Belief from David Seymour that the collapse of a school lunch provider is a non-story.
The Libelle Group, which is sub-contracted by Compass Group to deliver about 125,000 meals daily, has gone into liquidation.
The Minister in Charge, Seymour says that won't impact lunch deliveries.
He's admitted the Government knew Libelle may have been in strife when it signed the deal, but had no reason to believe it would fail.
Seymour told Mike Hosking the issue is a contractual matter between two companies, neither of which is the Government.
He says its issue is making sure Compass delivers on its contract to the Government.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
I thought it might be fun to talk about school
lunches because the media has ignored the subject for far
too long. Of course, the latest chapter is the LaBelle group,
who is contracted by Compass to deliver these lunches, and
they've been tipped into liquidation. As I'm sure you're well aware.
The Associate Education Minister David Seymore's with us. Very good
morning to you. If LeBell are tipped into liquidation but
(00:20):
the lunches still continue, is the liquidation of Label's story.
Speaker 2 (00:26):
No, it's a contractual matter between two parties that don't
actually have a contract directly with We have contracted Compass.
Leabell are a subcontractor to them. They have to sort
out their issue. Our issue is making sure that Compass
continues to deliver on its contract to the government on
(00:47):
behalf of the taxpayer, and we're doing that.
Speaker 1 (00:49):
Okay, did you know about Lebelle when you signed up
with Compass or.
Speaker 2 (00:56):
We certainly knew that they were the subcontractor do you
know they're in trouble. We were aware that they may
have some issues, but I mean that's always the case.
We didn't have any reason to believe that they would fail.
We just knew that they were signed up to deliver
on certain terms.
Speaker 1 (01:13):
Why would you sign up with anybody who you knew
to have trouble.
Speaker 2 (01:18):
Because we didn't believe that there was any issue that
would lead to a problem. We simply undertook a contract
with Compass, and that contract is now being delivered.
Speaker 1 (01:28):
I told you that there wouldn't be a problem. Was
that Compass.
Speaker 2 (01:32):
That was done through the people that negotiated on behalf,
through the Ministry of Education. It wasn't well as specific individuals.
I'm not going to get public officials.
Speaker 1 (01:45):
Yeah, so the ministry knew there could be troubled but
were reassured there wasn't. They told you there could be trouble,
but they reassured you there wouldn't be.
Speaker 2 (01:53):
Well. I think that's a fair summary. But there was
certainly no reason to think that they wouldn't deliver, and
there's been no interruption to the delivery of school lunches
as a result of this liquidation. Yesterday ninety nine point
ninety six was the level of on time delivery?
Speaker 1 (02:08):
Would you concede that, given what you've faced in the
last couple of weeks, this doesn't help.
Speaker 2 (02:16):
Well, I think what we're doing is we're getting it
into a place where it's going to be a success.
There have been problems with the school lunch program, but
in each instance we've been upfront, we've accepted that there's
been problems, and we've solve them. And frankly, I think
what's needed is a look at the wider picture here.
The whole country is in some financial trouble. We're short
(02:39):
of money. Generally a lot of people in their businesses
and households are short of money. What we're doing is
saving up to one hundred and seventy million a year
while continuing to deliver a program.
Speaker 1 (02:50):
I I I get all of that. Does LaBelle in
their troubles in any way, shape or form lead to
the difficulty you faced in terms of delivery exploding meals, cooking, burning,
et cetera.
Speaker 2 (03:06):
Well, I can't say whether that whether it has or hasn't,
for the simple reason that that comes down to a
contractual dispute between two other parties. As I say, our
contracts is with Compass. As they work through that dispute,
the last thing they need is some politician going on
the radio giving their recons and pointing the finger. So
(03:27):
some people might come to that conclusion, but I can't
go them.
Speaker 1 (03:30):
I just look at how I conduct my life, and
I've wondered if you've made a mistake here. When I
hire people in life, I hire the best people, not
the people who tell me, look there's something over there.
It might be a problem that might not be. I mean,
you were asking for trouble.
Speaker 2 (03:43):
Was that?
Speaker 1 (03:44):
Were they the only people in the game? Is that
the problem?
Speaker 2 (03:47):
No, I don't think so, and we made so.
