Leave food in schools alone

Yet again, the spectre of David Seymour is hovering over another Labour initiative, and he’s now casting his censorious eye over the school lunch programme (NZ Herald, March 4).

He wants “empirical” evidence the scheme is working, but trying to measure a malnourished child’s school performance and attendance is nebulous at best, because one school meal isn’t going to miraculously solve all the other problems these children face.

Overcrowding, family violence and the diseases of poverty all contribute negatively to children succeeding at school.

Also, Treasury’s ambivalence about school meals being wasted and therefore reducing the effectiveness of the programme doesn’t reveal the true picture, because a survey indicated 61 per cent of leftovers are given to students to take home, and 21 per cent is given to the community.

Unfortunately, what Seymour and Treasury don’t understand about the longterm destructive effects of poverty could fill an ocean, and closed hearts and closed minds won’t help families in crisis.

Seymour appears to have an incisive intellect, so he would do better to utilise that keen mind to develop a social welfare system that could raise these children up, not grind them down even further into more deprivation and hopelessness.

Wouldn’t it be life-changing if the coalition collaborated on such a programme and had the foresight to understand these same children wouldn’t become future crime statistics and could contribute effectively to society, while unburdening the taxpayers in the future?

That’s what real “empirical” evidence looks like. All it takes is creativity and courage.

Mary Hearn, Glendowie.

Do the maths, minister

It is difficult to understand why the Prime Minister would put David Seymour in charge of the school lunch programme after his campaign to abolish it.

So far, this Government has done nothing to alleviate child poverty, and if an MP whose electorate probably has the lowest level of poverty and is likely the wealthiest in the country sees no merit in such a programme, it is a sad thing for all.

I grew up in Epsom as one of five children with a widowed mother. I understand a little of poverty, but the electorate has changed a lot since then.

It is now the home of dual grammar zones, with most houses valued at close to or over $2 million.

Seymour and many of his party need to understand the economics of the school lunch programme. Without it, many children will go to school and, being too hungry to learn, will become ill and place an unnecessary load on our fragile health system.

That would end up costing all in this country more than the paltry $160m a year.

If those currently in power cannot understand compassion and the human costs of axing these excellent programmes, would they please do the basic arithmetic to justify their axing?

Rod Lyons, Kumeu¯ .

stingy and cruel

I’ve just read your guest opinion writer Niki Penny’s inspirational and thoughtful piece on the key to education (NZ Herald, March 4). Her plea to politicians — for empathy in the face of hardship and commitment to resources instead of punishing parents for the absenteeism — needs to be heard and heeded.

On the same day the paper headlined David Seymour’s unbelievable stance that free school lunches are “wasteful and a

marketing stunt”, Penny clearly outlines how school lunches at the low-decile Te Kō manawa Rowley School “[were] crucial in helping kids stay in school . . . there is a proven correlation between food security and learning”.

Taking food away from those children — whose parents cannot afford healthy food, let alone fines for their absent, hungry children — is absurd. Seymour’s stingy, cruel policies are hard to stomach.

If only Niki Penny was in charge of the Ministry of Education.

Dr Marianne Schultz, Eden Terrace.

Rugby woes

There has been much discussion around the apparent demise of rugby as we know it.

My wife and I subscribed to Sky for the rugby back in 1996. We now no longer watch rugby at all.

Visually the game now is unappealing, hard to watch, and getting a feeling for the flow is totally ruined by out-of-control advertising, distracting from the viewing experience.

This is before you get to the guttural bro-talk commentary. Combine this with the ever-changing rules, and referees so many times having the say on the final outcome of the game.

I wonder how many “former” viewers agree with this. Or maybe we are the ones who are out of step?!

Dennis Green, Alfriston.