EPOCH (Tasmania) Oration
30 April 2010
Spare the rod and the child - the case for a total ban on the physical punishment
of children in Australia
Introduction
“THE SMACK: Is it coming back?” was the headline of an article published in Canberra
in February this year. The journalist Kathryn Vulovljak commenced the article with this
paragraph:1
“A properly applied smack, when the child understands they are doing wrong and
is still defiant, can be in their best interests, says one expert, but there is no
doubt that smacking is violence, counters another. So what is a parent to do?”
I would like you to take a moment to reflect on your own experience of discipline as a
child. Were you hit? If so, how did you feel at the time? What about your own
experience of discipline if you have been a parent or have had responsibility for the care
of children? Have you hit a child? If so, how did you feel at the time? Was it effective?
If you want to have an interesting discussion with your friends, ask them about their
memories of physical punishment in childhood. I did this with 11 friends in their 40s or
early 50s a few years ago. Let me tell you of some of our experiences. While one was
never hit, the rest of us were. While one was hit with an implement, the rest of us
weren’t. While one was hit up to 2 weeks later when her father who travelled for work
returned home, the rest of us were hit immediately. While one believed that she was hit
out of love, the rest of us experienced some level of fear of our parents.
The international movement that has provided the political impetus for the total ban on
the physical punishment of children in a growing number of countries has largely been
unnoticed by Australian legislators, the Australian community and Australian churches.
Let me give you three examples.
First, what about the differences in legislation relating to the physical punishment of
children? There are now 25 countries in the world where all physical punishment of
children is prohibited by legislation.2 Yet, in Australia while the physical punishment of
children is largely prohibited in schools, correction institutions, and alternate care
situations, it is not banned in the home.
Second, what about the differences in community attitudes to the physical punishment of
children? The acceptability of physical punishment in Sweden, where it has been
prohibited since 1979, decreased from 53% in 1965 to 10% in 1999.3 Yet in October last
year a nationwide online poll in Australia showed that 93% of the more than 8,000
1
CityNews, February 11-17, at 3.
Austria, Bulgaria, Costa Rica, Croatia, Cyprus, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Greece,
Hungary, Iceland, Israel, Latvia, Luxembourg, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway,
Portugal, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Spain, Sweden, Ukraine, Uruguay and
Venezuela.
3
Joan Durrant (1999), ‘Evaluating the success of Sweden’s corporal punishment ban’,
Child Abuse & Neglect, vol 21, 435-448 quoted in Bernadette J Saunders and Chris
Goddard, Physical Punishment in Childhood: The Rights of the Child, Chichester: WileyBlackwell, 2010, at 36.
2
2
respondents backed a parent’s right to smack their child.4 This poll was conducted in
response to a report in The Herald Sun that officers of the Department of Human
Services of Victoria gave an official warning to a mother, who had smacked her daughter
with a wooden spoon, that any further occurrences would lead to her being charged with
assault with a weapon.
Third, what about the differences in religious beliefs relating to the physical punishment
of children? In January 2008 the Bishops’ Conference of Norway supported the removal
of language used to justify physical punishment of children from new translations of the
Bible in Norway.5 Yet, in my own church, the Anglican Church of Australia, a proposal in
May 2007 to bring to the national church parliament a motion that the Commonwealth,
State and Territory Governments declare their opposition to all physical punishment of
children and set a timetable for its elimination was withdrawn due to lack of support.
I believe that the physical punishment of children should be totally banned in Australia. I
appreciate the opportunity that this EPOCH (Tasmania) Oration gives me to advance the
case for a total ban. I speak to you as a lawyer, citizen and a Christian and will address
this issue from legal, utilitarian and religious perspectives.
I also speak to you today as one, who as a child was hit and who as a parent
occasionally hit my four children. As a parent I felt uneasy at the time and regret that I
sought to discipline my children in this manner. While I do not believe that I caused
them any lasting damage, I hit them when I was frustrated and angry. There were a
couple of occasions when I was so angry that I realised there was a fine line between
restraint and being a child basher. I suspect that some of you and many other parents
have had the same experience.
