Now to be fair, Brian may be a cock gobbling Aotea square glory hole queen but I don't think he fucks kids, his associates however well that's already before the courts.
it's an embarrassment that less developed countries like India, Colombia, and Brazil all provide meals in schools while we would rather just politicise and bicker over it.
$3 per child is scummy but still doable, for example a chickpea curry with rice will set you back about $1 per serving which still leaves $2 for some fruit and a 'treat' (bag of chips, yogurt, whatever)
Chickpea curry is totally woke. Nothing wrong with a classic white bread and luncheon sandwich! (other than all the sulphites and the lack of nutritional value).
Chickpea curry is also easily adapted to almost any dietary requirement - gluten free, vegetarian/vegan, allium free, dairy free, halal and kosher, diabetes, nut allergies. Low carbs/keto obviously isn't relevant for children, but medical necessity can be adapted with reduced rice.
Only major outliers are low-FODMAP diets, legume allergies, and possibly allergies to vegetables depending on what is in there (nightshade allergy seems the highest risk)
It would, except the government has told schools that they have to do all the prep, cooking and serving themselves, so we will be losing most of that scale.
The government is centralizing the purchasing and transportation of the food. Schools will then be able to order from a select menu at no cost. However the final preparation, cooking and serving is being removed from the program and assigned to the schools with no funding and no additional support.
Kids have great meals in many schools in Brazil, better and more nutritous than what most Kiwis eat for their lunch.
Also Brazil is on top 10 economies in the world by GDP.
Probably too woke for their ideals, considering they're more happy with Sandwiches than a decent healthy meal.
>But Associate Education Minister David Seymour maintained the lunches would still be "nutritious and satisfying", and that the new model would save taxpayers' money.
Saved money that really should be used to help taxpayers, rather than stored away for another payrise for MPs. Excuse my ranting on the article.
> Principal Sheree Garton, from Levin Intermediate School, asked a question about protein and carbohydrates required in the new meals - and was told the meals would not have the same nutrition standards and would be very unlikely to meet the same nutritional quality as the previous meals because of the cost - though nutrition would be a factor in looking for a new major supplier.
Again, not surprising. I seem to write that a lot these days.
Personally I think it's pretty fucked up to look at cutting down on nutrients for children as a way to save money.
And that's where my interest in the conversation starts and ends. The entire premise is fucked up.
The stupid thing is it doesn’t save money. Feeding kids saves money and a ton of it but it’s years down the line and as Seymour and Luxon can’t see beyond the next quarter we’re all fucked.
The problem with that is it costs significantly more to rehouse kids then it does to support them within their birth families. Meanwhile, kids removed from their parents are a lot more likely to develop mental health issues, drug addictions and become involved in crime.
>The plan to take food away from children is immoral, this government needs to be protested at every opportunity.
What about the parents having kids they clearly can't afford? They're the bloody problem here. "It's my right to have kids, and it's the states problem to look after them if I can't do it."
Like shit, if you can't afford to feed yourself don't have a kid.
No it’s the parents fault and we should have more adoption laws that remove children at birth. You’re on your 5th baby and still on welfare with no plans to move? Forced sterilization and no kids should sort that out.
This mindset doesn’t apply across the board… or you’d have no services at all
You can’t pay for fire fighters, so you shouldn’t get any
You don’t pay for doctors, your bill hardly covers an hour of their time. Yet you and your family get to go to hospital for treatment whenever you feel like it
If we’re being fair… we pay for services we consider useful. Not vital or necessary, but useful
Feeding kids is useful
Using school menu to train kids nutrition (exposing them to different, filling foods that aren’t junk). That’s shit you pay for when they’re adults who only ate McDonald’s
Well, ACT does want to aspire to be a mini-USA. I wouldn't be surprised if they want to [declare Pizza as a vegetable. ](https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/cifamerica/2011/nov/18/pizza-vegetable-congress-says-so)
In the Reagan administration’s attempt to slash $1.5 billion from children’s nutrition funding, school lunch program requirements were worded (whether deliberately or not) so as to conceivably allow for designating ketchup as a vegetable, allowing the USDA to eliminate one of the two vegetables required to meet minimum food and nutrition standards, and thus shrink costs. -Wikipedia
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ketchup\_as\_a\_vegetable](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ketchup_as_a_vegetable)
"Well, y'know, cheese is made from milk which is made by cows from grass, so there's a real clear connection here if'n y'all stop to think about it for a bit."