Speaker 1 (03:50):
Were they the only people in the game or not.
Speaker 2 (03:53):
There's always a range of people that can satisfy a
contract for.
Speaker 1 (03:57):
They the cheapest people in the game.
Speaker 2 (04:00):
Well, again that I'm not going to go into the
exact procurement process, but what I can say is there
were lots of ways we could have done it. This
way is delivering at half the price, and it's only
going to get better. When there's been issues, We've worked everything.
Speaker 1 (04:16):
Continue to the song, David. I've been on your side
on this, and the only thing I've been worried about
is the delivery. If you say you're going to deliver,
you've got to deliver. Lunchtime is lunchtime. It's got to
turn up. The rest of it's been just a shambolic
pile on from the media, and it's a disgrace. But
if you went and hired mister cheapo who you knew
was a problem, and that problems come back to bite
you in the bum, that's on you, isn't it.
Speaker 2 (04:40):
Well, But actually it hasn't. What we've done is overcome
problems as they've arisen. When one.
Speaker 1 (04:48):
Problems because you went with the cheapest person in town
who was always going to cause you problems, because that's
what cheap people do. In other words, if you'd hired
a decent operator, you wouldn't have had any problems in
the first place.
Speaker 2 (05:00):
Well, it's a good characterization and a good story, but
I don't think it's true.
Speaker 1 (05:03):
It's a question. I'm just asking you the question. Is
that the case?
Speaker 2 (05:07):
Well, it's a characterization, and I reject it. I don't
think that is the case.
Speaker 1 (05:11):
So you don't think you went with the cheapest bid
with troubled people you knew to be troubled.
Speaker 2 (05:20):
No, I don't agree with that. When you do a procurement,
obviously there are a lot of different factors that you
use to choose a contractor. In this case, I think
we did it right and where we've had issues, we'll
solve them. That's actually the only way you talk about
how you run your life, because.
Speaker 1 (05:42):
The way I run my life, David, is I hire
people who do the job, who don't present me with
the problems, and I pay for that. That's how I
run my life.
Speaker 2 (05:51):
And that's exactly what we're doing. Wherever there's been a problem.
Speaker 1 (05:54):
Apart from apart from all the problems you've had, and
the company that's now in liquidation.
Speaker 2 (06:01):
And again, the company that's in liquidation is not interrupting
the delivery of meals. Where As I said yesterday after
they were liquidated, we achieved right up to one hundred
percent if you want a round ninety nine point ninety
six percent timetime delivery. So I understand what you're saying,
but the premise of your argument is that there's a
(06:21):
problem due to the liquidation. There is no problem.
Speaker 1 (06:24):
I'm just asking what it is. If you can assure
me there isn't, that's fine, and the delivery continues. The
TV one thing last night, did you see it?
Speaker 2 (06:32):
I think they ran two stories if I right?
Speaker 1 (06:34):
Okay? Is that the most disgraceful form of I use
the word really loose leap journalism you've seen in a
long time. I mean, that's what you're up against. This
is a massive, almost state funded pylon.
Speaker 2 (06:45):
Yeah. Well, first of all, let's just remember that seventy
five percent of children have lunches made by their children.
There's an argument that that should be one hundred percent.
The government's got a policy that we're going to fund
lunches for twenty fight actually about twenty seven percent of
filtering up and down New Zealand. My job is to
do that as efficiently as possible, and we are. But
(07:08):
I think, as I mentioned earlier, you know, the media
may have missed the wider context here. The whole country
needs an improvement in productivity. When somebody comes up with
a way to effectively double productivity by delivering the same
nutrition at half the price, then I think we should
actually be asking ourselves, well, is that a good thing?
Is that what we need to see more of? Are
(07:29):
their problems? Yes? Is the guy in charge actually working
through them each day, overcoming them and making it better
every day? Yes? Is that exactly the kind of spirit
that we need in New Zealand if we're to overcome
a lot of other problems? Yes, it is. Would you
ever be able to explain that to certain journalists at
TVNZ or three News. I suspect you can't, and that's
(07:52):
why their audiences are switching off, because people want to
see solutions in a way out of the various challenges
we have in this country.
