Yes, it seems there have been enough signatures collected to force a referendum on the smacking law. This is a good thing and yet I'm not completely happy.
In the first place, it seems they're not going to hold the referendum in tandem with this year's General Election and instead hold a postal ballot next year; the reason?
That recommendation [by Justice Minister Annette King] refers to the experience of 1999, when two referendums were held with the general election, causing long delays in vote-counting, confusion among voters, and congestion at polling booths.
Ms King last night dismissed calls to hold the referendum earlier.
I voted in 1999 and answered the referendum questions and I can't remember any confusion or backlog of people. This is simply another two-pronged tactic by the Government to delay or water down the referendum.
One: they don't want the question put to voters this year as it will lose Labour votes - a good 70% of the country didn't want the law changed, as evidenced by polls taken in the media.
Two: a postal ballot next year? If a question is put in front of someone who is there voting in an election anyway then we'll get a more accurate response as there will be more people answering the question. How many people are going to take the time to post a ballot question back? I would, of course, but aren't there a lot of people who wouldn't bother?
The next thing that bothers me is John Key's response -
But even if the law gets a harsh review from the public, it could remain unchanged regardless of who leads the next government.
Mr Key last night said he felt the law was working.
"We think the compromise amendment has allowed the law to operate better than it would have otherwise.
"Our position is that we're not going to change the law unless we see evidence it's not working."
Hello? The politicians work for US, we don't work for THEM. If a majority of the country feels strongly about a certain issue and that feeling is made apparent by a public vote, isn't it their duty to seriously consider changing the law back? And he thinks the law is working? How? Have we seen less children being beaten or abused? Not judging by what we see in the media. The law change hasn't done a damn thing, except to put fear into the hearts of good parents.