2012/03: Should Australian parents be prohibited from legally smacking their children?
What they said...
'[Smacking] teaches and perpetuates violence as a way to solve one's problems'
Australian child and clinical psychologist, John Waring
'I think ... [banning smacking] would make parents feel like the Government is going too far, taking over the parental role...'
CEO of Child Wise, Ms Bernadette McMenamin (Ms McMenamin personally opposes smacking)
The issue at a glance
A number of events have brought the issue of the corporal punishment of children within the home to the attention of the Australian media.
In October, 2011, the Australian Capital Territory (ACT) Human Rights Commission unsuccessfully attempted to have the ACT become the first jurisdiction in Australia to make the smacking of children within the home illegal.
On October 6, the ABC telecast the first episode of a television series based on Christos Tsiolkas' best-selling novel, 'The Slap'. The novel and the series have provoked wide-spread discussion of child-rearing practices in Australia.
In December, 2011, David Lammy, the MP for Tottenham, in north London, published 'Out of the Ashes', an attempt to explain the London riots of August that year as in part the result of a failure of parental discipline. Lammy calls for the reintroduction within the home of corporal punishment of children.
On February 3, 2012, the Journal of Paediatrics and Child Health published a letter from the President of Paediatric and Child Health at the Royal Australian College of Physicians, Dr Gervase Chaney. In his letter, Dr Chaney calls for the medical fraternity to strengthen its position on smacking and officially support a legal ban.
The issue is always a contentious one, with the consensus of professional opinion appearing to oppose smacking and a majority of popular opinion in support of it.
Even within these parameters the debate is confused by unclear definitions of what constitutes a smack and how regularly and in what context such punishment must be employed before it can be deemed harmful.
Background
(The following information is an edited version of a report prepared by the Global Initiative to End All Corporal Punishment of Children in August 2011. The full text can be found at http://www.endcorporalpunishment.org/pages/pdfs/states-reports/Australia.pdf)
Corporal punishment in Australia
In the home
In Australia, corporal punishment of children in the home is legal in every state and territory, provided it is 'reasonable'. Parents who act unreasonably may be committing an assault. Tasmania is continuing to review the state's laws on the matter, and may seek to ban the use of corporal punishment by parents. The matter has also been under review in other Australian states and territories, most recently in the Australian Capital Territory. A 2002 public opinion survey suggested the majority view was in support of retaining parents' right to smack with the open hand but not with an implement, although as of 2010, there are no laws against using an implement.
Corporal punishment in the home is regulated at a state level, and is lawful throughout Australia under the right of "reasonable chastisement" or similar provisions (Australian Capital Territory under common law; Northern Territory Criminal Code Act s27; Queensland Criminal Code Act 1899, s280; South Australia Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935, s20; Tasmania Criminal Code Act 1924, s50; Western Australia Criminal Code 1913, s257; Victoria under common law rule).
Under s61AA of the New South Wales Crimes Act, as amended in 2001, physical punishment by a parent or caregiver is considered unreasonable if the force is applied to a child's head or neck, or the force is applied to any part of the body in such a way as to cause, or threaten to cause, harm to the child which lasts more than a short period; in such cases the defence of 'lawful correction' does not apply.
In schools
Corporal punishment in schools is regulated at state level. It is prohibited in government and independent schools in Australian Capital Territory (Education Act 2004, s7), New South Wales (Education Act 1990, s3 and s47), Tasmania (Education Act 1994, s82A) and Victoria (Education and Training Reform Act 2006, s4.3, and Education and Training Reform Regulations 2007, reg14). It is prohibited in government schools in Western Australia (School Education Regulations, s40), but the use of force "by way of correction" is lawful for schoolteachers under s257 of the Criminal Code Act and provisions for caning of boys in the Country High School Hostels Authority Act Regulations 1962 have yet to be repealed.
In Queensland, corporal punishment by schoolteachers is lawful under the provisions for reasonable force "by way of correction, discipline, management or control" in s280 of the Criminal Code Act. There is no explicit prohibition of corporal punishment in Northern Territory education law, where corporal punishment is lawful under the presumption of the delegation to a school teacher of the "power to impose domestic discipline" (Criminal Code Act, s11). In South Australia, provisions for corporal punishment were removed from the Education Regulations in 1991, but it was not prohibited.
