Dying is inevitable and, so it seems, is it costing a lot, writes Stewart Sowman-Lund in today’s extract from The Bulletin.
To receive The Bulletin in full each weekday, sign up here.
The cost of dying
Last year for The Spinoff, I reported on how rising inflation was causing concerns about “funeral poverty”. We’ve spent four years in a global cost of living crisis, with consistent attention on the price of groceries, petrol and other everyday expenses (even, as we discussed last Friday, airfares). But, though less talked about, dealing with the death of a loved one is also something experienced by families every single day. And it’s expensive. Stuff’s Brianna McIlraith reported on the latest figures around the cost of burials and cremations last week, noting that prices had continued to rise over the past 12 months, even as the wider economy started to improve. In New Plymouth, for example, it could cost over $7,200 for a burial. There are some helpful charts in this story on The Spinoff by Shanti Mathias that break down the cost of dying by region, while the latest in our cost of being series (helpfully retitled the cost of dying) puts it starkly.
Rachel Benns, president of the Funeral Directors Association, told me last year that 98% of cemeteries are council owned and therefore affected by land costs. The Spinoff’s Alex Casey has written previously about growing interest in alternative and more eco-friendly options for after death, and this morning she has an interesting piece on water cremation. But while these alternatives may one day be more commonplace, for now, most people are forced to choose between a cremation or a burial.
What support is out there
There is help available for families struggling to cover the costs of a loved one’s farewell available from the Ministry of Social Development. However, it only rises in line with inflation and advocates have argued it started well below where it should have been when compared to the sky high cost of a funeral. Mandy Te at Re:News has an interesting story looking in-depth at the life of a funeral director, Bradley Shaw, from Whakatāne. He says that the grant, which can provide up to $2,559.20 to help with funeral costs, is insufficient. “It needs to be addressed because our costs are only going up and yet the funeral grant isn’t following,” said Shaw.
Once you’ve covered the expense of the burial, there are a number of additional costs that can make the actual cost of dying far greater – the figure often cited in the media for an average funeral is $10,000. As Rachel Benns explained to me last year: “The main fixed costs are around care of the deceased, funeral directors looking after them, disposal of the deceased, chapel hire or church hire, looking after the cremation or burial, death certificate and any medical papers.” So even if you qualify for the maximum amount of financial support, you could be several thousand dollars short.
The move for change
Along with water cremation, one growing alternative is a natural burial, writes The Spinoff’s Claire Mabey. But as her story explains, while it may be better for the environment, it doesn’t solve the issue of cost. A report by Sunday’s Mava Moayyed in October last year focused on a woman who was planning her own funeral in order to avoid debt. It involved a casket made from discarded pallets and a drive to the crematorium in the back of a friend’s Dodge truck. What Karen Edser doesn’t want to do is leave her family any cost for saying goodbye. “That just honours the banks, doesn’t it? That’s abhorrent.” Edser appears to have made the best out of a tragic situation, but she’s certainly not alone, as this 2022 story about DIY funerals on The Spinoff illustrates.
Lobby group Death Without Debt has been advocating for additional support around funeral costs, but also, as RNZ reported earlier in the year, for government assistance in demystifying the wider process. “Not talking about death allows the funeral industry to keep on making a lot of money out of us,” the group’s founder, Fergus Wheeler, said in January. Speaking to The Star earlier this month, Wheeler said he wanted doctors to stop automatically referring families to the funeral industry to meet paperwork requirements. “Our communities have lost the know-how to farewell the dead ourselves,” he said.
While in opposition, National told The Spinoff it would review the amount on offer through the Ministry of Social Development grant. One year on, the now-social development minister Louise Upston told Re:News that changes were “not on the coalition government’s current work programme”. The cost of living crisis remains a focus, but not, it would seem, the less visible crisis involving the dead.
Keep going!
Survivors and families arrive at parliament as part of a hikoi (Getty Images)
Survivors and families arrive at parliament as part of a hikoi (Getty Images)
newsletter
At 4pm yesterday, the 3,000-page report was formally released, with MPs from across parliament uniting in condemnation of the abuse of an estimated 200,000 New Zealanders, writes Stewart Sowman-Lund in today’s extract from The Bulletin.
To receive The Bulletin in full each weekday, sign up here.
What did the review recommend?
In short, a lot. The Spinoff’s Lyric Waiwiri-Smith has summarised the 138 recommendations made by the Royal Commission which, as she notes, could have mammoth ramifications if actioned. The report calls for a range of apologies from senior figures, including the prime minister and key leaders of multiple faith-based charitable and educational organisations, as well as government departments.
Christopher Luxon led the government apology in parliament yesterday, but a formal, cross-party apology will be made in November – by which time it’s anticipated the government will be in a position to respond to some of the recommendations, with others to be addressed next year. The report also urged a comprehensive redress scheme be set up through which compensation be paid to survivors and their families, including a $10,000 payment to children of survivors to prevent further intergenerational harm caused by abuse in care. In The Post this morning, Thomas Manch looks at the question of financial redress, with the government not making its position clear at this stage.
Who bears responsibility?
A number of figures have been found at fault for failing to stop the abuse in care while it was happening. Clearly, these are not those responsible for carrying out physical abuse, but they are found to have enabled it in some way. One consistent theme of yesterday’s government response – more on that below – was that the state, over decades, had failed New Zealanders. The Spinoff’s Joel MacManus has meticulously combed through the records to find the many ministers and senior leaders referenced by the report, given the Royal Commission only referred to them by job title.
