Jack Tame: Savings are worth nothing if the kids don't eat

I suppose it was inevitable that something would go wrong.   

It wasn’t like the new school lunch providers all had the opportunity to ease into their work. They didn’t do huge practice runs or slowly build capacity over time.   

For most of them it was a case of going from zero to one hundred. Day one of the school year and they had to be zipping along in fifth gear.   

And all you needed were photos of a few mishits and word of a few schools with missing lunches and news spread on social media in a way that blunders never would have under the last school lunch regime.   

Think about it: last year, all anyone had to compare school lunches to was the previous regime, when schools were provided with nothing. Now, there’s a different precedent.   

If we’re honest, there is also a political dimension at play. David Seymour is so attached to the school lunch funding cuts. But he’s a polarising figure, especially in education communities. And just as he is happy to make soak up political support for being the guy making the funding cuts, I’m sure there are more than a few educators who are quietly willing Seymour to fail.   

All that being said, I don’t think anyone who’s seen the examples of some of the stodgy offerings being sent out to schools (or not being sent out, as has also been the case) could possibly argue with the young students who’ve reportedly been comparing them with dog food.

I was listening to Newstalk ZB the other day when someone said that presentation doesn’t matter. It’s simple; the kids don’t eat the meals then they can’t really be that hungry.   

For anyone who’s actually spent time around children will know just how naive and misguided that is. Sure, if we were in the midst of a full-blown famine, you might reasonably expect kids to eat any old slop. But mercifully, we’re not in a famine. And actually, hungry kids don’t always act rationally. Most young children would prefer to go without kai for an afternoon than be forced to eat a tray of dog food. You probably would too. Presentation matters.

I was discussing it with a mate this week, who said the whole thing still annoys him because it should be parents’ responsibility to feed children and not the New Zealand taxpayer.  

Sure, I said. In a perfect World, I totally agree. But unfortunately, this ain’t it. For whatever reason, there are thousands of kids who without school lunches would not be eating three meals a day. Even if you think it’s all the parents’ fault, none of those kids can choose their folks any more than we chose ours!   

And here’s the thing I think risks being lost in this episode: full bellies aren’t just good for the kids who would otherwise be going without. They’re good for all of us.   

At a moment in time when the government is literally soliciting for ideas to drive economic growth, there are few things that will drive our future productivity like better educational achievement. Kids who are hungry do not learn.

An investment in a full belly today is an investment in growth in twenty years’ time. It’s an investment in skills, in businesses, in innovation.   

The new school lunch programme is off to a lumpy start (literally). Teething issues were inevitable, and I really hope it’ll improve.   

But I can tell you this much, for all the concern over the state of the books, the savings made from the school lunch programme are worth nothing if the kids don’t eat. 

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:07):
You're listening to the Saturday Morning with Jack Teams podcast
from News Talks.

Speaker 2 (00:11):
A'd be well, I suppose it was inevitable that something
would go wrong. It wasn't like the new school lunch
providers all had the opportunity to ease into their work.
You know, they didn't do huge practice runs or slowly
build up capacity over time. For most of them, it
was a case of going from zero to one hundred

(00:32):
day one of the school year, and they had to
be zipping along in fifth gear. And you know, all
you needed were a couple of photos of a few
mishits word of a few schools with missing lunches, and
news spread on social media in a way that blunders
never would have under the last school lunch regime. And

(00:54):
don't mean it makes sense right, think about it. Last
year or anyone, any parent, any educator, any school had
to compare school lunches to was the previous regime when
schools were provided with nothing. Now, well, now there's a
different precedent. And if we're honest, you know, if we're

(01:15):
totally honest, there is a bit of a political dimension
at play somewhere, isn't there. David Seymour is so attached
to the school lunch funding cuts, but he's a polarizing figure,
especially in educational communities, and just as he's happy to
soak up political support for being the guy making the

(01:35):
funding cuts, I'm sure there are more than a few
educators out there who are quietly willing David Seymour to fail.
All that being said, I don't think anyone who has
seen the kind of examples of some of the stodgy
offerings being sent out to schools or not being sent
out has has also been the case, could possibly argue

(01:58):
with the young students who have reportedly been comparing their
school lunches with dog food. It's funny. I was listening
to NEWSTALKSZ'DB the day when someone said that presentation doesn't matter.
It's simple. If the kids don't eat the meals, then
they really can't be that hungry. I mean, for anyone
who's actually spent time around children, they'll know just how

(02:20):
naive and misguided that is. Sure, if we were in
the midst of a full blown famine, then you might
reasonably expect kids to eat any old slop. But mercifully
we are not in a famine, and actually hungry kids
don't always act rationally. Most young children would prefer to

(02:40):
go without kai for an afternoon than be forced to
eat a tray of dog food. You probably would too.
Presentation matters. It's funny. I was discussing it with a
mate this week and he said the whole thing still
really annoys him because it should be parents responsibility to
feed their children, not the New Zealand taxpayer. Sure, I said, yeah,

(03:02):
in a perfect world, I totally agree. But unfortunately, in
case you haven't noticed, this, ain't it For whatever reason,
there are thousands and thousands of kids who, without school lunches,
would not be eating three square meals a day. Even
if you think it is all the parents fault in
every single case, none of those kids can choose their

(03:23):
parents any more than we choose ours. And he's the
thing I think risks being lost in this whole episode.
Full ballies aren't just good for the kids who would
otherwise be going without. They're good for all of us.
At a moment in time when our government is literally
soliciting for ideas to drive economic growth, there are few

(03:46):
things that will drive our future productivity in this country,
like better educational achievement. Kids who are hungry, do not learn.
An investment in a full belly today is an investment
in growth in twenty years time. It's an investment in skills,
in businesses, in innerv The new school lunch program is

(04:09):
off to a lumpy start, literally in many cases, and look,
teething issues were inevitable. I really hope it'll improve, but
I can tell you this much. For all the concern
over the state of the books, the savings made from
the school lunch program are worth nothing if the kids
don't eat.

Speaker 1 (04:30):
For more from Saturday Morning with Jack Tame, Listen live
to newstalks ' b from nine am Saturday, or follow
the podcast on iHeartRadio