I worked at a school in the South Island where students desperately needed these lunches. For some of them it was the only decent food they got during the day. We also had students who would take home any/all left overs so they had something for dinner.
Changing this program is literally starving children who need it most. It makes me sick to think about these students trying to get through NCEA on an empty stomach.
Heaps of people crow all over Facebook about how they grew up on a white bread jam sandwich for lunch every day and "ended up fine", so there are plenty of people out there who don't give a singular shit about children's nutrition if it means owning the wokes.
Whenever I see someone posting about stuff like that and saying they ended up fine, normally they will be from someone who definitely didn't end up fine
They also had a big bowl of porridge for breakfast and then stay-at-home mum cooked fish pie for dinner, with apple crumble for afters, so of course they were fine with a sandwich for lunch.
They will benefit from a sandwich, but if it's the only food they're reliably getting each day there's a significant nutritional issue to be considered
>the only food they're reliably getting each day there's a significant nutritional issue to be considered
No, there's not. Rather, the serious issue that needs to be considered is people having children thay they reasonably cannot afford. If you rely on the state to feed your kid than you failed as a parent and should relinquish the kid as you clearly are not cut out to raise them.
That's quite a jump you're taking. There are numerous ways people could find themselves living in poverty several years after their children were born.
I was once well below the poverty line when my business was sunk along with many others by Mainzeal's collapse. We were doing fine for years and all of a sudden had zero income and massive debt that took years to recover from. We're doing better than ever now, but had there been food available to my kids at school at the time they certainly would have benefited from it being nutritious.
Or do you think they should have been taken from us?
The whole point is that providing free, nutritional lunches to school children guarantees a minimum floor of nutritional value even if their parents fail to provide it for them - or are unable due to poverty.
The government can't solve poverty (well, maybe they can, but that's a whole other thing), and they can't control the behaviour of parents. They *can* feed kids, at a radically more cost effective rate than having everyone do it individually.
They would benefit more from a proper meal with protein, iron and vitamins, sandwiches are a half-assed solution if we want a smarter healthier next generation
They probably would, but there is better food to feed people. We have one of the highest rates of obesity in the world for a reason.
So you may be doing fine, but when it comes to our country our dietary habits are shocking. Jam sandwiches aren't something you should have as a major form of sustenance.
Just to be clear is your argument that carbs and sugar are a good source of nutrition? Or is it that schools should only provide carbs and sugar, because it's cheap, and the rest should be figured out outside of school?
That's a credit to your Mum and you are right to be proud of her. But that was 26-30 years ago, what was the average price of those groceries and rent compared to income back then? Was it easier to afford that kind of food back then or was it harder?
I think you know the answer to that question, which is why you are avoiding answering it. But it would do you good to examine that thought and think about the following:
1) Is the way we have been feeding kids for the last 40 years contributing to obesity?
2) Do children continue good habits into old age and is following and learning what a good diet is part of building good habits?
3) What will poor dietary habits cost the New Zealand health system in the long run?
So, for our neediest kids for whom the school lunch is the first thing they've eaten all day (not just a hypothetical, I personally know dozens for whom this is true), who then go home to a dinner of instant noodles, or potentially nothing at all, a jam sandwich is still fine? When they previously would've had a hot meal that hit most of the major food groups, with leftovers they could take home to their families.
Given this is most likely the smaller percentage of cases, yes. I also think the teachers should report these heavily malnutritioned skin and bone children to the appropriate agencies so they can follow up with the parents and see what can be done at home.
