Letters: Next on the menu – healthy $3 lunches for MPs; where’s the noise over New Zealand’s economic losses?

Associate Education Minister David Seymour's new "no-frills" school lunches on display. Photo / Mark Mitchell

Letters to the Editor

Next on the menu: $3 lunches for MPs

The primary reason that free school lunches are provided for schoolchildren is to meet the need for good nourishment to grow and maintain healthy minds and bodies. We know that throughout life, healthy food combinations benefit target="_blank">health and wellbeing for everyone. Therefore, as a society, we should be supporting the universal need that all people are fed well and in the most sustainable way to benefit people and the planet.

Food-based standards are applied to providing lunches for growing adolescents at $3 a meal. Perhaps the same could be done at the highest level – our parliamentary service. Currently the price of a meal at Bellamys, the restaurant in Parliament buildings in Wellington, is between $35 and $60. An inspection of the new menu shows that nutrition standards are not followed, with few vegetables or whole grains.

So how about those who work in Parliament are supplied with school lunches too, so that they are able to achieve their best health and ability to work for their country? This would also demonstrate the support of Government for feeding all New Zealanders well with locally sourced and sustainable foods.

Professor Elaine Rush, Australasian Society of Lifestyle Medicine.

Losing streak

New Zealand has achieved amazing sporting success recently. Media have (correctly) claimed that, in sport, New Zealand “punches above its weight”.

But what pride do Kiwis have in economic achievements? Having just been in Queensland, the economic success and excellent infrastructure were obvious. The Australian Government just delivered back-to-back Budget surpluses, while New Zealand experiences ever-larger government deficits. Australia ranks 18th; New Zealand 28th on GDP-per-capita tables. It is obvious why many Kiwis (often our brightest and best) are leaving and seeking higher Australian living standards. In the economic arena, Kiwis punch below their weight and lack pride in their performance.

New Zealand’s productivity is terrible. House prices are too high. Our balance of payments and Budget are permanently in deficit. Savings levels are inadequate; the tax system a mess. We’ve recently seen inflation fall – a minor win – but have hardly started addressing our long-term economic deficiencies.

If the All Blacks lose, the country gets very agitated. Why no agitation about our inadequate economic performance?

David Schnauer, Milford.

Same old song

I’m very suspicious of Winston Peters’ tired, threadbare proposals for attracting foreign investment – but not foreign investors – into New Zealand.

It appears that Winston’s proposals are throwbacks to the economically gruesome 1970s/80s when it was thought that the benefits of foreign investment equalled the foreign exchange inflows that could be used to finance imports and government deficits. Then we got Peter Theil types. Now what we really want are entrepreneurial foreign investors with creative ideas who move here and finance their investments using domestic financial resources. Such people strengthen both our real and our financial economy. Winston, please take note.

Robert Myers, Auckland Central.

Scientific win

Your correspondent Peter Beyer accuses the coalition Government of not following “serious scientific research and data” (NZ Herald, October 22).

With respect to at least one item on their legislative agenda, they are, in fact, following soundly based and long-standing scientific recommendations.

That item is the overdue reform of the legislation around genetic engineering. Both Sir Peter Gluckman and Dame Juliet Gerrard advocated for such reforms during their terms as chief science advisor. The Governments they served chose not to act on their advice during their terms. The coalition Government is now doing so. National and Act both campaigned on the issue, and gained NZ First support in coalition negotiations.

Would Peter Beyer count Sir Peter and Dame Juliet among the “tame boffins of ... corporate giants” he alleges the Government prefers? I think they are both eminent public scientists who have given sound policy advice. On this issue at least, the Government campaigned for, and won, a mandate to act on that sound advice.

Colin Parker, Onehunga.

Fulsome fallout

At Monday’s post-Cabinet press conference, Prime Minister Christopher Luxon assured us that minister Andrew Bayly had apologised “as fulsomely as he possibly can”. As my dictionary is rather old, I checked online in case the meaning of fulsome has changed. The top three of five definitions are: 1. offensive to good taste, especially as being excessive; overdone or gross; 2. disgusting; sickening; repulsive; 3. excessively or insincerely lavish. How very instructive.

Michael Smythe, Northcote Point.

Moment of truth

Politicians are a type, no doubt about it, and it’s a job that demands plenty of gall. Was Andrew Bayly somewhat under the weather when he verbally lashed out recently? Well, you tell me. But it could well feature on a Tui billboard, with something like: “Did I tell the full story? Yeah, right”. If he had been completely honest, then why is he now like a cat on hot bricks?

Paul Beck, West Harbour.