Being a parent is really a profound responsibility, the most profound and challenging thing that human beings can be involved in. A responsibility that requires uncommon maturity.
And yet we blithely/naively presume that any and every fool is capable of being a good parent.
Which is to ask, is the normal dreadfully sane every-person even emotionally mature enough to be a good parent. Or have they assumed full responsibility for their own psycho-physical presence and action(s) in the world? And where do they acquire the necessary comprehensive skills to become a good parent? Skills which necessarily require a comprehensive Wisdom Culture that fully takes into account all of the various stages of psycho-physical growth/development intrinsic to the structures of the human body-mind-complex.
These intrinsic structures or stages of psycho-physical development are touched upon and described by Joseph Chilton-Pierce in his various books - beginning with Magical Child and right through to his latest books (including The Biology of Transcendence). He also describes how or "culture" systematically cripples and/or mutilates the intrinsic intelligence of the bio-physical organism. Pointing out that our entire "culture" in both its secular and so called "religious" forms is essentially a systematic assault on this intrinsic intelligence.

That having been said my favorite "Philosopher" also provided a comprehensive body of work and instructions in which He called Conscious Child Rearing. His work is introduced here:
http://www.adidaupclose.org/Children/index.html

This is a seriously flawed article from an unreliable source. Family First are hardly to be held up as intelligent or reliable commentators on any social issue given their extraordinary beliefs on a range of issues. Australia's unfortunate experience with a Family First Senator should have been a salutary lesson. It is difficult to think of a more anti-intellectual outfit inhabiting the social scene.

One example illustrates the point (although there are many). The author says that child abuse has increased by a third since the anti-smacking law was introduced. There is a major difference between correlation and causality although the author seems blind to that. Click on the link he provides and the figures for "substantiated child abuse" rose between 2008 (financial year) with 16,290 cases, to 19,596 the following year. The number of substantiated cases reached a peak of 22,027 cases in 2011 and actually declined to 21,525 for FY 2012.

For those persons purporting to see a link between a change in one aspect of the law and actual behaviour there is always a problem when the figures relied upon go into reverse. Not surpassingly the author doesn't discuss this.

Child abuse is a serious topic worthy of intelligent and informed discussion. That test doesn't apply to this article.

divine_msn I live on the land and train dogs all the time, I'm the past predident of a dog training club and have trained thousands of people on how to train their dogs.

Don't use slip collars and never smack, it's laziness that keeps the old ways of doing. In the same way you don't have to break horses anymore you don't need to beat your dog into understanding.

Childern need loving a supportive parents willing to spend time with them, not fear, not pain. Smacking is at best laziness

Some of these politicians we have now may not be telling so many lies if there parents had given them a good smack.

I am passionately opposed to physically assaulting children in the name of discipline; neither did I ever hit my own children.

However, I am even more passionately opposed to the creeping nanny state, which is simply getting out of control.

In comparison to the banning of corporal punishment in schools where there are plenty of witnesses, legislating against parents hitting their children in the privacy of their own home leaves the way open to all kinds of abuse of the law. A law of this kind makes it hard to distinguish between a calm, judicious slap intended as teaching the child a lesson that is important to the parent, and sustained beatings done to a child to relieve a parent's anger or tension.

No matter how well meaning these intended laws may seem, there is a point at which we have to start saying NO.

Kenny - who said anything about beating? A jerk, cuff, etc is as much a beating as a smack is a flogging. Chalk/cheese. One a physical 'jolt' causing no injury beyond transient stinging or fright, bringing dog or child to attention, the other sustained prolonged pain.

That's NOT the intent of parents that smack. Anything more severe is already illegal.

So, when training silly young dogs you never even jerk on a collar? Finding this hard to believe. Interested to hear/read about ur techniques. Maybe you can direct me to a website or publication? However you don't dispute the ways bitches and older dogs deal with misbehaving pups ...

In short - a smack can work wonders for youngsters who won't listen, like pups that ignore Mum's growl. It's instant attention grabber, often a circuit breaker and not lazy parenting. It generally doesn't need administering often because the child who knows you mean what you say soon learns to heed the word. Unlike dogs, children are not expendable. Occasionally you get a useless dog. If it gets injured, you don't spend thousands at the vet, it's not a good worker and no-one wants it as a companion dog, you get the rifle out. Not so with a child.

Say your 2yr old runs away from you towards danger, ignoring urgent calls to come back, you really want the lesson to sink in. Are you and others commenting here aware of developmental limits of small children? It's sort of my (old) area ... Reasoning with toddlers is a long term project. Short term the immediacy of the smack is much more likely to bring home the lesson.

I notice no-one has commented on the limits on parental authority already set by the State as per the 13yr old whose 'right' to break numerous laws was upheld by the law?

Yet her right to parental protection and parents right to try limiting childs self-harming behaviour was not? Parent wasn't a 'smacker' BTW

So Kenny, Daffy Duck, Phanto and others preferring parental authority be further neutered, what's your solution?