THE defence available to parents of "reasonable chastisement" in disciplining their children belongs to the Victorian age in which it was created.

In former times, it was the same defence used by husbands to justify beating their wives. It should not apply to discriminate against the most vulnerable individuals of our society.

In the 21st century there should be in place legislation which provides children the same legal protection from violence given to adults.

As such, reform of the law on smacking is long overdue.

The difficult issue facing Parliament is whether to outlaw smacking altogether or tolerate "mild" punishment.

We accept that even the most excellent and most loving parents are prone, on occasion, to raising a hand to their children. But that does not necessarily make such action appropriate.

We also accept that enforcement of a ban on smacking would be difficult to achieve. But laws are not exclusively for enforcement, but sometimes for guidance. Traffic laws, for example, are as much about promoting road safety as hauling errant drivers before the courts.

Given the scale of the opposition to the ban on smacking, it is perhaps wise for Parliament to opt for the half-way house, if only as a means to repeal the prevailing legislation which is patently defective.

In addition, no-one wants to see well-intentioned parents criminalised.

However, it is imperative that the anachronistic parental defence no longer applies.

It is important that parliamentary laws define the bounds of reasonable behaviour, and, in this instance, raise questions about the need to smack children and, hopefully, deter them from doing so.