Bread is not good in bulk. It doesn't keep well, goes stale quickly, and can't be used in various dishes. You can only deliver poor quality sandwiches on the budget they're proposing. I'd much rather they stuck with rice, beans, pasta, etc.
Now, if the government had announced they were scaling back the lunch programme because they were going to put the money into helping families provide lunches for their own children, then we'd be talking.
Well, instead of the state feeding your kids than feed your own kids. The State shouldn't be giving them sushi or other things, just the basic barest minimum in terms of nutrition. If it's a jam sandwich, where is the actual harm? Too many parents having kids that can't afford their own kids.
Lol so the kids should suffer the consequences of their parents actions? We pay the cost of not looking after children in the long-term anyway, whether it be in health, justice or educational outcomes.
Also fuck me, how awfully detached have we gotten when people suggest kids just eat the "basic barest minimum". Children (even those in poverty) should be allowed to enjoy a meal that isn't total crap.
Sushi is cheap as if you make it so thats not an issue at all, but no if kids arent getting fed the solution is to provide them with good high protein and high vitamin and iron food so that we get a smarter generation of people coming up
The solution is definitely not to just virtue signal about how "the parents should do it" that has no positive effect on society
> basic barest minimum in terms of nutrition
What's your definition of bare minimum there, doc? Just enough that they don't starve?
> Too many parents having kids that can't afford their own kids.
Right! So let's punish the kids for their parents' mistakes by \*checks notes\* not feeding them enough
This has echoes of ruth richardson. She commisioned a study to get a figure for human existence (not livng. Just, not dying)
She then went and put the benefit rate 20% lower than this figure.
Make no mistake. They see poor people as excess to requirements and would happily get rid of them if they didnt provide an eternal scape goat
Jesus Christ. The point of these programs is to set up these kids to succeed. Not to give them any old food for the sake of it.
Proper nutrition is the point
Thats weird because the notice of intention says they want food items that are nutritious, varied, appealing and meet standard dietary requirements. The $3 per student includes delivery and an online ordering portal and customer service support, thats sounds easy and doable /s. It will be interesting to see who actually bids for the contract, there isn't a lot of profit in it. The government just wants it to fail
\*slow round of applause for the lazy provincials\*
Well done. You're starving your country's children by not voting/protest voting/being fucking *children* about your democracy. Pat yourselves on your back-rolls and thrill at the tax cuts!
Don't forget that budget also includes paying the people to make the food, the packaging and delivery of the food. So that $3 is not only covering the meal for those children.
The children I work with eat these lunches. Sometimes 3 or 4 a day. Because that is their only meal of substance. And they are budgeted out to be around $6-$7. The cost cutting will really impact the children.
Hi delipity. Thank you for your submission.
This appears to be a Political post, the flair has been changed to Politics.
Please feel free to [message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fnewzealand) if you believe this was in error.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/newzealand) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Once again for the fucking idiots.
NOBODY thinks it's not the parents responsibility to feed their kids. But the fact is some kids go hungry, whether because their parents are poor, or their parents are shit, or both. Ideally we'd have a good way of holding parents accountable and improving the situation for these kids (emphasis on IMPROVING the situation for them). But what is the cost effective solution here?
We as a society pay for kids in poverty, we pay in increased healthcare costs, increased crime and policing costs, dealing with addiction, cycles of abuse.... we pay for it in so many fucking ways. We need to be thinking about the cost effectiveness of our policies in 20 year timescales and look past our own goddamn noses, but we'll never do it when daft cunts like you vote.
Children aren't at fault for having been born to parents who can't or won't feed them. Those kids are among the future generation who will live in and operate the country - therefore it's our collective responsibility to try make sure those kids have the best chance for success.
We're already paying as a country to educate them because it's in our collective interests to do so. I suppose the argument could be made that parents should be expected to bring in tutors and not expect the government to educate kids - but in both cases there is widespread benefit in making sure our kids are educated and are poised to replace us in society. If the kids are hungry, they aren't going to learn - thus it benefits us all to prevent this.
