Elspeth McLean has been musing on school reunions, Katherine Rich and the Government's proposed anti-tagging legislation.
Perception, that strange and unreliable beast, has been preying on my mind as I prepare to attend a school reunion.
I hope I have a mature perception of those who will inevitably shriek that I haven't changed a bit. I will accept what they say and not be tempted to lecture them about my weight loss, the gain of varicose veins, the effect of motherhood and the demise of my husband.
Maybe I will be kinder about them now than I would have been 40 years ago. Perception can be like that - a movable feast.
Before her announcement she was not standing in the next election, my perception of Katherine Rich was not particularly positive. I rudely described her once as someone who had exhibited a great talent for shameless self-promotion.
I never understood why, after her differences with former National leader Don Brash, she was branded a liberal on social welfare when she had suggested the previous year that children's educational attendance should be linked to welfare eligibility for parents.
Had she in her cocooned existence met any parent (beneficiary or otherwise) of a kid who flatly refused to go to school?
How often had she tried to get a teenager to do something they were hell-bent on not doing or vice versa? I suppose starving the whole family might have led to compliance eventually, but it wouldn't be the way of a civilised country.
Maybe she was liberal on the subject of Don's alleged extra-marital affair, quoted as saying it demonstrated he had red blood flowing through his veins.
She voted for civil unions and was also refreshingly outspoken on the so-called anti-smacking legislation, but I still perceive her as a liberal with a very small ‘‘l'', possibly not big enough to be picked up by my reading glasses.
When she decided not to further her parliamentary career so she could spend more time with her young family, my perception of her as a person shifted, probably because I have long thought the notion women can work in high-pressure paid jobs 15 hours a day and have a wonderful family life is nonsense.
(Nor can men, though we tend not to hear too much about that.)
Knowing this is silly hasn't stopped many women feeling under pressure to try it and then suffering guilt when they fail.
Like many perceptions, it should be regularly submitted to a full bodycavity search.
I wish someone would do that to the Summary Offences (Tagging and Graffiti Vandalism) Amendment Bill.
The preamble to this wannabe piece of legislation describes ‘‘graffiti vandalism'' as ‘‘a serious problem that affects the entire country, and has a considerable impact on our public spaces.
Research suggests that graffiti vandalism can create the perception in the public that ‘tagged' areas are unsafe, and can contribute to the deterioration of the quality of life in certain neighbourhoods.''
Oh please. If we are going to start making laws about suggestive research and people's perceptions, whose will we choose?
Why not have legislation to cover the perception it is too unsafe for children to walk to school or catch a bus and make it mandatory for parents to deliver every child suitably secured in a four-wheel drive or face a fine or community service?
Sure, tagging must be annoying, but is it truly a serious problem affecting the whole country? Is it actually destructive? Does a fence or wall with graffiti on it still function as a fence or a wall? Does tagging physically hurt someone?
If this legislation gets through, it will make it an offence to write, draw, paint, spray, or etch on, or otherwise mark, any building, structure, road, tree, property, or other thing without lawful authority or the consent of the occupier or owner, or other person in lawful control.
The penalty will be a community-based sentence or a fine up to $2000, or both. Existing legislation only allows for a $200 maximum fine.
Will we get a bunch of vindictive parents taking their kids to court for etching their names in the family's furniture (I'm not bitter, truly), or disgruntled nutters questioning whether it's OK to write ‘‘Sausage Sizzle'' in chalk on the footpath?
I hope there will be bevies of busybodies hovering around every public toilet, tree, and post to make sure nobody etches anything clever or otherwise on to them.
It will be illegal to sell a spray can of anything to an under-18-year-old that contains paint, dye, ink or some other pigment. Such nasties must be secured by shopkeepers so that they can ensure those buying them are the correct age.
Does the Government mean the legislation to encompass spray-on hair colour? Who will make sure everyone is doing the right thing?
Someone clever clearly decided stopping the over-18 person from passing on spray cans to someone younger once outside the shop would have been silly, knowing how useless policing of laws on alcohol in this regard have been.
Is 18 somehow a magic age, after which taggers miraculously reform? It makes sense when you note how mature all 18-year-olds are in their attitude to booze, other drugs and sex.
Will banning the spray can merely pose a challenge for taggers? Remember how fast Rolf Harris could whip up a masterpiece with a four-litre can of paint and an ordinary old paintbrush?
My perception is that this is desperate election-year legislation. Perhaps the Government needs to follow Katherine Rich's example and create the perception that it has grown up.
- Elspeth McLean is a Dunedin writer.