What is the legal position in Australia regarding the physical punishment of
children?
In addressing the physical punishment of children from a legal perspective, my view is
that the law in all Australian jurisdictions relating to the discipline of children sanctions
the assault of children by parents and violates international law. I want to discuss three
issues: what is physical punishment? what is the law in Australia? what are the
principles of international law?
What is physical punishment?
The euphemisms “spanking” and “smacking” appeared in the 19th century in the diaries
of the American novelist Louisa Alcott. Prior to that, the word “whipping” was probably
an umbrella term for various means of physical punishment, with or without an
implement.6
The Herald Sun, 15 October 2009.
The news release entitled Norway: Church supports Bible rethink on corporal
punishment can be found on the Child Rights Information Network website at
http://www.crin.org/resources/infodetail.asp?id=16217 (viewed on 23 February 2008). In
its statement the Bishops’ Conference said:
“Today the word ’chastisement’ has acquired a meaning that differs from its original
intended meaning. In modern Norwegian usage, the word ’chastisement’ is virtually
synonymous with corporal punishment. Today this word is unsuitable for reflecting what
is involved when the Bible speaks of parents’ responsibility to raise and guide their
children.”
6
Physical Punishment in Childhood, at 7.
4
5
3
Today there is confusion about the meaning of the expression “physical punishment”
and its relationship to “physical abuse”, “corporal punishment”, “lawful correction”,
“discipline”, and “violence”. Recent Australian research indicates that framing physical
punishment as “discipline” and “lawful correction” rather than violence or assault serves
to enhance its normality and acceptability.7
The Committee on the Rights of the Child, which has been established under the
auspices of the United Nations, has defined “corporal” or “physical” punishment. The
essence of the definition is “any punishment in which physical force is used and intended
to cause some degree of pain or discomfort, however light. Most involves hitting …
children, with the hand or with an implement ….”8
It is important to remember that physical punishment is distinct from protective physical
restraint. Whereas physical punishment involves causing the child to experience pain as
a form of punishment, protective physical restraint involves the use of physical force to
protect the child from physical pain or harm. Examples of protective physical restraint
include holding a child to prevent them from running onto a busy street, pulling a child’s
hand away from a hot stove, or holding a child who has hurt another child to prevent
them from doing so again.9
There is also a different perspective between adults and children. In a recent English
study the researchers said that while adults equated “smacking” with a “gentle tap” or a
“loving slap”, children said “smacking” was “hitting”.10
What is the law in Australia?
The law regulating the physical punishment of children in all Australian jurisdictions is
derived from the common law. In his Commentaries on the Laws of England published
in 1765 William Blackstone said:11
“The husband also … might give his wife moderate correction … in the same
moderation that a man is allowed to correct his servants or children.”
The common law defence of “reasonable chastisement” or “lawful correction” was
articulated in 1860 by Lord Chief Justice Cockburn in the English case of R v Hopley:12
“By the law of England, a parent or a schoolmaster (who for this purpose
represents the parent and has the parental authority delegated to him), may for
the purpose of correcting what is evil in the child, inflict moderate and reasonable
corporal punishment, … If it be administered for the gratification of passion or of
7
Physical Punishment in Childhood, at 124.
Committee on the Rights of the Child (2006), General Comment No. 8 (2006): The right
of the child to protection from corporal punishment and other cruel or degrading forms of
punishment (arts. 19; 28, para. 2; and 37, inter alia), paragraph 11.
9
Elizabeth T Gershoff, Report on Physical Punishment in the U.S.: What Research Tells
Us About Its Effects on Children (2007), page 9.
10
Willow, C. and Hyder, T. (1998) It Hurts you Inside: Children Talking about Smacking.
London: National Children’s Bureau Enterprises, quoted in Physical Punishment in
Childhood, at 7.