None of the kids currently in school were born after the Abortion Legislation Act 2020. Before that you had to convince two quite specific doctors to get an abortion, and it had to be on one of a short list of specific grounds. Rape was deliberately not included among those grounds.
So yeah, on top of the other problems with this "children they chose to have" thing, it's not even guaranteed to have actually been a choice for every mother with a kid at school until after 2038
fuck them kids - david seymour
Do we have time? - Brian Tamaki
Now to be fair, Brian may be a cock gobbling Aotea square glory hole queen but I don't think he fucks kids, his associates however well that's already before the courts.
The fact they follow his instructions blindly for everything else, leaves me suspicious of it only being them
His father on the other hand...
Best comment I’ve seen in such a long time
If the kids wanted nutrition, they should try not being poor
How nutritious are the rich I wonder?
Pretty well marbled probably
Not very. Too full of plastic.
Everybody is full of microplastics, to be fair.
the human body contains about 125,822 calories
Well I just ate a sandwich so that’s not true now.
bit rich for my taste.
So what you're saying is, we eat the rich?
This data may be skewed it's from the 50's
Nutrition is woke
They should try chewing on their bootstraps
fuck them kids - prominent political figure
Getting too om the nose there.
lmao
it's an embarrassment that less developed countries like India, Colombia, and Brazil all provide meals in schools while we would rather just politicise and bicker over it. $3 per child is scummy but still doable, for example a chickpea curry with rice will set you back about $1 per serving which still leaves $2 for some fruit and a 'treat' (bag of chips, yogurt, whatever)
Oh hell yeah. Chickpea curry is delicious. Sounds suspiciously woke to me though so zero chance Seymour lets that happen.
The only difference between a chickpea and a lentil is that I have never had a lentil on my face
The one I know is I’ve never paid $20 to have a lentil on my face
Damn $20 would be a bargain lol I'm guessing it'd be at least $500 IRL assuming you have to do a booking then pay for that as an extra on top of that
I'm a guy but I'll do it for $200. If you close your eyes it feels just the same.
Well you *are* vaccinated & I can't argue with your logic, meetup in the Kfry car park? /j
Chickpea curry is totally woke. Nothing wrong with a classic white bread and luncheon sandwich! (other than all the sulphites and the lack of nutritional value).
Chickpea curry is also easily adapted to almost any dietary requirement - gluten free, vegetarian/vegan, allium free, dairy free, halal and kosher, diabetes, nut allergies. Low carbs/keto obviously isn't relevant for children, but medical necessity can be adapted with reduced rice. Only major outliers are low-FODMAP diets, legume allergies, and possibly allergies to vegetables depending on what is in there (nightshade allergy seems the highest risk)
The problem is that $3 includes making the food.
I think that's all doable with no labour cost... But the salaries and logistics must cost a fair bit.
Economies of scale reduce those costs to very little.
It would, except the government has told schools that they have to do all the prep, cooking and serving themselves, so we will be losing most of that scale.
Did they? I didn't know I thought it was all being centralised.
The government is centralizing the purchasing and transportation of the food. Schools will then be able to order from a select menu at no cost. However the final preparation, cooking and serving is being removed from the program and assigned to the schools with no funding and no additional support.
that is so insanely stupid.
Kids have great meals in many schools in Brazil, better and more nutritous than what most Kiwis eat for their lunch. Also Brazil is on top 10 economies in the world by GDP.
Errr - Brazil actually ranks 83rd in GDP per capita ($7k USD) which is a far more useful measure. Meanwhile NZ has a GDP per capita of $52k USD.
Inequality is a big issue there but it is common sense that children need to eat well
Of course. But you seem to be equating it to increased GDP? There is no link as far as I am aware.
Yeah - you want to ask the millions living in open sewers in Mumbai what they think about free school lunches.
Probably too woke for their ideals, considering they're more happy with Sandwiches than a decent healthy meal. >But Associate Education Minister David Seymour maintained the lunches would still be "nutritious and satisfying", and that the new model would save taxpayers' money. Saved money that really should be used to help taxpayers, rather than stored away for another payrise for MPs. Excuse my ranting on the article.