Childcare centres
Corporal punishment is prohibited in childcare centres in Australian Capital Territory (Children and Young People Act 2008, s741), New South Wales (Children's Services Regulation 2004, s65), Queensland (Child Protection Act 1999, s122), South Australia (Children's Services (Child Care Centres) Regulations 1998, s39), Victoria (Children's Services Act 1996, s28) and Western Australia (Child Care Services (Child Care) Regulations 2006, s85; Child Care Services (Family Day Care) Regulations 2006, s69; Child Care Services (Outside School Hours Care) Regulations 2006, s66; Child Care Services (Outside School Hours Family Day Care) Regulations 2006, s52).
Corporal punishment is lawful in the Northern Territory under provisions for the use of force "to discipline, manage or control" a child (Criminal Code Act, s27) and in Tasmania under the authority to use force "by way of correction" (Criminal Code Act, s50).
Internet information
On August 12, 2011, Perth Now published an opinion piece by Suzie O'Brien titled, 'Smacking kids is no the solution as it doesn't help'. The opinion piece is a response to the Presbyterian Church in Victoria defending parents' right to use corporal punishment with their children. The full text of the opinion piece can be found at http://www.perthnow.com.au/smacking-kids-is-not-the-solution-it-just-creates-more-problems/story-fn6cmyjj-1226113946194
On August 30, 2011, The Daily Telegraph published an opinion piece by David Penberthy arguing for a return to parental control and consistency, without smacking. Penberthy's piece also makes reference to the London riot comments.
The full text of this comment titled, 'The discipline needed to not smack a child' can be found at http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/opinion/the-discipline-needed-to-not-smack-a-child/story-e6frezz0-1226124751626
On October 7, 2011, The Conversation published an opinion piece by Bronwyn Naylor, Director, Equity and Diversity at Monash University and Bernadette Saunders, Senior Lecturer, Social Work at Monash University. The authors give a clear overview of the current legal situation in Australia regarding the corporal punishment of children and then survey some of the most recent research findings suggesting the ineffectiveness of and harm caused by physical punishment.
The opinion piece supplies a number of valuable links.
The full text can be accessed at http://theconversation.edu.au/the-legality-of-the-slap-3683
On November 6, 2011, The Sunday Telegraph published an opinion piece by Miranda Devine in which she uses the success of the best-selling novel, The Slap, to discuss what she sees as the multiple failings of contemporary parenting.
The full text of the opinion piece can be found at http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/opinion/the-bestselling-book-the-slap-highlights-the-faultlines-of-modern-parenting/story-e6frezz0-1226186584301
On December 5, 2011, The Adelaide Advertiser published an analysis on smacking written by Trisha Helber. The full text of the analysis titled, 'Smacking...is it ever acceptable?' can be found at http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/ipad/smacking-is-it-ever-okay/story-fn6br97j-1226214082890
On December 9, 2011, The New Zealand Herald ran a report on an international study which had revealed the high levels of child abuse in the country. The report noted that this was the case despite the fact that New Zealand has banned smacking. The suggestion has been made that outlawing smacking has not reduced child abuse.
The full text of the report can be found at http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10772101
On December 9, 2011, The Guardian published David Matthews' review of David Lammy's 'Out of the Ashes'. Matthews endorses Lammy's diagnosis that the London riots were the consequence of 'a continual lack of education, ineffective parental guidance, poor role models, ill-discipline, unemployment and a host of social and developmental ills'.
The full text of the review can be found at http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2011/dec/09/out-ashes-riots-david-lammy-review-matthews
On December 29, 2011, The Courier Mail published an opinion piece by Jane Fynes-Clinton titled, 'Parents' love leads to discipline'. The piece argues that banning smacking may drive the practice and discussion of it underground where it would be potentially more dangerous.