11
William Blackstone (1979) Commentaries on the Laws of England – A Facsimile of the
First edition of 1765-1769, chapter XV, Chicago: University of Chicago Press quoted in
Physical Punishment in Childhood, at 33.
12
R v Hopley (1860) 2 F. & F. 202 at 206 [175 E.R.] 1024 at 1026] quoted in Physical
Punishment in Childhood, at 28-29.
8
4
rage, or if it be immoderate and excessive in its nature or degree or if it be
protracted beyond the child’s powers of endurance, or with an instrument unfitted
for the purpose … the violence is unlawful.”
The common law defence was further clarified in 1955 in the Victorian case of R v Terry
where Justice Scholl instructed the jury that the punishment should be “moderate and
reasonable”, should be judged in relation to “the age, physique and mentality of the
child” and should “be carried out with a reasonable means or instrument”.13 Also
relevant is the timing between the misbehaviour and punishment and the repetition or
continuity of the punishment.14
In Australia the States and Territories have legislative authority over the physical
punishment of children. There is a difference between the jurisdictions of New South
Wales, Victoria, South Australia, and the Australian Capital Territory where the criminal
law is the common law as modified by statute, and the jurisdictions of Queensland,
Tasmania, Western Australia, and the Northern Territory where the criminal law is
contained in a code. There are different laws regulating physical punishment according
to where it is administered, whether in homes, schools, correction institutions, or
alternate care situations. Physical punishment of children is largely prohibited in
schools, correction institutions, and alternate care situations. So far as physical
punishment in the home, in Victoria, South Australia, and the Australian Capital Territory
the common law defence of reasonable chastisement applies. In New South Wales, the
common law has been modified by statute so that in most situations the application of
physical force to any part of the head or neck of a child is prohibited. In Queensland,
Tasmania, Western Australia, and the Northern Territory, it is lawful for a parent, or a
person in the place of a parent, to use, by way of correction, any force towards a child in
their care that is reasonable in the circumstances.15
There are significant problems with the current law. What justification can there be for a
law which says hitting a woman is assault, while hitting a child is discipline? Why should
a person be liable if they hit an animal, but not if they hit a child? What justification can
there be for a law which prohibits the physical punishment of children in schools,
correction institutions, and alternate care situations, but permits it by parents?
The law offers no guide to parents on what level of physical punishment of their children
is acceptable. Given an apparent lack of community consensus on what, if any, actions
constitute reasonable assault of children, the “reasonableness” test is problematic.16
Australian courts have held that “cricket bats, cricket stumps and fists” are “reasonable
instruments” with which to punish.17 Between 2006 and 2007 there were 134 cases of
excessive discipline in Queensland. In 80 cases, “sticks, belts, brooms, kitchen utensils,
pieces of hose’ and “cattle prods” were used. In 85 cases, children were “hit around the
13
R v Terry [1955] VLR 114 at 116.
See the cases referred to in Tasmanian Law Reform Institute (2003) Physical
Punishment of Children, at 8.
15
The law of each of the States and Territories is summarised on the Global Initiative to
End All Corporal Punishment of Children which can be found on its website at
http://www.endcorporalpunishment.org/pages/frame.html (viewed on 28 February 2008).
16
Physical Punishment in Childhood, at 30.
17
Adele Horin ‘The door slammed on child discipline’, The Sydney Morning Herald, 10
June 1995, quoted in Physical Punishment in Childhood, at 44.
14
5
head” and in 13 they were “punched and kicked”.18 Prosecutions are difficult even in
cases of apparently serious child abuse.19
The law as to defence of “reasonable chastisement” or “lawful correction” was developed
in an era in which children were commonly viewed as property and innately bad. It is
anomalous that while there have been profound changes in views about the nature of
children over the last century, there has been no significant change in the law.20
What are the principles of international law?
