Ryan Bridge: School lunches - David Seymour is the new Robin Hood

Nothing is ever good enough for some people, is it? 

You've got a centre-right government committing hundreds of millions of dollars in taxpayer money to feed kids in schools, and they've managed to free up $130 million in savings in the process, and still, it's not good enough for some. 

The Health Coalition Aotearoa, they're not happy, some dieticians say it's not nutritious enough. 

"Simply cutting the amount of food that they are having and supplying a more processed, less varied diet is a complete lost opportunity for our health system." 

I'll tell you what, it's more nutritious than nothing at all, an empty stomach. 

Some said the food was too processed, it was one size fits all, it wouldn't appeal to the kids. 

It's not meant to appeal to kids so much as feed them when they're hungry. I thought that was the point. And if they don't eat it, they're not hungry. It's simple. 

Now, there are some bold claims being made by David Seymour which I am a little sceptical of like the fact that we can do this for $3 a meal. It sounds unheard of, but he gets the benefit of the doubt and my good luck for his cost saving crusade. 

Guess where some of the savings are going, feeding 10,000 poor 2 to 5-year-olds. 

David Seymour is the new Robin Hood. 

In all the flurry of releases yesterday about this, there was one staggering number that stood out to me. Seymour reckons if Labour had adopted his model from the get-go when they launched this program five years ago, we would have saved $800 million dollars. 

$800 million – they could have had that bike bridge over the Waitemata Harbour, or they could have had more rat tests, or whatever the hell they wanted. 

It's true, there is no such thing as a free lunch, but thank the lord is at least now a cheaper menu. 

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:00):
Nothing is ever good enough for some people, is it nothing?
You've got to center right government just committing hundreds of
millions of dollars in taxpayer money to feed kids in schools,
and they've managed to free up one hundred and thirty
million dollars in savings in the process, and still it's
not good enough for some. The Health Coalition altered. Oh

(00:21):
that group, they're not happy. Some dietitians, they say it's
not nutritious enough.

Speaker 2 (00:25):
Simply cutting the amount of food that they're having and
supplying a more processed, less varied diet as a complete
lost opportunity for our health system.

Speaker 1 (00:37):
I'll tell you what, It's more nutritious than nothing at all,
an empty stomach. Some said the food was too processed,
it was one size fits all. It wouldn't appeal to
the kids. It's not meant to appeal to kids so
much as feed them when they're hungry. I thought, at
least I thought that was the point. And if they
don't eat it, they're not hungry. It's simple.

Speaker 2 (00:58):
Now.

Speaker 1 (00:59):
There is some bold been made by David Seymour which
I am a little skeptical of, like the fact that
we can do this for three dollars a meal. Sounds
unheard of, but he gets the benefit of the doubt
and my good luck for his cost saving crusade. Guess
where some of the savings are going feeding ten thousand
poor two to five year olds. David Seymour is the
new Robin Hood. In all the flurry of releases yesterday

(01:23):
about this, there was one staggering number that stood out
to me. Seymour reckons if Labor had adopted his model
from the get go, when they launched this program five
years ago, we would have saved eight hundred million dollars
eight hundred million. They could have had that bike bridge
over the White to Matar Harbor, or they could have

(01:44):
had more rat tests, or whatever the hell they wanted.
It's true there was no such thing as a free lunch,
but thank the Lord, is at least now a cheaper menu.
For more from early edition with Ryan Bridge. Listen live
to News Talks it be from five am weekdays, or
follow the podcast on iHeartRadio.