The full text of the opinion piece can be found at http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/opinion/parents-love-leads-to-discipline/story-e6frerdf-1226232112886
On January 25, 2012, Canberra's City News ran an opinion piece by Nick Jensen in which he considers the political implications of promoting a policy as unpopular as banning smacking. The editorial is titled 'The political pain a smacking ban can bring'.
The full text can be accessed at http://citynews.com.au/2012/uncategorized/the-political-pain-a-smacking-ban-can-bring/
On February 3, 2012, The Sunday Times published a report by Elissa Doherty on Dr Gervase Chaney's call for a ban on Australian parents smacking their children. The report was titled, 'Time to ban smacking children, doctors warn'
The full text of this report can be found at http://www.perthnow.com.au/news/time-to-ban-smacking/story-e6frg12c-1226261478261
On February 4, 2012, The Daily Telegraph ran an analysis by Neil Keene titled, 'Don't ban smack: Nation is slap happy'. The analysis looks at the range of responses to Dr Gervase Chaney's proposal.
The full text of the analysis can be found at http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/national/dont-ban-smacking-nation-is-slap-happy/story-e6freuzr-1226262294383
On February 7, 2012, The ABC's opinion site, The Drum, published a comment by Karen Flanagan titled, 'Protecting our children: positive discipline, not smacking'. The piece essentially defends Dr Gervase Chaney's call for a ban on smacking.
It is followed by 339 reader comments.
The full text of the opinion piece and the comments can be read at http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/3815950.html
On February 16, 2012, The Adelaide Advertiser ran an editorial titled, 'Our kids need the right kind of authority'. The editorial argues for clear, assertive discipline, rather than inflexible, punitive authoritarianism. The full text of this editorial can be found at http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/opinion/editorial-our-kids-need-the-right-kind-of-authority/story-e6freabc-1226272208975
On February 18, 2012, The Canberra Times published an editorial titled, 'Time the law moved to stop parents smacking their kids'. The editorial argues in support of a recent bid to ban smacking within the ACT.
The full text of the editorial can be found at http://www.canberratimes.com.au/act-news/time-the-law-moved-to-stop-parents-smacking-their-kids-20120217-1tdbr.html
On March 5, 2012, Scoop Independent News published a media release from Family First detailing the comments of Dr. Ben Carson, Director of Paediatric Neurosurgery at Johns Hopkins Hospital in Baltimore, who was in Auckland to raise funds for the Starship Foundation to help rebuild their Neuroservices and Medical Specialty Wards.
Dr Carson criticised New Zealand's anti-smacking laws claiming that moderate physical punishment was appropriate for children too young to appreciate reason.
The full text of the release can be found at http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO1203/S00043/world-leading-neurosurgeon-dismisses-anti-smacking-law.htm
Arguments in favour of making smacking illegal
1. Smacking is generally not an effective means of discipline
The most recent international research consistently shows that physical punishment does not achieve what the disciplining parent wants.
In 2011, United Stated researchers Elizabeth Gershoff and Andrew Grogin after analysing a wide range of American studies stated, 'In a longitudinal, nationally representative sample of 11,044 American children, we found that corporal punishment predicted increases in child behavior problems from age 5 to age 8 equally across White-, Black-, Hispanic-, and Asian-American groups.'
Gershoff and Grogin concluded, 'Corporal punishment does not make children more compliant in the short term. Corporal punishment does not foster long-term compliance or internalization of morals. Corporal punishment does not reduce aggression, defiance, or antisocial behavior.'
Australian child and clinical psychologist, John Waring, has written, 'Research has confirmed that smacking children teaches them to use acts of aggression and violence to solve their problems. It teaches and perpetuates violence as a way to solve one's problems.
Children who are smacked ...often develop resentments towards their parents and get angry with them and sometimes seek revenge. Smacking a child does not educate them about appropriate behaviour. Smacked children change their behaviour out of fear of pain while non-smacked children learn to change their behaviour on the basis of right and wrong and eventually require less parental intervention.'