It includes former high-profile MPs like prime ministers Helen Clark, Bill English and Jenny Shipley (each of whom served as a minister of health) along with churches and religious leaders, including the Pope.
How did the government respond?
As mentioned, the formal political apology to the survivors and their whānau will be made in November. However, a debate on the report in parliament yesterday saw political leaders from across the parliamentary spectrum react with awe and emotion at the Royal Commission’s findings. 1News’ Felix Desmarais wrapped the responses of key leaders, such as prime minister Christopher Luxon, who thanked the survivors for their bravery and strength. “You are heard and you are believed,” he said.
There are a lot of recommendations the government has been encouraged to swiftly adopt. Not all of them will be easy, or even desirable, for the coalition. The Herald’s Derek Cheng looks at what parts of the inquiry could be trickiest to address, such as those that appear to be in conflict with the government’s views on gang policy. The Royal Commission concluded that state care, in many instances, provided a direct pipeline into gang life or prison. When an emotional Karen Chhour, the children’s minister, was speaking in parliament, she was heckled with a call: “no boot camps”.
Did we learn anything more about the level of abuse?
We already knew that thousands of people were abused while in state care. But, for the first time, the government openly called the abuse suffered by some of those “torture”, reported Newsroom’s Laura Walters. Previously, the government of the day has refused to go this far. That’s because, while torture can often be used interchangeably with abuse, it carries a distinct meaning under a United Nations convention. “To the survivors of Lake Alice – some of whom are here today – thank you for your determination to ensure what you suffered was brought to light,” Luxon said in parliament.
Those in the care of the psychiatric facility were subjected to electric shocks without anaesthetic and given painful and immobilising paraldehyde injections. Allegedly for medical purposes, the report makes clear that these methods were actually used for punishment, Walters reported.
How have survivors reacted?
It’s impossible to summarise how all survivors feel given the level of abuse and the different experiences of each individual. Nevertheless, the response observed in the media has varied. Writing for The Spinoff, abuse survivor Steve Goodlass expressed concern over what he saw as omissions in the report. “The status quo with the Crown holding all the power remains,” he said, in response to a recommendation he saw as giving the government an “out” in terms of earlier recommendations to amend the civil litigation framework.
Others, such as those interviewed by Jenna Lynch for ThreeNews, were optimistic after the long journey to reach a resolution. Keith Wiffin, who was a member of the Royal Commission’s survivor advisory group and a key figure in persuading the Labour government to launch an inquiry, told the Herald’s Isaac Davison that yesterday was “incredibly emotional” and, at times, overwhelming. “But … I’m pretty happy that this day has finally happened.”
What about the response from other groups?
A number of other non-political groups and figures also responded to the report’s release. The Spinoff has collated these here. Among them is Lady Tureiti Moxon, chair of the National Urban Māori Authority, who said: “The true test of whether the government will whakatika, put right the wrong, is if they accept and implement the 138 recommendations.”
Minister for children Karen Chhour speaks (Hagen Hopkins/Getty Images)
Did things take too long?
The Royal Commission was critical of the time it took for political leaders to respond to previously made recommendations, reported RNZ, such as those around redress from a 2021 interim report. “There has been very little clear progress by the government in implementing the inquiry’s recommendations,” the commissioners said. There were also numerous delays to the final report being made public.
It was the previous Labour government that launched the Royal Commission of Inquiry. Chris Hipkins, who led the Crown’s response to the inquiry as minister of state services before becoming prime minister, admitted the slow pace and issued a challenge to the coalition. “We didn’t do enough and the ball now falls to you and your government,” he said. “This must be bigger than politics.”
What did the inquiry tell us about the role of te tiriti?
Te Ao Māori News explained that Māori dominated the devastating statistics from the inquiry, representing over 70% of those in state care. One survivor told the outlet she was struggling to reckon with a state apology when other forms of “institutionalisation” were still being carried out.
Writing for the The Spinoff today, Liam Rātana explains that there were two recommendations in the report directly pertaining to te Tiriti o Waitangi, including that those involved in implementing the inquiry’s recommendations should give effect to it. As Rātana notes, that could make the response from the likes of David Seymour and Shane Jones especially interesting given their public views on the Treaty and its principles. It was signalled recently that Seymour’s proposed Treaty Principles Bill could be made public this week, while his party – Act – launched a donations drive centred on the impending release.
What did the Jehovah’s Witnesses want to be kept secret?
In yesterday’s Bulletin I shared a report about a last-ditch effort by the Jehovah Witnesses to have aspects of the inquiry’s report pertaining to them kept secret. Now, as The Spinoff’s Toby Manhire reports, we know what they wanted to stay hidden. He reports this morning on a 64-page case study in the report concerning the Jehovah’s, which included details of abuse, the fear felt by survivors and the “arcane investigation process” followed by the church.
What else can I read or listen to?
There are simply too many reports to be shared in one Bulletin, but my starting advice would be: read the report, or as much of it as you can. ThreeNews’ Jenna Lynch, in her report last night, said it should be “compulsory” reading for anyone working with young or vulnerable people.
If you missed it, The Spinoff published a number of features from the Royal Commission across 2022 and 2023 as part of our Quarter Million series. I encourage you to take the time to read them and I think they take on an extra layer of significance in the wake of the report’s release. If you prefer to listen, the latest episode of The Detail includes an interview with freelance journalist Aaron Smale, who has extensively covered the inquiry, while a new episode of The Spinoff’s politics podcast Gone by Lunchtime analyses some of the key aspects of the report.