The physical punishment of children is a breach of fundamental human rights. The
principle that children should be protected from physical punishment is set forth in six
multilateral human rights treaties.21
Article 19 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child requires States to 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 parent(s), legal guardian(s) or any other person who
has the care of the child.”
In 2006, the Committee on the Rights of the Child issued a General Comment, the
strongest type of statement it can make, in which it stated explicitly that physical
punishment is a form of “legalized violence against children” that is prohibited by Article
19 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child and thus should be eliminated through
“legislative, administrative, social and educational measures.”22
The Convention on the Rights of the Child was ratified by Australia on 17 December
1990, but has not been given statutory force in any Commonwealth, State or Territory
legislation.
There are now 25 states worldwide, including 19 in Europe, where all physical
punishment of children is prohibited by legislation. There are a further 17 countries
committed to total prohibition, including in the home.23 In 2007 New Zealand became
the first English speaking state to achieve the prohibition of physical punishment,
including within the family home.
M Wenham, ‘Weapons used on children’, The Courier Mail, 18 December 2008.
Tasmanian Law Reform Institute (2003) Physical Punishment of Children, at 3.
20
Physical Punishment in Childhood, at 15-20.
21
The United Nations – the Convention on the Rights of the Child; the International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights; the International Covenant on Economic, Social
and Cultural Rights; the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or
Degrading Treatment or Punishment; the American Convention on Human Rights; and
the European Social Charter.
22
General Comment No. 8, paragraph 18.
23
Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Bhutan, Brazil, Czech Republic, Estonia, Ireland, Lithuania,
Maldives, Pakistan, Peru, Poland, Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Sri Lanka and Taiwan as
set out in Global Report 2009 of the Global Initiative to End All Corporal Punishment of
Children which can be found on its website at
http://www.endcorporalpunishment.org/pages/pdfs/reports/GlobalReport2009.pdf
(viewed on 3 April 2010).
18
19
6
Judgments of the European Commission on Human Rights and European Court of
Human Rights have emphasised that rights to private or family life or to freedom of
religious belief cannot be used as relevant arguments to reject banning all corporal
punishment.24
Is physical punishment an effective method of discipline of children?
An appeal is made to utilitarian theory to justify the physical punishment of children
because it actually corrects or improves children’s behaviour.25 Recent Australian
research indicates that some parents think that physically punishing children can
effectively inhibit the repetition of the punished behaviour.26 People who received
physical punishment as children may be more inclined than other people to use physical
punishment on their own children.27
For most of us perception is reality. I want to challenge the utilitarian theory underlying
the widespread support in the Australian community for the physical punishment of
children by discussing four issues: what is the current research as to its effectiveness?
what risks of physical harm are associated with its use? why is it not effective as a
discipline technique? what has been the effect in countries where it has been prohibited?
What is the current research as to its effectiveness
The empirical findings on the short-term effectiveness of physical punishment in
achieving child compliance are mixed. The research to date also indicates that physical
punishment does not promote long-term, internalised compliance. In recent studies
conducted around the world, physical punishment has been associated with more
physical aggression, verbal aggression, physical fighting and bullying, antisocial
behaviour, and behaviour problems generally.28 The American researcher Elizabeth
Gershoff has drawn the following conclusion from these studies:
“contrary to parents’ goals when using it, the more parents use physical
punishment, the more disobedient and aggressive their children will be.29”
In a recent Australian study, children recognized that physical punishment demonstrated
violent means of resolving conflict and could encourage children to avoid it by not getting
caught or lying rather than by adopting better behaviour. Children could also forsee that
milder physical punishment might also inevitably escalate in intensity given its limited
effectiveness, particularly as children grow older and bigger.30
What risks of physical harm are associated with its use?
Because physical punishment involves hitting or otherwise hurting children, there is an
inherent risk that children can be injured by their parents. This risk is increased when
physical punishment is administered in the heat of the moment by a person who is
angry. Research has consistently shown that most physical abuse takes place in
24
Updated Issue Paper, Council of Europe Commissioner of Human Rights.