John Waring further wrote, 'A child who has been smacked may learn to cover up their mistakes or misbehaviour. They may become secretive, blame others and even lie to avoid being smacked. Smacking is ineffective as research shows us that children cannot remember what they were smacked for. They find it harder to develop remorse, empathy and compassion for others because they are overwhelmed by pain and anger and are not able to focus on the effects of their misbehaviour.'
2. Smacking can be a precursor to more extreme forms of physical abuse
It has been noted that smacking children tends to normalise the use of violence against children and that parents who smack their children are more likely to inflict more extreme forms of physical assault upon them.
In a study 2008 based in North Carolina, parents who spanked their children were three times more likely, and parents who hit with an object were nine times more likely, than parents who do not use these methods to report also engaging in potentially abusive behaviours such as kicking, beating, burning, or shaking.
In 1981 a series of United States interviews with physically abusive parents revealed that as many as two thirds of their abusive incidents began as attempts to change children's behaviour or to 'teach them a lesson'.
A 2003 review of child maltreatment cases in Canada determined that three quarters of substantiated physical abuse cases involved parents' intention to corporally punish their child.
Thus, in the minds of many parents there is no clear distinction between moderate and more extreme forms of physical punishment or between punishment and abuse.
3. Smacking is a violation of the human rights of the child
It has been noted that no other section of Australian society can have violence inflicted upon them other than in self-defence. This has been condemned as inequitable in that it denies children rights that are allowed to all others.
On October 7, 2011, in The Conversation, Bronwyn Naylor, Director, Equity and Diversity at Monash University and Bernadette Saunders, Senior Lecturer, Social Work at Monash University wrote, 'In Australia the only category of victims who can lawfully be assaulted is children, by their parents. There is no defence for a boss, a teacher or a childcare worker. There is no defence for a husband - domestic violence is now named and criminalised.'
On February 12, 2012, a similar point was made in a Canberra Times editorial, 'We have made rape in marriage illegal. We have abolished hanging and whipping in the criminal justice system. We have abolished corporal punishment in schools. Yet today in Australia it is still legal for parents to physically assault their children - provided it fits the woolly criteria of being "reasonable chastisement" or "reasonable correction".
Many opponents of the corporal punishment of children point to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child in support of their position.
In September 2001, the United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child called upon all States to 'enact or repeal, as a matter of urgency, their legislation in order to prohibit all forms of violence, however light, within the family and in schools, including as a form of discipline, as required by the provisions of the Convention ...'
The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child stresses the obligation to protect children from all forms of violence including cruel or degrading punishment, which conflict with the child's human dignity and right to physical integrity.
In terms of discipline, the Convention does not specify what forms of punishment parents should use. However any form of discipline involving violence is unacceptable. There are ways to discipline children that are effective in helping children learn about family and social expectations for their behaviour - ones that are non-violent, are appropriate to the child's level of development and take the best interests of the child into consideration.
4. Smacking can cause long-term intellectual or psychological harm
In July 2011 the journal Social Development reported that children in a school that uses corporal punishment performed significantly worse in tasks involving 'executive functioning' - psychological processes such as planning, abstract thinking, and delaying gratification - than those in a school relying on milder disciplinary measures such as time-outs, according to a new study involving two private schools in a West African country.
The findings suggest that a harshly punitive environment may have long-term detrimental effects on children's verbal intelligence and their executive-functioning ability. As a result, children exposed to a harshly punitive environment may be at risk for behavioural problems related to deficits in executive-functioning, the study indicates.
University of New Hampshire professor Murray Straus has conducted research which suggests that children who are spanked have lower IQs. Straus found that children in the United States who were spanked had lower IQs four years later than those who were not spanked.
Straus and Mallie Paschall, senior research scientist at the Pacific Institute for Research and Evaluation, studied nationally representative samples of 806 children ages 2 to 4, and 704 ages 5 to 9. Both groups were retested four years later.
IQs of children ages 2 to 4 who were not spanked were 5 points higher four years later than the IQs of those who were spanked. The IQs of children ages 5 to 9 years old who were not spanked were 2.8 points higher four years later than the IQs of children the same age who were spanked.