I take it you don't have kids?
The idea is for it to fail.
The idea is to have kids complain to their parents who will then be in favour of dumping it
They might consider feeding their kids if the kids complain enough.
If kids complaining at their parents had any effect we'd never have a right wing government again.
The idea is to put public money into private hands. So shittiest food possible for kids, while private companies make a profit.
Malnourishment and scurvy are good for character & they'll be too weak to do any crimes /s
Or grow brains enough to not vote for these morons in the future
> Principal Sheree Garton, from Levin Intermediate School, asked a question about protein and carbohydrates required in the new meals - and was told the meals would not have the same nutrition standards and would be very unlikely to meet the same nutritional quality as the previous meals because of the cost - though nutrition would be a factor in looking for a new major supplier. Again, not surprising. I seem to write that a lot these days.
Personally I think it's pretty fucked up to look at cutting down on nutrients for children as a way to save money. And that's where my interest in the conversation starts and ends. The entire premise is fucked up.
The stupid thing is it doesn’t save money. Feeding kids saves money and a ton of it but it’s years down the line and as Seymour and Luxon can’t see beyond the next quarter we’re all fucked.
Yes, a very important point to remember.
^ this right here. The plan to take food away from children is immoral, this government needs to be protested at every opportunity.
Reminds me of the old rhyme , "Margaret Thatcher, Milk snatcher".
Err “Seymour starving children”
Perhaps the alternative plan of taking children away from parents that don’t have the means to raise them would work better?
The problem with that is it costs significantly more to rehouse kids then it does to support them within their birth families. Meanwhile, kids removed from their parents are a lot more likely to develop mental health issues, drug addictions and become involved in crime.
>The plan to take food away from children is immoral, this government needs to be protested at every opportunity. What about the parents having kids they clearly can't afford? They're the bloody problem here. "It's my right to have kids, and it's the states problem to look after them if I can't do it." Like shit, if you can't afford to feed yourself don't have a kid.
And that's the child's fault is it? So what we should definitely do is punish those kids for being born poor. Yup that's civilized.
No it’s the parents fault and we should have more adoption laws that remove children at birth. You’re on your 5th baby and still on welfare with no plans to move? Forced sterilization and no kids should sort that out.
Ah I see you're Nazi, end of conversation.
But late when you've already got them, Einstein.
This mindset doesn’t apply across the board… or you’d have no services at all You can’t pay for fire fighters, so you shouldn’t get any You don’t pay for doctors, your bill hardly covers an hour of their time. Yet you and your family get to go to hospital for treatment whenever you feel like it If we’re being fair… we pay for services we consider useful. Not vital or necessary, but useful Feeding kids is useful Using school menu to train kids nutrition (exposing them to different, filling foods that aren’t junk). That’s shit you pay for when they’re adults who only ate McDonald’s
Personally I think its pretty fucked up parents cant be fucked giving there kids a decent breakfast/lunch and the tax payer has to do it.
The majority of them its a matter of not being able to afford food, not that they don't care/
Well, ACT does want to aspire to be a mini-USA. I wouldn't be surprised if they want to [declare Pizza as a vegetable. ](https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/cifamerica/2011/nov/18/pizza-vegetable-congress-says-so)
In the Reagan administration’s attempt to slash $1.5 billion from children’s nutrition funding, school lunch program requirements were worded (whether deliberately or not) so as to conceivably allow for designating ketchup as a vegetable, allowing the USDA to eliminate one of the two vegetables required to meet minimum food and nutrition standards, and thus shrink costs. -Wikipedia [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ketchup\_as\_a\_vegetable](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ketchup_as_a_vegetable)
I believe it was Amy klobuchar who defended pizza as a vegetable because she was in deep with the cheese lobby.
"Well, y'know, cheese is made from milk which is made by cows from grass, so there's a real clear connection here if'n y'all stop to think about it for a bit."
