Spanking: Outdated and Ineffective

It is legal to hit a child, but illegal to hit an adult.

The legality of corporal punishment in Australia raises significant concerns about the protection of children’s rights. Despite efforts of researchers like Professor Daryl Higgins to highlight its harmful effects and advocate for legislative reform, hitting a child remains legally permissible under certain circumstances, creating a stark contrast with laws protecting adults from violence. This underscores the need for a reevaluation of societal attitudes towards discipline and the establishment of comprehensive legal frameworks that prioritises the well-being of children.

Professor Daryl Higgins is Director of the Institute of Child Protection Studies at the Australian Catholic University. His studies focus on public health strategies concerning child abuse, encompassing its prevalence, effects, prevention, corporal punishment, and various related aspects.

Professor Higgins is one of Australia’s lead researchers into corporal punishment, being part of the publishing of many crucial journal articles on the topic.

I spoke with Professor Higgins to get an insight into what problems we face with corporal punishment.

Q: How did you get into the research field of corporal punishment?

A: Since 2017 I have been director of the Institute of Child Protection Studies at ACU. Corporal punishment is not separate from or unrelated to the issue of physical abuse of children. Often Corporal punishment leads into and can become physical abuse, and it has a number of outcomes in terms of its consequences for children’s wellbeing, and the similarities with it has with other areas of child abuse and neglect.

My key area is how often these things happen, why they happen, the effects they have, but most importantly my passion is about preventing all forms of child abuse and neglect. The overlaps between preventing corporal punishment and other forms of child maltreatment are remarkably similar.

The key factor we have to bring about change is to actually change the parenting environment in which children are growing up in. So to reduce the use, and hopefully eliminate the use of harsh, abusive punishments or treatment of children, and to increase the use of alternatives. Emotion focused, non violent methods of behaviour management [need to be implemented].

Q: What is the current legality of corporal punishment in Australia?

A: Before I answer that, I think we have a two-speed economy here. There are a lot of people who are shocked to know it is not illegal, and equally, there is a very big group of parents who think this is normal and expected. It is like you can be talking to two separate groups, who think this is outrageous, who are surprised this is legal, and think that it should not be, and those who are totally resistant, who think this is the only acceptable form of parenting. I think that is the challenge.

How do we speak to both of those groups at the same time? Because they are all influencing politics, and policies, and they represent the children out there. Some children are growing up in families where it is just assumed you do not do this, and others are growing up in families where there is no other alternative. There is no knowledge that there are other alternatives.

To answer your question directly, while there are explicit references, the relevant legislation is our assault laws. What is ironic, is every other form of assault, assault of women in the home, assault between adults in the community, etc, are all defined in terms of our legislation as part of the criminal code. However, there are exceptions either explicitly mentioned in each of the states or territory criminal codes, or in common law practice [which allow corporal punishment]. It depends on what state or territory you are living in on whether it is common law or the criminal code, but this is an exemption as a defence. It is an excuse, for example:

‘Yes the child …. But I didn’t assault them, I reasonably chastised them.’

You can defend yourselves if you are ever to be charged with this. Which of course, case law suggests this almost never happens. Even if you were, you could put up the argument of reasonable chastisement, and under Australian Law, you are entitled to that.

Q: In every other context it is not legal to be hit, but why is it for children who are some of the most vulnerable people?

A: The biggest argument for me, is that as an adult, if I am frustrated and have a problem with someone else’s behaviour [I can’t hit them]. Let’s say I go to the hairdresser, and I get a haircut and I am unhappy with it, I can’t hit them in order to chastise them from doing the ‘wrong thing’. I must use my words, say I am sorry this is not what I asked for, I am not going to pay for this, I am not going to come back here, I expect an apology, or I use the law courts to deal with a dispute.

There are other ways to deal with a dispute that the adult world engages. We are terrible at it, and we have laws. But using violence is not an effective solution to whatever it is we are trying to learn or ask children to do.

The idea that corporal punishment is necessary for children’s development, is not supported either by the child development literature which shows it is not an effective parenting strategy, that the only positive benefit that the research shows is that you can get immediate compliance.

You know, you can smack a kid for smacking the cookie jar, they stop touching the cookie jar today, but they don’t internalise to respect someone else’s property or why to ask, eating too many biscuits instead of fruits and vegetables or waiting until mealtime. Whatever may be the teaching moment that parents are wanting to use, there is absolutely no evidence that corporal punishment achieves that.

Q: Why is this not reported on more within the mainstream media?

A:Well, there are a few reasons. Because it is involving the P word. Because it is talking about parenting and what parents do, you automatically buy into this debate around the privacy and the safety of the family which leads to an argument of parents being able to do what they want.

Also, there is the argument that parenting is somehow innate, that we are all born good parents and we should be left to our own devices and that it is our personal choice on what parenting methods we use. Although, in almost no other areas of life do we adopt this thinking. We do not do this for our education of children, we do not say parents should educate their children however they like. No, we have compulsory school education, we have standards about what needs to be covered, not in how it is taught, but broadly, that children should go through their childhood and adolescents covering off important learning skills that the state determines.

Now that to me could encroach on parenting rights to raise their children how they like. Although, we have no problem with this at all. So what is really bizarre is that there are some elements of parenting and family life that we are absolutely prepared to barge into. If you get into a car you are told you need to wear a seatbelt, you are also told children need to sit in the back seat not the front seat. They also need to be restrained. Not just with any old thing, but with a proper Australian Government approved car seat. Now that is an infringement on parenting rights if you are going to take that argument.

Striving for a Future without Harm

Amidst the lack of media coverage, Professor Higgins and other university researchers have been striving to warn Australians of the harms of smacking.

Ultimately, Professor Higgins promotes the importance of addressing the underlying attitudes and legal frameworks that perpetuate corporal punishment being essential for fostering a culture of non-violence and promoting alternative, evidence-based parenting strategies. Through collective efforts to educate, raise awareness, and enact meaningful reforms, we can work towards a future where every child is afforded the dignity and protection they deserve.