Right: while disagreeing on many things, Victorian Premier Ted Baillieu and Opposition leader Daniel Andrews are united in declaring that no new laws against smacking will be introduced by them.
 Found a word you're not familiar with? Double-click that word to bring up a dictionary reference to it. The dictionary page includes an audio sound file with which to actually hear the word said. |
Arguments against making smacking illegal
1. Smacking is sometimes the most effective form of discipline
Some child psychologists have argued that there are circumstances in which a slap may be the most appropriate form of discipline.
United Stated child psychologist John Rosemond has explained that it may be necessary to smack a child to provide an immediate halt to an unacceptable behaviour. Dr Rosemond states, 'It is a way to say "STOP" and "Listen!" to a child.'
It has been claimed this may be the most appropriate form of discipline where a child is in danger of injuring himself or others. Dr Rosemond has suggested that with a toddler of about two years, a quick smack, followed by the reprimand is effective.
Dr Rosemond has also argued that the appropriateness of corporal punishment depends on the degree of force use. He offered the analogy that one quick, open-handed slap to the clothed bottom of a child is to abuse as sending a child to his room is to locking a child in the closet. Of course either extreme is abuse, but at the reasonable end of the continuum, the need to halt the child's behaviour is the same.
It has also been claimed that effective spankings are not accompanied by yelling and name calling. They are never motivated by rage. They can be motivated by anger, but the point of the anger is not to make the child feel threatened, frightened, or more hurt. The point of the anger is to mark the experience in the child's head, to convey to them, "This is serious." Every childish instance of misbehaviour is not serious, so spanking too often defeats the purpose.
It is advised that correction should quickly and immediately follow the undesired behaviour. A short explanation and a consequence should follow a spanking. For example, 'You will not be allowed to speak to me or your father like that. Now, go to your room until dinner time.'
2. There are already laws that protect children against abuse
There are already laws across Australia to protect children against child abuse. Australia is a signatory to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (1989) and many of the principles within the Convention are embedded within child protection legislation in this country.
In every state of Australia, there are laws to protect children and young people from abuse by parents, other family members or other adults. In most states these laws say that parents, other family members and other adults should not subject children to physical abuse, emotional abuse, neglect or sexual abuse, or to domestic violence in their homes. Some forms of child abuse are criminal offences (such as physically injuring a child, or sexual abuse.)
In most states, the government has a department (for example, Victoria has a department of 'child protection') which investigates reports of child abuse and takes action to make sure children are protected.
How the police or child protection services react to child abuse depends on the situation. In some cases of child abuse (such as when a parent deliberately injures a child, or involves a child in sexual activity), the police can charge parents/family members with a crime. In other cases, the child protection department works with parents/family members to make sure they stop abusing children. In some cases the department might stop the abusive parent/family member from seeing their children for a while, so that the children can be safe.
Many consider the existence of these laws and child protection services mean there is no need to introduce a law against the use of excessive force when disciplining a child.
The Victorian Premier, Ted Baillieu, and the Opposition leader, Daniel Andrews, have both defended the status quo. The Victorian Premier has stated, "There are no plans to change the law as it relates to the smacking of children.' The Opposition Leader has similarly noted, 'Victoria already has strong child protection laws in place.'
3. Making smacking illegal is an unwarranted intrusion by the state into the parent-child relationship
It has been claimed that making smacking illegal would undermine the parent-child relationship by having the state intrude in an area where it is neither wanted nor needed.
The federal Shadow Treasurer, Joe Hockey, has stated that it is the responsibility of parents to protect their children. Mr Hockey claimed, 'There are some things that the criminal law shouldn't be involved with. In raising children, parents have a responsibility."
Tony Burke, the federal minister for Population and Communities has expressed a similar view. He has stated, 'These experts, there are helpful ideas they come up with - the naughty corner and these different ideas for raising kids.
I've found a lot of that really helpful with my own kids, but to start saying the criminal law and legal penalties is the way to deal with this - parents do it tough enough already.'
The Victorian Opposition leader, Daniel Andrews, has also argued, 'Parenting is hard and it's not made any easier by unenforceable and intrusive proposals like this.'
Former Australian of the Year and CEO of Child Wise, Ms Bernadette McMenamin, has also rejected calls for a ban on smacking; arguing it would leave parents thinking their authority was being undermined.
Ms McMenamin (who does not personally favour the smacking of children) has stated, 'I think it would make parents feel like the Government is going too far, taking over the parental role...
Setting a law for no smacking ... parents would find that far too interventionist and a nanny state.'
Defenders of smacking argue that most parents who use physical punishment to discipline their children do so in a fair and reasonable manner. For` those few who do not, there are already laws prohibiting assault and child abuse.
4. Moderate physical discipline does not cause psychological harm
A systematic literature review of the effects of parental physical correction conducted in 2000 concluded that smacking had consistently beneficial outcomes when it was non-abusive and used primarily to back up milder disciplinary tactics with 2-6 year-olds by loving parents.
It has been claimed that studies which purport to demonstrate negative consequences for all parental smacking invariably fail to differentiate between harsh and abusive treatment on the one hand and mild physical correction, accompanied by reason in the context of a warm and supportive parent-child relationship on the other.
Those who dispute that smacking children should be made illegal argue that in view of the sparse and inconsistent empirical evidence for negative side effects of non-abusive physical punishment, a blanket injunction against disciplinary smacking by parents is not scientifically supportable.
Some research analysts have also argued that most mothers varied their tactics according to the nature of their children's misbehaviour and suggested that mothers may make specific discriminations that most current research methods cannot detect.
5. Making smacking illegal would be difficult to implement and may disadvantage innocent parties
It has been claimed that any law that seriously intended to prohibit smacking would be unenforceable. Most parental disciplining of children occurs within the home and is therefore outside the direct observation of law enforcement officers and others who might otherwise press a charge or lodge a complaint.
The Victorian Opposition Leader, Daniel Andrews, has stated, 'Parenting is hard and it's not made any easier by unenforceable and intrusive proposals like this.'
It has also been noted that making smacking illegal would allow for the possibility of false complaints made by children against their parents. Some legal experts fear that if smacking were made an offence then there could be vexatious complaints made against innocent parents by children seeking to exert control over their care-givers or to exact revenge for other forms of discipline applied to them.
There is also concern that a law against smacking parents risked criminalising parents for what a majority of Australians regard as a minor and legitimate parental activity. It has further been noted that any resultant prosecutions may well not be in the child's best interests as they would put strain on the family unit and may result in fines or other impositions on the parent that could disadvantage the whole family.
In 2006 Terry Grange, the spokesperson for the Association of Chief Police Officers, said if the child was not suffering or at risk of serious harm as a result of corporal punishment the matter should be dealt with by social services and not the police.
Constable Grange stated, 'The ACPO firmly believes that children should receive the protection of the criminal law but we are concerned that, unless there is clear and unambiguous guidance, revision of the defence could lead to parents being brought into the criminal justice system for minor incidents when this is not in children's or the public's interests.'