Physical Punishment in Childhood, at 32-33.
26
Physical Punishment in Childhood, at 111.
27
See the various studies quoted in Physical Punishment in Childhood, at 168
28
Report on Physical Punishment in the U.S., at 13-14, which refers to studies in
Canada, China, India, Italy, Kenya, Norway, Philippines, Thailand, Singapore, and the
United States; see also the studies quoted in Physical Punishment in Childhood, at 110.
29
Report on Physical Punishment in the U.S., at 15.
30
Physical Punishment in Childhood, at 117.
25
7
situations where caregivers attempt to correct children's behavior or to "teach them a
lesson."31
In the report of the official inquiry into the death of Victoria Climbié, an eight year old
child who died in a London hospital in February 2000 of injuries after months of abuse,
Lord Laming, the Chairman, commented that “a major context” for the child’s abuse was
“discipline and punishment. … Victoria’s abuse began with little smacks” and her “great
aunt told the inquiry that there was nothing wrong with smacking”.32
A recent study of the University of New South Wales found that in the 15 years before
2001, 437 children aged 15 and below were murdered in Australia. More than one-third
of those Australian homicides were identified as fatal child abuse. The report claims:
“More lives could be saved by measures that reduce the incidence of child
abuse, including the prohibition of corporal punishment of children.”33
A leading authority on child discipline, Professor Joan Durrant, from Canada’s University
of Manitoba, has said:
“The evidence is so stark. If you make it unacceptable for an adult to hit a child,
as it is now unacceptable for husbands to hit their wives, the rates of violence
against children decline.”34
Why is it not effective as a discipline technique?
Researchers have offered the following seven explanations for why physical punishment
is likely to have few intended positive effects and many unintended negative effects:







it does not teach children why their behavior was wrong or what they should do
instead;
It can interfere with the children’s internalisation of parents’ disciplinary message;
it teaches children that they should behave in desired ways because if not they
will be punished, not because it is the right thing to do;
it models for children that it is acceptable to use aggression to get their way;
it can increase the likelihood that children will behave aggressively in social
interactions;
it may cause children to be afraid of their parents;
it may teach children to link violence with loving relationships.35
Joan Durrant says that smacking teaches children violence is okay:
31
Report on Physical Punishment in the U.S., at 18.
The report of the Victoria Climbié Inquiry can be found online at
http://www.dh.gov.uk/prod_consum_dh/groups/dh_digitalassets/documents/digitalasset/
dh_110711.pdf (viewed on 27 April 2010); quoted in Physical Punishment in Childhood,
at 104.
33
Good Weekend, 13 March 2010, at16.
34
Good Weekend, 13 March 2010, at 16.
35
Report on Physical Punishment in the U.S., at 19. Similar conclusions were reached
in the Joint Statement on Physical Punishment of Children and Youth by the Coalition on
Physical Punishment of Children and Youth, a national partnership of Canadian
organizations concerned with the well-being of children and their families (2004), at 8.
32
8
“If we don’t want our children to swear, we don’t swear in front of them ... But for
some reason we think that if we hit them, they won’t learnt to hit. I don’t
understand the logic here.”36
What has been the effect in countries where it has been prohibited?
The first country to ban all forms of physical punishment of children was Sweden in
1979. The report Never Violence – Thirty Years on from Sweden’s Abolition of Corporal
Punishment published in 200937 reviewed its impact and explained its results. Data
provided by parents after 2000 suggests that the number of children who are smacked is
just a few per cent; and that those who are smacked experience this less often and only
rarely with implements. While cases of suspected assault reported to the police have
increased since the 1980’s, this increase reflects that tolerance of assaults on children
has decreased. Contrary to what the law’s critics predicted in 1979, the proportion of
reported assaults that are prosecuted has not increased. There has been a decrease in
youth crime since the mid-1990s.
