Prime Minister Christopher Luxon says parents unhappy with the school lunches should start packing their own.
Cut the penny-pinching on school lunches
Yes, a Marmite sandwich and an apple is an adequate lunch but these people who are suggesting parents could just supply such a lunch are missing the point completely.
The reason good, tasty, nutritious lunches or just a Marmite sandwich and an apple need to be supplied to many schools is because some parents or caregivers can’t, won’t and simply don’t provide for their children, which could be for any number of reasons.
Indeed for many of these children, sadly the food they are provided at school is possibly their only decent meal of the day.
Yes, parents and caregivers should provide lunch for their children and provide in every other way too by way of a secure, safe and supportive family environment but unfortunately this is not the case for some of our children.
If we want to break the cycle and grow a nation of happy, responsible, productive adults who in turn provide a secure, safe and supportive environment for their families, we have to step into the breach and fill the gaps.
Anything that achieves an improved outcome, especially for our children, is money well spent.
Penny-pinching on support programmes and services such as school lunches that serve to break the cycle is a false economy that costs dearly in the long run by way of other services.
Kathleen Hawkins, Papakura.
Suppression laws
The sex attacker Luca Fairgray, who started offending in 2017 when he was a 14-year-old schoolboy, has finally been named - and not before time (Mar 4).
In 2022 the farcical sentence handed down to him for his sexual offending against six young teenage girls when he was aged 14-17 caused an outcry and rightly so. At sentencing the judge started with a sentence of seven-and-a-half years in prison, but by the time various discounts were applied he received a 73% discount, resulting in 12 months home detention and supervision. The judge commented he was getting “a lucky break”.
He certainly took advantage of that and carried on his offending. The young women who so bravely refused their own name suppression and spoke about the sexual assaults they endured showed tremendous strength of character.
They fought to get the sex attacker named to protect others from being harmed by him, but his continual bids for permanent name suppression prevented this from happening, until now. With his name and photo in the public domain, they have achieved this.
Surely this is a perfect example of why the laws pertaining to name suppression, and discounts given during sentencing, need an overhaul.
Lorraine Kidd, Warkworth.
Abuse of power
Reading the headlines over changes to the law, especially on convicted sex offenders having name suppression rights taken away and placed in the hands of victims, is overdue (Mar 4).
Our criminal laws, those affecting women particularly, have been in need of change for decades, nay, centuries. The laws in place have moved ever so slowly to meet women’s needs.
This has been painful and downright humiliating at times for victims of sexual abuse. Even after increasing women numbers in the justice system, they are still required to follow procedures set down by men all those years ago. So these strong plans to give victims veto power over their sex offenders' right to name suppression (over 90% male) seems a sensible and fair meeting of justice.
It’s better than having a situation, as we did years ago, where a desperate group of ignored women secretly grabbed a known sex predator one night, stripped him bare and tied him to a tree. But there should also be a law change on how defence barristers make accusations which appear to have no controls in place, allowing the accuser/victim to become fair game and therefore, reabused.
Maybe this is to increase the prosecutor’s prowess, a technique perhaps to help their careers? Why else would you use clever derogatory terms? It seems to me an abuse of power.
Emma Mackintosh, Birkenhead.
Goff sacking
So the Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Minister sacks New Zealand’s High Commissioner for asking, in a public meeting a rhetorical question about the American President’s historical knowledge (Mar 7).
Yet he felt no similar action was indicated when his deputy stated in a xenophobic and racist manner, and in the public domain of New Zealand’s Parliament, “to send the Mexicans home”. He himself felt it acceptable to state that other migrant Members of Parliament should “show some gratitude”.
Hypocrisy, and even the perception of hypocrisy, is a difficult stain to erase.
Greg Dunn, Hamilton.
Four-year terms
The problem, as laid out by parliamentarians, is that the first year is spent planning, the second doing and the third trying to be re-elected.
Let’s accept that that’s roughly right. So the problem is that the first year is wasted trying to understand how the system works. Thus by having a four-year term there would be two “doing” years.
If a government is re-elected they don’t have to undergo the first “planning year” as they’ve done that in the previous three years - thus the second term, or third if they continue to be re-elected, need only be three years.
The problem with a four-year term is there are no checks on the government’s power, no constitution or a second chamber. Also frequently we have nine-year terms, think Rob Muldoon, Helen Clark and Key. Do we really want 12-year terms?
So if we have to extend the parliamentary term it should be four years on election, and three years on re-election.
Nick Hamilton, Remuera.
No such thing
At last we are having a conversation about school lunches and Bruce Cotterill in the Weekend Herald did a great job putting the issue into perspective (Mar 1).
Of course children need to eat lunch - preferably a healthy one. It is a God-given right of children to expect parents to provide for them. And of course some parents appear to be unable to do this.
