A qualified pass

Apart from the trendy acronym - B4SC - by which it is known in certain quarters, there is much to be said in favour of the Before School Check programme implemented by the country's district health boards in 2008-09 at the behest of the Ministry of Health.

The intention of the programme is the early detection of health needs with referral on to appropriate specialists.

This makes good sense: health and general wellbeing issues (for example, growth, dental, vision, hearing) detected early, and remedied, are issues that could otherwise evolve into capital intensive or resource-hungry problems.

Identified and addressed, the expensive ambulance at the bottom of the cliff becomes somewhat redundant, as do the various interventions required as the child makes his or her troublesome descent.

Introduced under the last Labour administration, the initiative came sharply into focus when Health Minister Tony Ryall, unhappy with aspects of its implementation, called for a review last year.

He subsequently announced in April that it would continue.

Now, with the release of a report to the ministry's community and public health advisory committee, there is some indication of the extent to which the programme is reaching its intended targets.

The good news for the Otago District Health Board (now incorporated in the Southern Health Board) is that it was one of only three in the country to meet self-selected targets for checks; the not quite so good news is that the target was only 50% of an estimated eligible population of 2031 children.

And while Otago exceeded its overall target, the figures in the report show that, in common with other areas, it did not reach all children considered to be "highly deprived".

Its coverage was slightly more than two-thirds the estimated children in this category.

So while, in theory, the programme is excellent, and the former ODHB is to be congratulated on having met its main target, arguably it has been conservative in setting that target, and is not reaching a good number of the most at-risk pre-schoolers.

Further, it has become apparent, through a ministry audit, that nationally only two in three children referred to specialist services were actually seen by that service.

That is something the ministry, quite rightly, intends to address.

This is a necessary and sensible project, but one that requires finessing.

Otherwise, we are right back to an ambulance at the bottom of the cliff scenario, having exhausted critical additional funds along the way.

Question marks

A sentence should end with a full stop.

The prison sentence of two years and 10 months handed down last week in the High Court at Rotorua to Isaiah Tai, a 21-year-old orchard worker, for the manslaughter of Bay of Plenty school principal Hawea Vercoe is punctuated only with question marks.

Foremost among these is how can the life of one man be reconciled with a period of imprisonment of potentially less than two years for the man whose actions caused his death? Is that justice? Or, as Mr Vercoe's family put it following the sentence, is it "a joke"?The two men were out drinking into the early hours of the morning in Whakatane.

They were unknown to each other and left the bar at about 3am.

The court was told they were both intoxicated.

They "exchanged words".

Tai punched the deceased so hard he fell, hitting his head on the footpath.

He made to leave the scene before, according to expert interpretation of CCTV coverage, returning to kick the unconscious Mr Vercoe in the head.

Tai pleaded guilty to manslaughter.

Hawea Vercoe (36) was an Environment Bay of Plenty regional councillor and principal of Te Kura Kaupapa Maori o Te Rotoiti.

He was married with children.

He is said to have been a respected emerging leader.

Tai was told by Justice Judith Potter reports indicated he had a propensity for violence and was unable to control his actions while drinking.

In the New Zealand justice system, manslaughter - which differs from murder primarily in that there is no intent to kill - covers such a wide range of offences there is no prescribed sentencing range.

In the worst cases, approaching murder, it can attract extremely severe sentences.

The maximum is life imprisonment.

But in cases where, for example, someone causes the death of another person by a single blow in circumstances where loss of life was not intended, a sentence even less than incarceration may result.

Tai's culpability is compounded by his returning to kick his victim in the head.

The judge, necessarily, will have taken into account the guilty plea, possibly remorse, participation in restorative justice processes and other factors, but just as importantly will have been guided by earlier cases of a similar kind.

That, of course, will be of little comfort to the Vercoe family.

Regardless of the fact this was evidently another senseless alcohol-related tragedy, many might feel Tai's punishment is out of kilter with the severity and consequences of the crime.