Speaker 1 (08:00):
Time David Seymour, I was going to get onto the
verification of pharmacists in this country, but we've run out
of time.
Speaker 2 (08:08):
For more from the Mic Asking Breakfast, listen live to
news Talks it'd be from six am weekdays, or follow
the podcast on iHeartRadio.
I thought it might be fun to talk about school
lunches because the media has ignored the subject for far
too long. Of course, the latest chapter is the LaBelle group,
who is contracted by Compass to deliver these lunches, and
they've been tipped into liquidation. As I'm sure you're well aware.
The Associate Education Minister David Seymore's with us. Very good
morning to you. If LeBell are tipped into liquidation but
(00:20):
the lunches still continue, is the liquidation of Label's story.
Speaker 2 (00:26):
No, it's a contractual matter between two parties that don't
actually have a contract directly with We have contracted Compass.
Leabell are a subcontractor to them. They have to sort
out their issue. Our issue is making sure that Compass
continues to deliver on its contract to the government on
(00:47):
behalf of the taxpayer, and we're doing that.
Speaker 1 (00:49):
Okay, did you know about Lebelle when you signed up
with Compass or.
Speaker 2 (00:56):
We certainly knew that they were the subcontractor do you
know they're in trouble. We were aware that they may
have some issues, but I mean that's always the case.
We didn't have any reason to believe that they would fail.
We just knew that they were signed up to deliver
on certain terms.
Speaker 1 (01:13):
Why would you sign up with anybody who you knew
to have trouble.
Speaker 2 (01:18):
Because we didn't believe that there was any issue that
would lead to a problem. We simply undertook a contract
with Compass, and that contract is now being delivered.
Speaker 1 (01:28):
I told you that there wouldn't be a problem. Was
that Compass.
Speaker 2 (01:32):
That was done through the people that negotiated on behalf,
through the Ministry of Education. It wasn't well as specific individuals.
I'm not going to get public officials.
Speaker 1 (01:45):
Yeah, so the ministry knew there could be troubled but
were reassured there wasn't. They told you there could be trouble,
but they reassured you there wouldn't be.
Speaker 2 (01:53):
Well. I think that's a fair summary. But there was
certainly no reason to think that they wouldn't deliver, and
there's been no interruption to the delivery of school lunches
as a result of this liquidation. Yesterday ninety nine point
ninety six was the level of on time delivery?
Speaker 1 (02:08):
Would you concede that, given what you've faced in the
last couple of weeks, this doesn't help.
Speaker 2 (02:16):
Well, I think what we're doing is we're getting it
into a place where it's going to be a success.
There have been problems with the school lunch program, but
in each instance we've been upfront, we've accepted that there's
been problems, and we've solve them. And frankly, I think
what's needed is a look at the wider picture here.
The whole country is in some financial trouble. We're short
(02:39):
of money. Generally a lot of people in their businesses
and households are short of money. What we're doing is
saving up to one hundred and seventy million a year
while continuing to deliver a program.
Speaker 1 (02:50):
I I I get all of that. Does LaBelle in
their troubles in any way, shape or form lead to
the difficulty you faced in terms of delivery exploding meals, cooking, burning,
et cetera.
Speaker 2 (03:06):
Well, I can't say whether that whether it has or hasn't,
for the simple reason that that comes down to a
contractual dispute between two other parties. As I say, our
contracts is with Compass. As they work through that dispute,
the last thing they need is some politician going on
the radio giving their recons and pointing the finger. So
(03:27):
some people might come to that conclusion, but I can't
go them.
Speaker 1 (03:30):
I just look at how I conduct my life, and
I've wondered if you've made a mistake here. When I
hire people in life, I hire the best people, not
the people who tell me, look there's something over there.
It might be a problem that might not be. I mean,
you were asking for trouble.
Speaker 2 (03:43):
Was that?
Speaker 1 (03:44):
Were they the only people in the game? Is that
the problem?
Speaker 2 (03:47):
No, I don't think so, and we made so.
Speaker 1 (03:50):
Were they the only people in the game or not.
Speaker 2 (03:53):
There's always a range of people that can satisfy a
contract for.
Speaker 1 (03:57):
They the cheapest people in the game.
