Royal  Commissioner Natasha Stott Despoja urges South Australia to end ‘double standard’ on parents smacking children, Herald Sun, 20th August 2025.

“Smacking should be outlawed to stop parents abusing their children under the guise of discipline, according to a landmark inquiry into family violence in South Australia.

Children have told of being beaten or kept like prisoners by parents or carers who argue it is necessary to “correct” their behaviour.

Now Royal Commissioner Natasha Stott Despoja, who heard their heartbreaking stories, has called for an end to this “double standard”.

Interestingly, a poll of 3528 voters was asked, “Do you support a smacking ban?”

19% said, “Yes”, and 81% said, “No”.

In Victoria, there are already a plethora of rules and legislation preventing any form of corporal punishment in a vast range of circumstances where children need to be disciplined, with one common denominator: corporal punishment cannot be delivered to a child unless by a parent or carer.

• Common law permits only “reasonable” physical punishment, meaning:
  • The child must be capable of understanding what they did wrong.
  • The force used must not be excessive or unjustifiable.
• If the punishment crosses into abuse or causes injury, it may be prosecuted under existing assault legislation.

The current laws are adequate and have stood the test of time. The exposure during this South Australian Royal Commission highlighted not a flaw in the legislation but in those who administer it.

Reportedly, there were shocking incidents of child abuse presented to the Royal Commission, but if they were as bad as alleged, then why weren’t the perpetrators prosecuted?

The risk of this move by the Royal Commissioner risks colliding with another legal principle, as young children cannot be reasonably assumed always to tell the truth or understand the possible consequences of untruths. Without some form of corroboration, there is a need for caution.

Within a domestic dispute situation, it cannot be ruled out that the corporal punishment issue will not be weaponised, with coaching from one or the other of the domestic combatants.

A move for legislation to be inserted in the parent-child relationship exposes the community to another legal principle.

It is better that ten guilty persons escape than one innocent suffer – William Blackstone, 1760, English jurist.

This principle is one of the cornerstones of democracy as we know it, and any interference must be viewed through that prism.

There is no question that children must be protected, and as a general principle, must be listened to; however, as with most criminality, the accuser must be supported by corroborative evidence.

Again, the problems appear to be with those who administer the law, not the law itself.

However, the major flaw in taking this approach is that the defences that currently exist for corporal punishment work as a deterrent;  the future without these guiding principles could have the opposite effect to that intended.

Parents who exercise corporal punishment outside the principles are not likely to comply with the legislation when they lose their temper, or are under the influence of alcohol or drugs, or are just belligerent in disciplining their children. The legislation in its current form is adequate to deal with these issues; it is more about how the law is administered, not the law itself.

We hear continually the whining of those in authority that the problem with miscreant children committing significant criminal offences, often against innocent victims, is parent-blaming. Perhaps the lack of discipline as a young child has a lot to do with it.

The courts, by not ensuring consequences for illegal behaviour, are a major contributor to the no consequence principle and, therefore, adverse outcomes for children and young people.

An unintended consequence of this move will remove any vestige of consequences for inappropriate behaviour, leading to more pain inflicted on the child as they grow to live in the real world without understanding that indiscretions come with sometimes very unpleasant consequences.

The ability for a child or young person to ‘Think twice’ before acting is lost.

The removal of the ability of a parent to physically discipline a child will sentence the child to convoluted lectures and verbal assaults, potentially causing much more damage to them than an appropriate tap on the backside to correct behaviour.

The psychological harm that is inflicted on young children can be more damaging than any smack, and a parent without parenting skills can cause irreparable damage by the use of verbal or non-verbal discipline incorrectly.

An experience where a mother in a supermarket with a misbehaving child entered into a rationalisation diatribe with the two-year-old to correct behaviour is a case in point. If that is the standard, the parent who adopts it will do more harm than good over the medium term.

The child was too young to understand, and being lectured to is highly probable a common experience with little weight given the child’s lack of reaction. Of course, the real shame is that the parent’s performance was perhaps more theatre for those around her, and the child suffers.

Perhaps removing the only method a parent can exercise within the given legal parameters of ‘reasonableness’ to discipline their child is the real hypocrisy, not the comparison with adult dysfunction.