In New Zealand, claims during the passage of the legislation in May 2007 that it would
result in parents being taken from the homes and prosecuted for “lightly” smacking their
children have not materialised.38 A two year review of police activity showed that of the
1063 cases of child assaults reported to the police 36 involved smacking. There was
only one prosecution for smacking which was subsequently withdrawn.39
What is the validity of religious justifications for the physical punishment of
children?
As a Christian I have had to think through this issue from the perspective of my faith. My
views are my own. The Anglican Church has no official view on this issue. Some of the
most strident voices supporting the right of parents to hit their children are fellow
Christians who rely on passages from the Bible supporting their views. I want to
challenge the view that the physical punishment of children can be justified from either
the Old Testament, which Christianity shares with Judaism, or the New Testament by
discussing two issues: what is the traditional religious rationale? is there a religious
perspective which supports its prohibition?
What is the traditional religious rationale?
For centuries, Protestant Christians have been among the most ardent advocates of
physical punishment of children. The King James version of the Bible has provided
fundamental texts that have served successive generations as primary guides to
childrearing and to discipline.40 Ironically, “spare the rod and spoil the child”, the
36
Good Weekend, 13 March 2010, page 16.
The report can be found online at
http://www.endcorporalpunishment.org/pages/pdfs/NeverViolenceSweden2009.pdf
(viewed on 3 April 2010).
38
The report can be found on the Television New Zealand website at
http://tvnz.co.nz/view/page/1517442 (viewed on 27 February 2008).
39
The review can be found on the New Zealand Police website at
http://www.police.govt.nz/sites/default/files/resources/latest/s59%202%20yr%20web%20
report%20final.pdf (viewed on 3 April 2010).
40
Philip Greven, Spare the Child: The Religious Roots of Punishment and the
Psychological Impact of Physical Abuse (New York: Vintage Books, 1992), at 46.
37
9
aphorism commonly used by Christians to express their commitment to the physical
punishment of children, does not come from the Bible at all.41
In the Old Testament, God’s punishments provide the paradigm for the parental
discipline of children. One example is God’s message through the prophet Nathan to
King David. God says:
“14: I will be his father, and he shall be my son. If he commit iniquity, I will
chasten him with the rod of men, and with the stripes of the children of men: 15:
But my mercy shall not depart away from him, …“ (2 Samuel 7:14-15)
This model is most explicit in the Book of Proverbs. The writer says:42
“24: He that spareth his rod hateth his son: but he that loveth him chasteneth him
betimes.” (13:24)
The key text in the New Testament cited in favour of harsh physical punishment of
children is Hebrews 12:6-7:43
“6: For whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth, and scourgeth every son whom he
receiveth. 7: If ye endure chastening, God dealeth with you as with sons; for what
son is he whom the father chasteneth not?”
Studies of parenting practices in America have shown that Catholics, Protestants and
Jews alike cite the Old Testament as support for their use of physical punishment.
Conservative Protestant parents consistently report using physical punishment more
than parents of other religious affiliations, which appears to be an extension of their
The aphorism is from Samuel Butler’s poem “Hudibras” (1664).