Speaker 2 (04:00):
Well, again that I'm not going to go into the
exact procurement process, but what I can say is there
were lots of ways we could have done it. This
way is delivering at half the price, and it's only
going to get better. When there's been issues, We've worked everything.
Speaker 1 (04:16):
Continue to the song, David. I've been on your side
on this, and the only thing I've been worried about
is the delivery. If you say you're going to deliver,
you've got to deliver. Lunchtime is lunchtime. It's got to
turn up. The rest of it's been just a shambolic
pile on from the media, and it's a disgrace. But
if you went and hired mister cheapo who you knew
was a problem, and that problems come back to bite
you in the bum, that's on you, isn't it.
Speaker 2 (04:40):
Well, But actually it hasn't. What we've done is overcome
problems as they've arisen. When one.
Speaker 1 (04:48):
Problems because you went with the cheapest person in town
who was always going to cause you problems, because that's
what cheap people do. In other words, if you'd hired
a decent operator, you wouldn't have had any problems in
the first place.
Speaker 2 (05:00):
Well, it's a good characterization and a good story, but
I don't think it's true.
Speaker 1 (05:03):
It's a question. I'm just asking you the question. Is
that the case?
Speaker 2 (05:07):
Well, it's a characterization, and I reject it. I don't
think that is the case.
Speaker 1 (05:11):
So you don't think you went with the cheapest bid
with troubled people you knew to be troubled.
Speaker 2 (05:20):
No, I don't agree with that. When you do a procurement,
obviously there are a lot of different factors that you
use to choose a contractor. In this case, I think
we did it right and where we've had issues, we'll
solve them. That's actually the only way you talk about
how you run your life, because.
Speaker 1 (05:42):
The way I run my life, David, is I hire
people who do the job, who don't present me with
the problems, and I pay for that. That's how I
run my life.
Speaker 2 (05:51):
And that's exactly what we're doing. Wherever there's been a problem.
Speaker 1 (05:54):
Apart from apart from all the problems you've had, and
the company that's now in liquidation.
Speaker 2 (06:01):
And again, the company that's in liquidation is not interrupting
the delivery of meals. Where As I said yesterday after
they were liquidated, we achieved right up to one hundred
percent if you want a round ninety nine point ninety
six percent timetime delivery. So I understand what you're saying,
but the premise of your argument is that there's a
(06:21):
problem due to the liquidation. There is no problem.
Speaker 1 (06:24):
I'm just asking what it is. If you can assure
me there isn't, that's fine, and the delivery continues. The
TV one thing last night, did you see it?
Speaker 2 (06:32):
I think they ran two stories if I right?
Speaker 1 (06:34):
Okay? Is that the most disgraceful form of I use
the word really loose leap journalism you've seen in a
long time. I mean, that's what you're up against. This
is a massive, almost state funded pylon.
Speaker 2 (06:45):
Yeah. Well, first of all, let's just remember that seventy
five percent of children have lunches made by their children.
There's an argument that that should be one hundred percent.
The government's got a policy that we're going to fund
lunches for twenty fight actually about twenty seven percent of
filtering up and down New Zealand. My job is to
do that as efficiently as possible, and we are. But
(07:08):
I think, as I mentioned earlier, you know, the media
may have missed the wider context here. The whole country
needs an improvement in productivity. When somebody comes up with
a way to effectively double productivity by delivering the same
nutrition at half the price, then I think we should
actually be asking ourselves, well, is that a good thing?
Is that what we need to see more of? Are
(07:29):
their problems? Yes? Is the guy in charge actually working
through them each day, overcoming them and making it better
every day? Yes? Is that exactly the kind of spirit
that we need in New Zealand if we're to overcome
a lot of other problems? Yes, it is. Would you
ever be able to explain that to certain journalists at
TVNZ or three News. I suspect you can't, and that's
(07:52):
why their audiences are switching off, because people want to
see solutions in a way out of the various challenges
we have in this country.
Speaker 1 (08:00):
Time David Seymour, I was going to get onto the
verification of pharmacists in this country, but we've run out
of time.
Speaker 2 (08:08):
For more from the Mic Asking Breakfast, listen live to
news Talks it'd be from six am weekdays, or follow
the podcast on iHeartRadio.
Popular Podcasts
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.