CRIMINAL LAW CONSOLIDATION (REASONABLE CHASTISEMENT OF CHILDREN) AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 25 July 2007. Page 480.)

The Hon. SANDRA KANCK (17:49): The Democrats think this is a totally unnecessary and totally unjustified bill. I recognise that parents smack their children and, on a few occasions, I confess I did the same with my son, and I regret those moments. They are not moments that I would treasure in my relationship with my son. But recognising that smacking happens from time to time does not justify giving it any credibility in law. A short time after the Hon. Dennis Hood of Family First introduced the bill, there was a comment about it in The Advertiser in the religious affairs section from the Reverend Peter McDonald from Uniting Care Wesley on 30 July this year. He wrote:

We are extremely disappointed to hear Family First promote the smacking of children. Their proposal to put into law a parent's right to hit their child promotes the use of violence as a way of resolving conflict. Research shows spanking is an ineffective way of changing behaviour. Positive parenting makes a lasting difference to a child and the ability to deal with life. It works at developing a relationship of love and respect rather than one shaped by fear.

Dr Jane Nelsen, who is a highly respected marriage, child and family counsellor and author of books about child discipline, asks, 'Where did we ever get the crazy idea that, in order to make children do better, first we have to make them feel worse? Think of the last time you felt humiliated or treated unfairly. Did you feel like cooperating or doing better?' That, for me, is not a rhetorical question. Having been on the receiving end of a fair amount of parental rage as a child, I know how fear-inducing it is, and I can answer that question of Dr Nelsen's with a resounding 'no'. As I view Family First as essentially a religious party, I quote Proverbs 22:15, which may be the source of the Hon. Mr Hood's argument—if not his it certainly will be that of some of his supporters:

Foolishness is bound up in the heart of a child, but the rod of correction will drive it far from him.

My parents paraphrased this as, 'Spare the rod and spoil the child'. So you can be sure that I was not spoilt. It is a shocking way to raise a child, and I fear this bill is predicated on a similar world view. The reality is that there is a huge power imbalance between a parent and a child. There is also a weight and a size imbalance that actually adds to that. The child is dependent on its parent or parents for survival, and well knows it, even if she or he cannot put that understanding into words.

In considering this bill, I ask members to think about how they would feel right now if someone took to them physically to chastise them. They would be extremely angry and probably hit back, or at least they would want to. It would not be considered appropriate to be treated in this way. So, if it is not appropriate for one adult to hit another—and we have a whole series of statutes that deal with that issue—how much more inappropriate is it for an adult to hit a mere child who has no recourse to defend himself or herself? I cannot understand why we would want to physically hurt our children. From the website scandaniva.com I have taken down the following:

Corporal punishment of children by their parents is not legal in the Nordic countries. Nordic society is commonly agreed that children are better educated with words than with violence. Teaching through beating and pain is just not part of our values as a society. I decided after I returned from a week's holiday abroad that the social achievement was worth being remembered.

I had never seen anyone hitting or smacking children before. I was shocked to see a father shouting and smacking his little boy in public. No-one in the street stopped to prevent this or to say something. I found that very disturbing and have thought many times about what I saw there. Would that same father who slapped his little boy dare to turn next to his elder grandmother or to his wife? Can you hit a child because he does something you don't like?

While I agree with the Hon. Dennis Hood about Families SA sometimes overstepping the mark in terms of how it defines child abuse, the example he quoted from the Rex Jory article—while showing up how silly Families SA can sometimes be—does not justify those parents hitting their child. In the example of the five year old child who went missing in a large shopping centre, surely hitting him after he was found was not the solution. Rather, those parents should have hugged the child and let him know how worried they had been and why they were worried.

I am aware of parents who are struggling with disciplining their children, particularly single parents who sometimes find themselves at the end of their tether with no-one else to share the load. In that regard, parents will justify hitting in terms of the child's safety. They cite examples for the need to be allowed to hit children, such as when they are about to touch a power point. But we are the protectors of our children; surely we have a responsibility to reduce the hazards. Rather than enshrining a right to smack, we should be providing support for parents.

Privately funded programs are available which are not accessible to many people because of the cost. During National Child Protection Week this year, the National Association for Prevention of Child Abuse and Neglect (of which I am a member) ran a free lecture series about disciplining unruly children. I passed on the information to one single mum I know who has been having problems with one of her children, and she was bitterly disappointed to find that these workshops had been very quickly booked out. Clearly, the demand is there. We should be providing more access to parenting courses, leaflets and pamphlets, advice helplines and other community supports, not passing legislation such as this. Article 19 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child makes for interesting reading:

1. State parties shall take all appropriate legislative, administrative, social and educational measures to protect the child from all forms of physical or mental violence, injury or abuse, neglect or negligent treatment, maltreatment or exploitation, including sexual abuse, while in the care of parents, legal guardians or any other person who has the care of the child.

2. Such protective measures should, as appropriate, include effective procedures for the establishment of social programs to provide necessary support for the child and for those who have the care of the child, as well as for other forms of prevention and for identification, reporting, referral, investigation, treatment and follow-up of instances of child maltreatment described heretofore, and, as appropriate, for judicial involvement.

So, if you read the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, it would actually say that we ought not pass legislation such as this envisaged by Family First but, instead, put in the support mechanisms so it will not happen in the first instance. The bill's title refers to 'reasonable chastisement', but how does one define 'reasonable'? It is defined within the bill in vague and circular terms in clause 4 as follows:

conduct that lies within the limits of what would be generally accepted in the community as reasonable chastisement or correction of a child by a parent of the child, or a person in loco parentis of the child.

I wonder which community this is referring to. It may be that there is a fundamentalist Christian sect where there is agreement that hitting a child with a cane is reasonable. This is such a grey area, and the definition does nothing to assuage my fears about the bill and how it could be used to justify the unjustifiable. I indicate strong disapproval for the second reading of this bill, and it pains me that the Family First party has placed us in a position of even having to consider it.

I finish with what amounts to a meditation from Michael Leunig's book A Common Prayer, and he has titled this 'Love and Fear'. I invite members to consider the impact of smacking a defenceless child. Will it induce love in that child or fear and, if fear, what are the consequences of the emotional damage that results?

There are only two feelings. Love and fear.

There are only two languages. Love and fear.

There are only two activities. Love and fear.

There are only two motives, two procedures, two frameworks, two results.

Love and fear.

Love and fear.

Debate adjourned on motion of the Hon. I. Hunter.

[Sitting suspended from 18:01 to 19:45]