Other passages from the Book of Proverbs are:
“11: My son, despise not the chastening of the LORD; neither be weary of his correction:
12: For whom the LORD loveth he correcteth; even as a father the son in whom he
delighteth.” (3:11-12)
“13: Withhold not correction from the child: for if thou beatest him with the rod, he shall
not die. 14: Thou shalt beat him with the rod, and shalt deliver his soul from hell.” (23:1314)
“15: The rod and reproof give wisdom: but a child left to himself bringeth his mother to
shame.” (29:15)
41
42
43
The New Testament also includes the following verses (New Revised Standard
Version):
“Fathers, do not provoke your children, or they may lose heart.” (Colossians 3:21)
“And, fathers, do not provoke your children to anger, but bring them up in the discipline
and instruction of the Lord.” (Ephesians 6:4)
“But we were gentle among you, like a nurse tenderly caring for her own children.” (1
Thessalionans 2:7b)
“Now, discipline always seems painful rather than pleasant at the time, but later it yields
the peaceful fruit of righteousness to those who have been trained by it. (Hebrews
12:11)
“I reprove and discipline those whom I love.” (Revelation 3:19a)
10
beliefs in human nature as evil, human sins as requiring punishment, and the Bible as an
infallible guide for parenting practices.44
These beliefs have been codified in conservative parenting advice books that advocate
the use of physical punishment to ensure children’s obedience to authority. Roy Lessin,
in his book Spanking: Why, When, How?, says:
“Spanking is God’s idea. He is the one who commanded parents to spank their
children as an expression of love. Spanking is not optional. It is an issue love
cannot compromise. The question we face as parents is this: do we love God
enough to obey Him, and do we love our children enough to bring into their lives
the correction of spanking when it is needed.”45
Larry Christenson, in his book The Christian Family, says:
“The Scriptural method of discipline is simple and unequivocal: the rod.”46
and James Dobson, author of Dare to Discipline, recommends that parents use
“spankings” to control and suppress their children’s wilfulness and rebelliousness.47
Is there a religious perspective which supports its prohibition?
The traditional understanding of texts in the Bible that have been used to justify the
physical punishment of children has come under recent challenge.
During 2007 the South African Council of Churches, supported by Save the Children,
produced Religions, the Promotion of Positive Discipline and the Abolition of Corporal
Punishment explaining the religious arguments against corporal punishment.48 The
authors argue that discipline, in the New Testament, is never intended as an act of
retribution or punishment. Instead its intentions are focused on teaching and guiding the
disciple to act appropriately as a human being with supreme dignity. The “rod” as it
refers to discipline should be seen figuratively as a “rod of correction” rather than a literal
instrument of pain, suffering and retribution. The New Testament does not record one
occasion in which Jesus used violence as a way to relate to people, or as a form of
discipline, let alone in his treatment of children.
During the debate in May 2007 in New Zealand to amend the law by repealing the
defence of reasonable force being used by an adult in disciplining a child, the Bishops of
the Anglican Church released a statement supporting this amendment.49 They said:
Elizabeth Thompson Gershoff, Pamela C Miller, George W Holden, (1999), ‘Parenting
influences from the pulpit: Religious affiliation as a determinant of parental corporal
punishment’, Journal of Family Psychology, vol 13, 307 at 308.
45
Roy Lessin, Spanking: Why, When, How? (Minneapolis: Bethany House Publishers,
1979), at 30.
46
Larry Christenson, The Christian Family (Minneapolis: Bethany House Publishers,
1979), at 98.
47
James Dobson, Dare to Discipline (Wheaton, Illinois: Tyndale House; and Glendale,
California: Regal Books, 1970), at 13.
48
The document can be found on the Churches’ Network for Non-violence website at
http://www.churchesfornonviolence.org/Religions%20and%20the%20Promotion%20of%20Positive%20Parenting.p
df (viewed on 27 February 2008).
49
The statement was signed by 15 Bishops. The three Fiji-based bishops in the Diocese
of Polynesia were not part of the forming of this statement. The statement of the Bishops
44
11
“As Christians, our primary role model is Jesus Christ. As fallible humans, we
struggle with issues of power and authority, and with their use or misuse. In the
face of the abuse of power, Christ brings freedom, forgiveness, compassion,
mercy, and ultimately self-sacrifice. The way of Jesus was one of non-violence.
He declined to sanction violent punishment against offenders, preferring instead
to look to the root causes of ill behaviour and to offer people a new start. This is
how we must relate to our children.
