would generally be the child and his/her parent. How would it be possible to determine the degree of force applied when giving punishment, or would the slightest tap be regarded as a criminal offence?
In 2001, Scotland was about to introduce a law prohibiting the physical punishment of children under three. Lord James Douglas Hamilton, the justice spokesman for the Scottish Tories, described the smacking ban as an insult to parents, adding, 'These proposals reek of the nanny state. The ban on the smacking of toddlers is totally unenforceable, misconceived and an unnecessary interference in the way parents choose to bring up their children.'
Again, when Britain was considering banning smacking in 2004, a Tory spokesman for the family, Theresa May, said there was no point to legislation which may prove to be 'unenforceable'. Ms May asked, 'Who will decide what constitutes an acceptable smack and one which breaks the law?' At the same time British police also warned that such a law was likely to be unenforceable.
In 2007, in New Zealand, when a bill was being debated to make the smacking of children illegal, a poll of 497 people conducted by Research New Zealand showed 73 percent of New Zealanders were opposed to the bill. Along with the strong opposition to the legislation, the poll also showed 72 percent of people believed if the law were passed it would be unenforceable.