Why are schools, as stretched as they are and charged with educating these children having to arrange for feeding them as well? There are government departments and charities whose task it is to look after the poor and needy who could make arrangements to enable parents to feed their kids.
And why is the Government providing hot meals in the summer? And why do we have to model ourselves on countries whose climate and culture is different?
Media has found the current school lunch programme a great source of stories, whining about the state and nutritional value of the food provided, which of course is ammunition for the young people to have the expectation that government should provide a free lunch when there is no such thing. Someone has to pay. Maybe schools should teach that fact of life.
Stop this stupid programme immediately, identify the needy and let the Ministry of Social Development respond accordingly. But please free schools from being lunch providers so they can better encourage learning.
David English, Northcote.
Lunch stigma
Is Bruce Cotterill saying that the Government should only provide school lunches for the most needy children in each school?
There’s plenty of evidence that needy children are easily stigmatised and would not put their hand up to collect a free lunch if the lunches weren’t available to every child in the class. That is why lunches are universal and offered to all kids in schools that receive them.
Of course we’d all like 100% of parents to be willing and able to feed their children but poverty and parental dysfunction are too common today. Mental health issues, addiction and poverty are rife in some neighbourhoods and it is certainly not the child’s fault if food is scarce.
Greater investment is needed in improving the lives of those affected families. Cotterill’s memories of Marmite sandwiches are nice nostalgia but are no doubt not amusing to the teachers, social workers and other professionals who work hard to help our vulnerable kids.
We need the lunch programme to work well. The previous system worked well, so let’s hope the current version improves ASAP.
Cheryl Clarke, Algies Bay.
Why are we still trying to get trains to go across Cook Strait? Trains from Blenheim south should only be scenic trips for tourists (and Christchurch suburban passenger services). All freight in the South Island should be handled by road transport. Valuable commercial real estate currently being used for marshalling yards could then be freed up for redevelopment. North Island rail freight should terminate at Paraparaumu and Featherston, and be transferred to road transport for all points south. Coastal shipping should be developed between North Island and South Island ports.
Arch Thomson, Mt Wellington.
The debacle in the Oval Office saw one partially correct statement made by Donald Trump – he was indeed putting America First. What he failed to mention was that he was putting Russia a close second and Ukraine a distant third, with Europe not even in the picture. Civilised countries have slapped sanctions on pro-Putin oligarchs. With Trump having openly joined that band, is it not time to consider sanctions against Trump’s business interests?
Stephen Westgate, Onerahi.
The government of the day wisely banned the use of single-use plastic bags so why is this Government allowing single-use plastic containers for schools’ free lunches? With thousands of lunches handed out every day one cannot imagine the amount arriving in the landfills. Plastic does not break down. The whole lunch operation revamped in 2025 has been a debacle and clearly the cheaper change had not been sufficiently researched.
Marie Kaire, Whangārei.
Most will agree hosting the America’s Cup that is currently ours should be defended here. Last time there was a left-wing government that wasn’t keen on funding a rich blokes’ sport. Whilst the National Government has not endorsed contributing to the 2027 defence, there is a better chance it will host in Auckland. Infrastructure is in place, the Waitematā sits waiting; the tourism advertisement will be outstanding. Having it in Barcelona just wasn’t the same.
John Ford, Taradale.
First, Auckland Council causes city congestion by standing back and allowing Auckland Transport to run amok. Secondly, Auckland Council commissions a report which supports congestion charging. Whichever way you look at it, ratepayers are not the winners.
Patricia Schnauer, Milford.
And the 2025 Marie Antoinette Let Them Eat Cake Memorial Award goes to ... Christopher Luxon for his thought-provoking “Make a Marmite sandwich and put an apple in a bag”. Perhaps Mr Luxon should contemplate the fate of Ms Antoinette.
CC McDowall, Rotorua.
The Government should tread carefully around the current school lunch fiasco. When UK Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher cancelled free milk in schools as part of her Government’s cost-cutting measures in the 1980s the headline “Maggie Thatcher milk snatcher” stuck for a long time.
William Black, Remuera.
Those who suggest kids should make their own lunch have no understanding that many families use foodbanks and live in poverty. The kids complaining about lunches are, I suspect, the ones who are not poor and who have good food at home. All kids are given the free lunch to avoid stigmatism and shame.
Susan Grimsdell, Auckland Central.
The school lunches are reminiscent of the stodge dolloped out in British schools before Jamie Oliver taught them a lesson in nutrition.
Wendy Newton, Beach Haven.
Peter Thiel is not a New Zealander. He is merely a rich man who owns an NZ passport. He no longer meets those conditions upon which he gained that passport so, if he has integrity, he should relinquish it.
Vicky Williamson, Cockle Bay.
Glen Wright continues to deny the offending and claims the victims conspired against him.