“As Christians, our reading of the Bible must always be done through the lens of
Christ’s teaching and life. There has been a lot of talk about ‘Spare the rod and
spoil the child’, an attitude that can be sanctioned by scriptural proof-texts …
“However, it is inappropriate to take such texts out of their ancient cultural
context, and out of the broader context of Scripture, so as to justify modes of
behaviour in a modern situation very different from that for which they were
given. Such texts need to be read in the light of the way Christ responded to
children, placing them in the middle of the group with respect and care, as in
Mark 9: 37: ‘Whoever welcomes one such child in my name welcomes me’.”
Coupled with this new understanding has been a growing recognition by different
religions that the physical punishment of children is wrong. For example, in August 2006
the World Conference of Religions for Peace at Kyoto, Japan, comprising over 800
Buddhist, Christian, Hindu, Jain, Jew, Muslim, Sikh, Shinto, and Zoroastrian and
Indigenous leaders, endorsed a declaration entitled “A Multi-Religious Commitment to
Confront Violence against Children”. It called on governments:
“to adopt legislation to prohibit all forms of violence against children, including
corporal punishment, and to ensure the full rights of children consistent with the
Convention on the Rights of the Child and other international and regional
agreements. We urge them to establish appropriate mechanisms to ensure the
effective implementation of these laws and to ensure that religious communities
participate formally in these mechanisms”.50
The way forward
What is the way forward? I advocate the passing of legislation in all States and
Territories to prohibit the physical punishment of children. Legislation is necessary to
ensure that children have the same rights to physical integrity and protection from
assault as adults. However, legislation alone will not be sufficient. Our Australian
community needs to give greater recognition to the important and difficult role that
parents play in nurturing and contributing to the development of children. Governments
should provide all parents with non-stigmatised support and education that will enhance
every parent’s parenting practices.51 A ban without education as to other discipline
methods of children and resourcing of their parents, guardians and carers is bound to
fail.
can be found on the Anglican Church in Aotearoa, New Zealand and Polynesia website
online at http://justice.anglican.org.nz/news/anglican-bishops-support-repeal-of-section59/ (viewed on 27 February 2008).
50
The declaration can be found on the Churches’ Network for Non-violence website at
http://www.churchesfornon-violence.org/Violence%20Against%20Children-FINAL.pdf
(viewed on 27 February 2008).
51
Physical Punishment in Childhood, at 232.
12
Conclusion
In conclusion, I would like to refer to the comments of two persons who have been
prominent in the campaign to protect children from physical punishment. In 2007 Nobel
Laureate Archbishop Emeritus Desmond Tutu said:
“Violence begets violence and we shall reap a whirlwind. Children can be
disciplined without violence that instils fear and misery, … If we really want a
peaceful and compassionate world, we need to build communities of trust where
all children are respected, where home and school are safe places to be and
where discipline is taught by example. May God give us grace to love our
children as He loves them and may their trust in us lead them to trust in Him.”52
In 2009 Maud de Boer-Buquuicchio, Deputy Secretary General of the Council of Europe,
said:
“It is striking to see … how adults perceive the concepts of rights related to
children: they will systematically speak about the rights of their child, when in
reality what they have in mind, are their rights over the child. This is not a
question of semantics. There is a sea of difference between the two concepts,
and it is this distinction which is also at the heart of the animated debate in some
European countries, provoked by the Council of Europe’s campaign to abolish
corporal punishment of children.”53
Are we as concerned citizens ready to take up this challenge? Instead of their current
inaction, let us persuade our elected representatives and fellow citizens that there
should be a total ban on the physical punishment of children in the context of a properly
resourced education programme to equip parents, guardians and carers to effectively
discipline children in their care.
30 April 2010
Garth Blake
52
Global Report 2007 of the Global Initiative to End All Corporal Punishment of Children
which can be found on its website at
http://www.endcorporalpunishment.org/pages/pdfs/reports/GlobalReport2007.pdf
(viewed on 28 February 2008).
53
Global Report 2009 of the Global Initiative to End All Corporal Punishment of Children
which can be found on its website at
http://www.endcorporalpunishment.org/pages/pdfs/reports/GlobalReport2009.pdf
(viewed on 3 April 2010).