Professor Straus stated, 'How often parents spanked made a difference. The more spanking the slower the development of the child's mental ability. But even small amounts of spanking made a difference.'
5. Making smacking illegal would have a significant symbolic effect
It has been claimed that one of the functions of the law is to represent what a society values. Thus the law serves to symbolise a society's norms.
Supporters of making smacking illegal would serve an educative function. It has been suggested that parents, while they may still smack their children moderately within their own homes, would be less likely to do so publicly or in a more extreme manner if they were aware that the action was illegal.
The fact of making smacking illegal not only means that it may carry a penalty, it also makes it apparent that society as a whole does not approve the action.
Bernadette Saunders, a senior research fellow at Child Abuse Prevention Australia, part of Monash University, has stated, 'The aim is not to criminalise parents for the occasional smack. It's more an educational message that there are more effective and less harmful ways to discipline children.'
Saunders has further stated, 'Many parents hit children ... just because they can. They don't have to think about better alternatives.'
Dorothy Scott, director of the Australian Centre for Child Protection, has stated, 'Community attitudes and norms have definitely moved in the direction of less physical discipline of children over recent generations and we want to maintain that momentum. The law can be a powerful symbolic stimulus to continue this evolution...'
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 Andreas, 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.'
Further implications
The question of how far the law should seek to regulate the behaviour of individuals within private areas of their lives will always be a vexed one. The smacking of children is particularly controversial because it involves more than private individuals engaging in activities which they claim affect only themselves.
With regard to smacking, those jurisdictions, such as New Zealand, which have largely outlawed it, have done so in a bid to protect children. There is substantial evidence to suggest that among those parents who abuse their children, the action is often justified as discipline. Experts have suggested that if the nexus between physical punishment and children's misbehaviour can be broken, this could serve to reduce the extent of child abuse.
However, many parents, including those who do not use physical punishment with their children, will defend their right to do so. Critics of anti-smacking laws argue that these laws confuse occasional moderate physical punishment with abuse and treat one as though it were the other. They also claim that those who would outlaw smacking are ignoring the fact that there are circumstances where this form of punishment is necessary. Defenders of the practice therefore claim that outlawing smacking would criminalise ordinary citizens for infrequent, moderate and necessary actions.
Despite the prevalence of the above arguments, a wide range of surveys and changes in the law in many other countries suggest that support for the physical punishment of children is waning. Given time it may be that smacking will be outlawed in Australia. This will only occur, however, when popular opinion has shifted sufficiently that such a law is no longer seen as an infringement by the State on the rights of parents.
Newspaper items used in the compilation of this issue outline
H/SUN, September 27, 2011, page 26, comment by Susie O'Brien, `Smacking is brute force'.
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/opinion/adults-should-not-resort-to-smacking/story-e6frfhqf-1226147314048
H/SUN, October 8, 2011, page 16, news item (photos) by Siobhan Duck, `Smacking divides us'.
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/more-news/groups-back-the-rights-of-parents-to-physically-discipline-children/story-fn7x8me2-1226161606845
H/SUN, February 4, 2012, page 12, news item by Nathan Mawby, `Don't ban smacking'.
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/ipad/dont-ban-smacking-say-readers/story-fn6bfmgc-1226262243396
H/SUN, February 3, 2012, page 1, news item by Elissa Doherty, `Time to ban smacking'.
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/ipad/time-to-ban-smacking/story-fn6bfkm6-1226261282961
H/SUN, February 15, 2012, page 5, news item (photo) by Alex White, `Tough love makes bad kids'.
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/ipad/tough-love-makes-big-kids/story-fn6bfkm6-1226271232627
H/SUN, February 25, 2012, page 3, news item by J Fife-Yeomans, `Judge backs smack'.
http://www.news.com.au/national/live-in-the-real-world-judge-backs-smacks/story-e6frfkvr-1226281106607
AUST, March 3, 2012, page 16, comment by Angela Shanahan, `In the hubbub over parenting styles, it's not just the mother's story'.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/opinion/in-the-hubbub-over-parenting-styles-its-not-just-the-mothers-story/story-e6frgd0x-1226287636070