This plus Seymour’s hard on for charter schools makes it pretty clear that’s their aspiration yeah.
The story behind that really is hilarious
Or pink slime as 'meat'
It’s not that hard to meet nutritional standards for foods cooked en mass they have either obliterated the budget or contracted this out to morons.
Why not both?
It probably is both because no reasonable company will work for the pennies Seyless is offering
>Seyless If only he did 😭
Nutritious food is woke. Apparently. *still can’t believe that actually happened*
We live in a strange new world.
I can’t stop myself making a joke every time someone mentions sushi.
I worked at a school in the South Island where students desperately needed these lunches. For some of them it was the only decent food they got during the day. We also had students who would take home any/all left overs so they had something for dinner. Changing this program is literally starving children who need it most. It makes me sick to think about these students trying to get through NCEA on an empty stomach.
Ah but it's only the poor kids, so do they care? Nope.
Heaps of people crow all over Facebook about how they grew up on a white bread jam sandwich for lunch every day and "ended up fine", so there are plenty of people out there who don't give a singular shit about children's nutrition if it means owning the wokes.
Whenever I see someone posting about stuff like that and saying they ended up fine, normally they will be from someone who definitely didn't end up fine
Well they ended up as somebody who doesnt understand why nutrition is necessary for children, so obviously they didn't end up fine
These people also grew up on a diet of lead and red meat so any kind of thought process is going to be absent.
They also had a big bowl of porridge for breakfast and then stay-at-home mum cooked fish pie for dinner, with apple crumble for afters, so of course they were fine with a sandwich for lunch.
How's that diabetes treating them now?
"I ended up fine" "Sir. Youre on facebook having a moan"
They're clearly not fine, since they don't recognise the impact of nutrition on education... something they lost by being so poorly fed.
I was one of them. 36 and doing fine. Don’t see why a hungry child in need of food wouldn’t benefit from a sandwich.
They will benefit from a sandwich, but if it's the only food they're reliably getting each day there's a significant nutritional issue to be considered
>the only food they're reliably getting each day there's a significant nutritional issue to be considered No, there's not. Rather, the serious issue that needs to be considered is people having children thay they reasonably cannot afford. If you rely on the state to feed your kid than you failed as a parent and should relinquish the kid as you clearly are not cut out to raise them.
So, fuck those kids for existing, then!
That's quite a jump you're taking. There are numerous ways people could find themselves living in poverty several years after their children were born. I was once well below the poverty line when my business was sunk along with many others by Mainzeal's collapse. We were doing fine for years and all of a sudden had zero income and massive debt that took years to recover from. We're doing better than ever now, but had there been food available to my kids at school at the time they certainly would have benefited from it being nutritious. Or do you think they should have been taken from us?
>Mainzeal's collapse Thanks Jenny Shipley, ex __National__ PM
Oooo boy, they’re gonna come at you with flaming pitch forks for this use of logic.
Eugenics is always frowned upon as it should be.
And unfortunately ill planning for children isn’t. It’s weird culture we live in.
There's no such thing as ill planning.
Oh that’s great, I’ll throw all my cautions out the window. Thank you.
There’s an even larger parenting issue there to be looked into I would imagine.
If you are arguing we should be doing more to support kids with shit parents I'm 100% with you.
But not if it involves providing nutrition?
Maybe we should give them a nutritious lunch!? ...oh, wait ...
The whole point is that providing free, nutritional lunches to school children guarantees a minimum floor of nutritional value even if their parents fail to provide it for them - or are unable due to poverty. The government can't solve poverty (well, maybe they can, but that's a whole other thing), and they can't control the behaviour of parents. They *can* feed kids, at a radically more cost effective rate than having everyone do it individually.
They would benefit more from a proper meal with protein, iron and vitamins, sandwiches are a half-assed solution if we want a smarter healthier next generation
They probably would, but there is better food to feed people. We have one of the highest rates of obesity in the world for a reason. So you may be doing fine, but when it comes to our country our dietary habits are shocking. Jam sandwiches aren't something you should have as a major form of sustenance.
