And with the katsu chicken, and the wraps, and the lasagne, David Seymour has saved us $130m.
All the moaners, whingers, whiners, and hand wringers can say sorry because it wasn’t the end of the world.
Several crimes have been committed in the school lunch drama, which of course should never have been a drama because the previous Government, in yet another example of their wasteful, haphazard way of doing things, should never have got into the school lunch programme business.
Because when they did, they worked out they couldn’t afford it and therefore only gave it to a few and many of the few didn’t actually want the lunches.
But they had to take them because the kid who did want the lunch couldn’t be made to feel bad, so the other 300 had to eat sandwiches with them.
That was crime number one.
Crime number two was they only funded it until the election, thus making it a fiscal cliff. David Seymour should have killed the thing completely but got talked down to what we have, which is $3 dollars a meal.
Crime number 3 is to all the hand wringers who opined over and over and over about how they wouldn’t be any good, no one can make food for $3, kids would go hungry, it’s a scandal etc, etc.
Fast forward and the menu is out, complete with photos of food, and wouldn’t you know it, for $3 you can do a pretty decent job.
You feed kids, you save money, we have a lesson in expenditure and wastage and a Government promise has been delivered.
The lunches were $8.68 a pop under Labour vs $3 now. That's quite the difference, isn't it?
What cost almost half a billion dollars now costs $320m.
And maybe the stories of the teachers helping themselves, or the families getting delivered the extras, or the farmers feeding it all to the pigs will vanish along with the doubters who have made it a past time, if not a living, refusing to believe a lot of what was done under Labour could be done cheaper and better.
If only they paid attention to detail and were driven more by practicality and less by ideology and thought bubbles.
Mike Hosking is a New Zealand television and radio broadcaster. He currently hosts The Mike Hosking Breakfast show on NewstalkZB on weekday mornings - where this article was sourced.
Because when they did, they worked out they couldn’t afford it and therefore only gave it to a few and many of the few didn’t actually want the lunches.
But they had to take them because the kid who did want the lunch couldn’t be made to feel bad, so the other 300 had to eat sandwiches with them.
That was crime number one.
Crime number two was they only funded it until the election, thus making it a fiscal cliff. David Seymour should have killed the thing completely but got talked down to what we have, which is $3 dollars a meal.
Crime number 3 is to all the hand wringers who opined over and over and over about how they wouldn’t be any good, no one can make food for $3, kids would go hungry, it’s a scandal etc, etc.
Fast forward and the menu is out, complete with photos of food, and wouldn’t you know it, for $3 you can do a pretty decent job.
You feed kids, you save money, we have a lesson in expenditure and wastage and a Government promise has been delivered.
The lunches were $8.68 a pop under Labour vs $3 now. That's quite the difference, isn't it?
What cost almost half a billion dollars now costs $320m.
And maybe the stories of the teachers helping themselves, or the families getting delivered the extras, or the farmers feeding it all to the pigs will vanish along with the doubters who have made it a past time, if not a living, refusing to believe a lot of what was done under Labour could be done cheaper and better.
If only they paid attention to detail and were driven more by practicality and less by ideology and thought bubbles.
Mike Hosking is a New Zealand television and radio broadcaster. He currently hosts The Mike Hosking Breakfast show on NewstalkZB on weekday mornings - where this article was sourced.
3 comments:
I am sceptical of the need for provided lunches. Parents not providing need to be chased. All but the youngest children can prepare their own; training for the inevitable flatting future. For most of my whole school life I went home for lunch, despite near a mile. For a period when we lived further, lunch consisted of sandwishes; jam, honey, marmite, cheese, scrambled egg, lettuce at best. maybe a home cooked biscuit or two. On rare occasions a bought pie or Sally Lun (each 6d) For my whole working life I prepared myself sandwiches usually just jam. far leass than $3 equivalent .For children very many of whom seem to eat pies on the way to school, and chips on the way home, and are overweight, a provided lunch seems a luxury.
We need LESS nanny corporate state interference in our lives, not more. Should be scrapped. Responsibility for children's welfare are Mum and Dad, period.
The function of schools is to educate, not provide food. The welfare of children is not the responsibility of schools but the duty of parents and other departments of government in needy cases.
what duties have been loaded on to school staff in this matter?
Post a Comment
Thanks for engaging in the debate!
Because this is a public forum, we will only publish comments that are respectful and do NOT contain links to other sites. We appreciate your cooperation.