spinofflive
et9R6wPJ-Untitled-design.png

The BulletinMarch 28, 2025

The abysmal state of palliative care for children in New Zealand

et9R6wPJ-Untitled-design.png

The Children’s Commissioner describes the current situation as “untenable, inequitable and inadequate”, writes Anna Rawhiti-Connell in today’s extract from The Bulletin.

To receive The Bulletin in full each weekday, sign up here.

‘Untenable, inequitable and inadequate’

Earlier this week, RNZ’s Anusha Bradley reported that the country’s only publicly funded paediatric palliative care specialist is on extended leave. As Bradley reported, Starship Hospital informed senior doctors in February that their sole specialist would be unavailable for two months until April. Despite attempts to find a replacement, one has not been found. Children’s Commissioner Dr Claire Achmad told RNZ that the current situation is “untenable, inequitable and inadequate”. The mother of a child who died from a brain tumour in November while under Starship’s care told RNZ that the small team meant help was not available when they needed it most. During the last week of her child’s life, the family “had to call the ambulance out quite a lot in his last week of life, especially over his last 10 hours of life,” and he “had a very distressing 10 hours of life in those final hours.”

3000 children need palliative care each year, 75% do not get it

In November last year, a report by national child palliative care service, Rei Kōtuku, a pilot programme providing paediatric palliative care for children and adolescents in the North Island from Wellington to Hawke’s Bay found 3000 children needed palliative care each year, but 75% do not get it. The World Health Organisation estimates it is necessary to provide palliative care services to 20 million people every year around the world, and 9% of the patients who need palliative care are children. A report co-authored by Dr Gemma Aburn from the University of Auckland’s School of Nursing in November last year revealed that children who are very ill or at the end of life are missing out on services that could improve their quality of life. Auburn said, “While Aotearoa recognised the value of paediatric palliative care in the late 1990s, more than 20 years on, there has been a woeful lack of policy and service development.”

‘If you value The Spinoff and the perspectives we share, support our work by donating today.’
Anna Rawhiti-Connell
— Senior writer

Health New Zealand claims under scrutiny

Bradley has since reported that “Health New Zealand’s commitment to bolstering specialist palliative care for children has come under scrutiny after promises it was actively recruiting more staff, despite not advertising any jobs.” Health minister Simeon Brown has admitted Health New Zealand’s claim – and the job advert it eventually posted – were inaccurate, and says he has made his concerns clear to the agency.

‘Finding palliative care for our baby in a ‘luck of the draw’ health system’

This morning on The Spinoff, Emma Gilkison reflects on the short life of her son Jesús Valentino, who died with the people who loved him best, comfortably and with the care he needed. This happened in spite of, not because of, the hospital system. Gilkison and her partner learned their son had a usually fatal heart condition known as ectopia cordis and were told their son would die at birth or shortly after when Gilkison was five months pregnant. In meetings leading up to the birth of her son in 2014,  Gilkison said a palliative care doctor was supposed to come along to one of these meetings, but they never saw them. Eventually, a priest they knew introduced them to a paediatric surgeon who offered to volunteer his time and be on call when their baby was born.

Keep going!
Untitled-design-23-2-1.png

The BulletinMarch 27, 2025

Another law and order pledge ticked off

Untitled-design-23-2-1.png

Sentencing reform legislation has passed its final reading, writes Alice Neville in today’s extract from The Bulletin.

To receive The Bulletin in full each weekday, sign up here.

Sentencing reform legislation passed its final reading

The government’s sentencing reform legislation passed its final reading in parliament yesterday, marking “a significant milestone in this government’s mission to restore law and order”, according to justice minister Paul Goldsmith. The reforms, which will come into force three months after royal assent is granted (likely to be in the coming days), include capping the sentence discounts that judges can apply at 40%, preventing repeat discounts for youth and remorse, introducing a new aggravating factor to address offences against sole charge workers and those whose home and business are interconnected, encouraging the use of cumulative sentencing for offences committed while on bail, in custody or on parole, introducing a sliding scale for early guilty pleas, and amending the principles of sentencing to take into account victims’ interests. All three opposition parties voted against the bill, but Labour leader Chris Hipkins wouldn’t confirm whether a future Labour government would repeal the reforms, reports the Herald.

The background to the reforms

Their passing represents another tick on the coalition’s tough-on-crime to-do list, joining the gang patch ban, the return of the three strikes law and bootcamps for youth offenders. Aspects of the sentencing reforms fulfil campaign promises made by all three parties, with National campaigning on the restrictions on sentence discounts, while the work-related aggravating factor and victims’ interest reforms were committed to in the National-Act coalition agreement. The latter was also in the NZ First agreement, as was a commitment to “remove concurrent sentences for those who commit offences while on parole, on bail, or whilst in custody”. This was watered down in the bill to become “encouraging the use of cumulative sentencing” after the Ministry of Justice’s regulatory impact statement (RIS) found it could double the prison population and cost Corrections $1bn a year. The reforms are now predicted to increase the prison population by 1,350 over the next decade, at a cost of $152.7m, according to the RIS.

‘Become a member and help us keep local, independent journalism thriving.’
Alice Neville
— Deputy editor

‘A culture of excuses for crime’

“In recent years, courts have imposed fewer and shorter prison sentences, despite an alarming increase in violent crime, ram raids and aggravated robberies,” said Goldsmith in a press release announcing the bill had passed its third reading. The Spinoff has covered the problems with claims alleging an “alarming increase in violent crime”, but what about fewer and shorter prison sentences? “We know that undue leniency has resulted in a loss of public confidence in sentencing, and our justice system as a whole,” Goldsmith continued. “We developed a culture of excuses for crime. That ends today.”

The RIS, which Derek Cheng of the NZ Herald reported (paywalled) on in September last year as the bill was introduced, did note a decrease in the use of imprisonment for serious offences such as burglary and robbery. It also noted feedback from stakeholders like the judiciary, the NZ Law Society, the Parole Board and others, which “pushed back against the notion that sentencing outcomes have become more ‘lenient’. Instead, judicial sentencing decisions respond to emerging evidence (for example, in response to an increased scientific understanding of adolescent brain development)”, it said.

Limiting judicial discretion

The RIS said the reforms, especially when combined with the implementation of the three strikes regime, represented a “significant shift in the willingness to limit judicial discretion to ensure a more retributive response to offending. Generally, restricting judicial discretion and prescriptive sentencing frameworks can make sentencing less efficient.” It could also result in legal challenges on procedural grounds or for breaches of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, said the RIS. “A prescriptive approach can drive court delays as sentencing becomes increasingly complex and can drive the potential for later guilty pleas, which in turn may lead to an increase in the prison and remand populations.”

As AUT law professor Kris Gledhill wrote for The Conversation, “If a judge feels obliged to impose a higher sentence because of the new amendments, lawyers will have to advise defendants accordingly. Inevitably, more will decide to take their chances in a trial rather than plead guilty. That means more complainants will have to give evidence, some defendants will be acquitted, and the criminal justice system will creak more.”