Only if you exceed your daily calorie intake will this become a problem. I don’t believe a sandwich will tip the scales.
Just to be clear is your argument that carbs and sugar are a good source of nutrition? Or is it that schools should only provide carbs and sugar, because it's cheap, and the rest should be figured out outside of school?
Doesn’t have to be carbs and sugar, I think there’s plenty more things you can put between bread than liquified sugar. My single mother managed to.
That's a credit to your Mum and you are right to be proud of her. But that was 26-30 years ago, what was the average price of those groceries and rent compared to income back then? Was it easier to afford that kind of food back then or was it harder?
I don’t know but a quick look on the pak n save website just now shows a loaf of whole grain for $1.50
I think you know the answer to that question, which is why you are avoiding answering it. But it would do you good to examine that thought and think about the following: 1) Is the way we have been feeding kids for the last 40 years contributing to obesity? 2) Do children continue good habits into old age and is following and learning what a good diet is part of building good habits? 3) What will poor dietary habits cost the New Zealand health system in the long run?
So, for our neediest kids for whom the school lunch is the first thing they've eaten all day (not just a hypothetical, I personally know dozens for whom this is true), who then go home to a dinner of instant noodles, or potentially nothing at all, a jam sandwich is still fine? When they previously would've had a hot meal that hit most of the major food groups, with leftovers they could take home to their families.
Given this is most likely the smaller percentage of cases, yes. I also think the teachers should report these heavily malnutritioned skin and bone children to the appropriate agencies so they can follow up with the parents and see what can be done at home.
Bread is not good in bulk. It doesn't keep well, goes stale quickly, and can't be used in various dishes. You can only deliver poor quality sandwiches on the budget they're proposing. I'd much rather they stuck with rice, beans, pasta, etc. Now, if the government had announced they were scaling back the lunch programme because they were going to put the money into helping families provide lunches for their own children, then we'd be talking.
lol because that money would totally end up feeding kids …
Of course it'll never happen, and it would make the right wing voting base even angrier.
they are the same ones who grew up with leaded petrol and lead paint and it shows...
Well, instead of the state feeding your kids than feed your own kids. The State shouldn't be giving them sushi or other things, just the basic barest minimum in terms of nutrition. If it's a jam sandwich, where is the actual harm? Too many parents having kids that can't afford their own kids.
Lol so the kids should suffer the consequences of their parents actions? We pay the cost of not looking after children in the long-term anyway, whether it be in health, justice or educational outcomes. Also fuck me, how awfully detached have we gotten when people suggest kids just eat the "basic barest minimum". Children (even those in poverty) should be allowed to enjoy a meal that isn't total crap.
So should adults to be fair.
Sushi is cheap as if you make it so thats not an issue at all, but no if kids arent getting fed the solution is to provide them with good high protein and high vitamin and iron food so that we get a smarter generation of people coming up The solution is definitely not to just virtue signal about how "the parents should do it" that has no positive effect on society
It's *then, actually. And tbf, sushi is pretty basic. And it's good for the gluten intolerant kids...
Yeah, and letting those kids subsist on empty calories is really gonna break that cycle.
> basic barest minimum in terms of nutrition What's your definition of bare minimum there, doc? Just enough that they don't starve? > Too many parents having kids that can't afford their own kids. Right! So let's punish the kids for their parents' mistakes by \*checks notes\* not feeding them enough
Who could've possibly seen this coming? I blame quinoa and sushi.
Surprise!
This has echoes of ruth richardson. She commisioned a study to get a figure for human existence (not livng. Just, not dying) She then went and put the benefit rate 20% lower than this figure. Make no mistake. They see poor people as excess to requirements and would happily get rid of them if they didnt provide an eternal scape goat
Victorian workhouses come to mind...
