I'm glad to see the OLO community is able to se through the attempted creation of a Lawyer's Picnic.

whenever I see a lawyer start to get exercised about wanting to change a law, I know for a certainty that the law as it exists must be a model of clarity and reasonableness.

I have smacked both my children precisely once. My daughter when she was having one of the tantrums for which she was renowned as a child and had been bashing at the bedroom door whence she had been confined. a quick slap across the back of the legs a couple fo times ended those tantrums where escalating consequences had simply exacerbated them.

My son's was for doing something ( I forget exactly what, but it probably involved the trampoline) that was dangerous despite having been told not to several times. Once again, the shock value of the quick slap on the back of the thigh was admirably instructive.

The interesting thing is, the kids remember those events some years later and we occasionally still discuss it. Psychological damage seems to be conspicuously absent.

We are unique
LOL yeah. I used to flog my children with a broken bottle but I always used to say to them "This hurts me more than it hurts you."

P.A Thuraisingham’s “anti-smacking” argument is flawed:

The point missed amongst posters here is the less than subtle criticism P.A.T. makes against Australian judiciary. She claims that the existing laws covering assault against children are being miss-read by the courts in many cases, and as evidence presents the case of R v Hopley:

I.E. (1860 The Eastbourne manslaughter was a case in Eastbourne, England, which involved the death of Reginald Cancellor at the hands of his teacher, Thomas Hopley. Hopley intended to use corporal punishment to overcome what he perceived as stubbornness on Cancellor's part, but he instead beat the boy to death).
That is a case where in 1860 in England, the Father of Reginald the child, granted authority to a boarding school to use corporal punishment as a means to correct perceived misbehavior in his son. A straight forward case of murder (Manslaughter) not at all connected to smacking of children by their parents.

P.A.T. also makes references to legal precedence of arcane English law used, she claims, to allow child abusers to abscond from punishment as proof Australia is soft on child abusers. I find no significant records of other cases she mentions such as her claim that in Victoria the operative case R v Terry holds any significance in judgements on child abuse.

In the case of R v Gillick mentioned, interestingly so far removed from smacking children as to be judged misrepresenting the facts. This was a case where a mother challenged the local area health doctor (GB) to prescribe her under 16yo female child contraceptives. What has that case to do with smacking children!

I challenge Ms P.A Thuraisingham to step forward and present some relevant factual evidence Australia is actually soft on child abusers, and that the real problem for Australia is the abysmal failure of respective Government departments responsible for the assured protection of children from abuse, is not the real culprit! I await with interest P.A.T.

This is probably just another plot to destabilise our society by trying to make us bring up children who are totally devoid of responsiblity which causes a dysfunctional society which is easily brought under the thumb. I bet parents still discipline their children with a smack where that author comes from.

I actually agree with this author's views, in the main.

While this country has finally started to come to terms with the fact that women are not the 'property' of their menfolk, and thus able to be 'knocked back into line' as their men see fit, children are often still seen as 'possessions'.

I too like the New Zealand laws that allow for smacking of your own children only if they are in imminent danger, damage or antisocial behaviour.

Thus we may not see parents in supermarkets beating the cr** out of the kids for pathetic reasons like pestering them for lollies!

My mum used to smack me with her thongs as a child (they were always readily available on her feet), and then later, as I became faster than her, she used to throw the thong at my hastily retreating back!

I grew up and had my daughter, who I remember once smacking on her bottom when she tried to run out onto the road behind a parked car.
I ended up crying more than she did.

I believe most parents know where to draw the fine line between a simple smack to show you really mean it, and beating the cr** out of the kids.

However, for the minority who really don't know or care about that difference, we do need specific legislation.

I think corporal punishment was banned in NSW schools in about 1986.

Well, since then then haven't things improved:

- no more violence in schools
- students respect teachers even more
- standards have continued to skyrocket upwards (esp. in maths and science)
- bullying has been eradicated
- our best young graduates are rushing into teaching to take up a rewarding and gratifying career with the 'leaders of tomorrow'
- the status of teaching continues to rise to ever greater heights
- children leave school with a sense of moral certitude about the choices they make
- children leaving school now take responsibility for their actions and do not blame 'society'
- businesses laud the good work teachers are doing
- society is much safer now
- there have been no more wars

The list goes on...

Surely, if banning corporal punishment in schools was such a good idea then banning it in the home would be just as fruitful.

PS Guess which part of the above is not true.