To smack or not to smack: Is that really the question?

The act of smacking children has evolved over the past few years into a debate over whether it's an essential and effective form of discipline, or simply a less obvious form of physical and psychological abuse.

Decades ago, children received the whip at school if they did the wrong thing. This was not only accepted by the parents as a way of teaching the kid right and wrong in the school environment, but a necessary aspect of making sure a child knows who is boss. Not to say this form of punishment should be re-introduced (it shouldn't), but somewhere along the line, a bright spark decided that somehow the "damage" done to a child that has been given the occasional little whack on the lower half of the body equated to consistently beating them black and blue. It has become such a frowned upon act that parents who do it today feel horribly guilty afterwards.

In 2007, the Howard government offered $2.5 million dollars worth of funding to support an "anti-smacking" campaign. The whole idea is built around the belief that being smacked plants a mental seed in the child's mind that violence is an acceptable form of communication. One has to honestly ask though, in most cases, would anyone who has been smacked necessarily become a violent person through that experience alone? It's doubtful. Witnessing and experiencing brutal abuse of any kind for many years, on the other hand, is a different story - and so we are talking degrees here, rather than the act itself. When did a smack become "violent"?

The other key campaign tagline dictates that smacking undermines a child's feeling of "love and security" - but what if the parent sits down with the child afterwards and explains their actions, followed by a kiss and a cuddle? Doesn't the child then realise that sometimes their actions have not so pleasant consequences? That Mum and Dad still love them despite the things they do wrong? The whole problem is that judging parents who smack have been unfair. Shouldn't a parent have the right to use this form of discipline if they genuinely believe there is no other option and it will help, not hurt their child in the long run?

On a personal note, as a child I remember clearly feeling the sting of my mother's hand on my backside, or leg. It didn't happen often at all, but funnily enough I remember those times not with fear but with respect. I knew I had done the wrong thing, and to avoid that horrible red hand mark in the future, I thought twice before going down that path again. Even to this day, I respect my parents so much more for letting me know where the line in the sand was with them.

A few years ago, my friend was having a hard time controlling her son who was going through the terrible twos. "I've tried everything," she had complained to me over the phone. "I've sent him to the corner, I've taken away his toys, and I've raised my voice - nothing." Not surprisingly, with a newborn baby also on the scene, she lost her cool completely one day. Reasoning with a two year old was simply not working. She gave him a rather good smack on the thigh. After he'd stopped quietly whimpering, suddenly the commands to pick up his toys, be nicer to guests, say please and "ta", started being heard. As a five year old now and just started school, he is a generally well behaved and respectful kid. The occasional smack has certainly done him no harm.

This issue is timely in that yet another sad story has emerged of the Department of Community Services' failing to act when appropriate, and acting too swiftly when not. The removal of four children from their guardians because of one smack on the behind was one of those stories you had to read twice to make sure your eyes weren't deceiving you. Children can be in homes where they genuinely are being abused and mistreated, yet the system seems to fail to help them. Instances like this do nothing to help parents who believe that smacking is a sometimes necessary and perfectly reasonable form of discipline. Now they will only feel more shame.