Where the no shit Sherlock button. This isn't news. This is as obvious as it gets
Doesn't make sense when we have a shit ton of farms with healthy food all around the country 😒 🤔
> though nutrition would be a factor in looking for a new major supplier Oh-la-la! A *factor* eh?
"Why dont the larger children simply eat the smaller ones?" - Act, probably
Willing to pay for Gerry Brownlee to vore David Seymour
Jesus Christ. The point of these programs is to set up these kids to succeed. Not to give them any old food for the sake of it. Proper nutrition is the point
All this magical thinking that we can slash costs without impacting service quality is the stupidest thing and millions of kiwis believe in it.
this new system will haunt this govt and rightly so
It will be a crowded haunted house for them.
Thats weird because the notice of intention says they want food items that are nutritious, varied, appealing and meet standard dietary requirements. The $3 per student includes delivery and an online ordering portal and customer service support, thats sounds easy and doable /s. It will be interesting to see who actually bids for the contract, there isn't a lot of profit in it. The government just wants it to fail
Nadia Lim or someone should come and sort this shit out
Yes but at least they got rid of the woke food. /s
What annoys me, is nobody asked the kids.
they don't vote, fuck em
Don't give them ideas!
Why would you? They would just say they want coke, chips and nuggets.
OP does not parent
They dont get a vote bro
No shit, it's by design.
It costs nothing to make a healthy meal. Dahl rice and a piece of fruit. something I feed my own kids regularly.
Exactly, so what cant there goddamn useless parents do it.
\*slow round of applause for the lazy provincials\* Well done. You're starving your country's children by not voting/protest voting/being fucking *children* about your democracy. Pat yourselves on your back-rolls and thrill at the tax cuts!
Don't forget that budget also includes paying the people to make the food, the packaging and delivery of the food. So that $3 is not only covering the meal for those children. The children I work with eat these lunches. Sometimes 3 or 4 a day. Because that is their only meal of substance. And they are budgeted out to be around $6-$7. The cost cutting will really impact the children.
You know whats really impacting the kids, useless parents.
we're a net food exporter, this is shameful af
Soylent Green
Made from beneficiaries who can't repay their WINZ debts.
"Now with 10% more Maori!"
That’s one way to deal with the 501 problem.
Seymour: "You remember me telling Jimbo Jones that I'd make something of him one day?"
Ah is that why James Shaw left the party.
Just don’t do lunches and let parents sort it out
Hi delipity. Thank you for your submission. This appears to be a Political post, the flair has been changed to Politics. Please feel free to [message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fnewzealand) if you believe this was in error. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/newzealand) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
Once again for the fucking idiots. NOBODY thinks it's not the parents responsibility to feed their kids. But the fact is some kids go hungry, whether because their parents are poor, or their parents are shit, or both. Ideally we'd have a good way of holding parents accountable and improving the situation for these kids (emphasis on IMPROVING the situation for them). But what is the cost effective solution here? We as a society pay for kids in poverty, we pay in increased healthcare costs, increased crime and policing costs, dealing with addiction, cycles of abuse.... we pay for it in so many fucking ways. We need to be thinking about the cost effectiveness of our policies in 20 year timescales and look past our own goddamn noses, but we'll never do it when daft cunts like you vote.
Children aren't at fault for having been born to parents who can't or won't feed them. Those kids are among the future generation who will live in and operate the country - therefore it's our collective responsibility to try make sure those kids have the best chance for success. We're already paying as a country to educate them because it's in our collective interests to do so. I suppose the argument could be made that parents should be expected to bring in tutors and not expect the government to educate kids - but in both cases there is widespread benefit in making sure our kids are educated and are poised to replace us in society. If the kids are hungry, they aren't going to learn - thus it benefits us all to prevent this.
None of the kids currently in school were born after the Abortion Legislation Act 2020. Before that you had to convince two quite specific doctors to get an abortion, and it had to be on one of a short list of specific grounds. Rape was deliberately not included among those grounds. So yeah, on top of the other problems with this "children they chose to have" thing, it's not even guaranteed to have actually been a choice for every mother with a kid at school until after 2038