Shame shame shame

Written By: - Date published: 7:12 am, March 19th, 2015 - 206 comments
Categories: child welfare, health, housing, human rights, national, schools - Tags: , , ,

Last night in Parliament National voted down Harawira / Turei’s Feed the Kids Bill, David Shearer’s Food in Schools Bill, and Phil Twyford’s Healthy Homes Guarantee Bill.

Shame shame shame.

206 comments on “Shame shame shame ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Tracey 1
    19 March 2015 at 7:17 am

    The people of Northland must be thrilled… This Government that says it works for them.

  2. amirite 2
    19 March 2015 at 7:34 am

    David Shearer has just shown his true colours again – he’s just a neoliberal RW dog. Why else would he say this:
    “I have become convinced that free food solves nothing,” he has said.
    “I now believe that each school community should be resourced to find and deliver its own long-term food solutions.”
    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=11419393

    He really belongs to the NActs.

    • Tracey 2.1
      19 March 2015 at 8:01 am

      If he meant by that that providing resource (money) to communities to find the best ways to address their problems around children not being fed, I cannot argue too strongly. Communities and those actually suffering are far better at addressing their own problems than some Act in parliament.

      • Roflcopter 2.1.1
        19 March 2015 at 9:08 am

        holy crap +100… i need to lie down now.

        • Tracey 2.1.1.1
          19 March 2015 at 9:16 am

          LOL

          Sadly most of the 61 haven’t got such a plan.

          • One Anonymous Bloke 2.1.1.1.1
            19 March 2015 at 9:18 am

            Rolfcopter’s cognitive dissonance on display.

            • Roflcopter 2.1.1.1.1.1
              19 March 2015 at 11:33 am

              No, the only thing on display is your irredeemably boring arbitrary dereliction of genetics.

              • One Anonymous Bloke …
                19 March 2015 at 11:38 am

                Cognitive dissonance, ie: supporting the implementation of policies that are diametrically opposed to the values you pay lip service to.

                For example, notional standards are the direct opposite of community choice in education. Auckland CCOs are the opposite of community control of their own assets.

      • Murray Rawshark 2.1.2
        20 March 2015 at 1:44 am

        I can’t be that charitable with Shearer. A decent person would appreciate the urgency of the situation and start feeding the kids while something else was worked out.

        It’s all very well saying teach a kid to fish, but when you’ve fenced the polluted waterways and have a monopoly on fishing equipment etc……….

      • Dennis Ropati 2.1.3
        23 March 2015 at 7:30 pm

        Afraid I have to agree with Keyz here. It isn’t up to the tax payers to pay for crap parents who can’t/won’t feed their kids. Get the DPB to take it off them before they blow it on the pokies, ciggies and booze. I’d starve before I let my kids go hungry. These parents need help from budgeters to see what and where they spend it and if need be, give them assistance ….. a no Brainer!

    • Vagabundo 2.2
      19 March 2015 at 8:07 am

      Shearer actually is correct though. Providing free food is only a band aid solution, and there needs to be a long-term or permanent fix that allows the affected communities to be able to become self-reliant rather than permanently dependent on others, and different school communities often have very different needs. A community that surrounds a low-to-mid decile school in, say, Northland would have fairly different needs from a low-decile South Auckland school for example.

      And what Tracey has said in the post above would be a fairly reasonable interpretation of it.

      • Anne 2.2.1
        19 March 2015 at 8:51 am

        And what Tracey has said in the post above would be a fairly reasonable interpretation of it.

        Agreed. I don’t think there is any doubt that is what Shearer meant. Resource the locals so they can handle the problem adopting processes that work well in their respective communities. It also ensures local communities have control over their own patch which is likely to yield far better long term results.

        • Tracey 2.2.1.1
          19 March 2015 at 8:53 am

          More resource will be needed in rural communities where communities are spread far and wide, or different resourcing, than say an urban area which presents different difficulties for the community.

        • fisiani 2.2.1.2
          19 March 2015 at 10:52 am

          I also agree with Shearer and Vagabundo and Anne and Tracey. Handouts are just a band aid. The solution is to fund the locals by getting them off welfare and into decent well paid jobs. This is the plan of ………the National government

          • One Anonymous Bloke 2.2.1.2.1
            19 March 2015 at 10:54 am

            It isn’t working. National are incompetent. They’ve had seven years now, and they’ve made things worse.

            • fisiani 2.2.1.2.1.1
              19 March 2015 at 11:24 am

              More people employed than at any other time in history. Inflation at near zero and wage rises well above this. Thousands of Kiwis returning home and thousands of houses being built and roads and bridges aplenty. Economic growth projected to be 3-4% over the next few years. Welcome to the brighter future brought to you by Honest John and the National Government.

          • KJT 2.2.1.2.2
            19 March 2015 at 11:00 am

            For 30hours, maybe, a week on minimum wage.

            Yeah right.

          • North 2.2.1.2.3
            19 March 2015 at 11:29 am

            So let ‘them’ eat air as we await the realisation of the ‘Grand National Party Solution’………’ You’re a nasty little fantasist Fizzy Anus ! TheConceitKey your daddy is he ?

          • tracey 2.2.1.2.4
            19 March 2015 at 11:52 am

            You are not agreeing with me. I didn’t say they are “band aids” and I didn’t say don’t have food in schools.

            It is a plan that is failing.

            Next.

          • Anne 2.2.1.2.5
            19 March 2015 at 12:02 pm

            The solution is to fund the locals by getting them off welfare and into decent well paid jobs. This is the plan of ………the National government

            Back in the good old days (before the 1980s/90s), that was National’s aim. I thought then… there political philosophy over-simplified the problem, but it was a valid and genuinely held belief. Interestingly enough, it was Labour who laid the ground work for such a philosophy in the 1930s/40s and early 50s and it was continued by successive National governments.

            Not so now fisiani and one day you’ll drag yourself out of denial and admit it – even if its only to yourself. They pay lip service to the plight of the poor and dispossessed but are, in practice, indifferent to their situation because they don’t care. They don’t care unless it impinges in some way on their life style. They don’t care because they know the poor and dispossessed don’t vote for them. They don’t care because they like to look down on them and kid themselves they are superior…

            They only care about power and influence for themselves. They are contemptible!

            • fisiani 2.2.1.2.5.1
              19 March 2015 at 4:05 pm

              Poor people of course vote for National. People with ambition and a brain vote for National. Pensioners vote for National. Beneficiaries vote for National.
              You are guilty of thinking that only the Left care about the poor. The Left only care about the poor once every three years as voting fodder. The poor pay no income tax under National. The poor take their children to the doctor. National is making it free.
              In 2008 after the scorched earth policies of Michael Cullen the coffers were bare and the mountain of unpaid debts were inherited. The turn around from the inevitability of unending deficits to a surplus late this year in just 7 years whilst maintaining the living standards of the most vulnerable has been commendable. Bill English deserves a knighthood for saving NZ from turning into a basketcase.
              Take off the blinkered glasses and face up to the reality. National governs for all New Zealanders but particularly for the poor and vulnerable.

          • julie Hance 2.2.1.2.6
            20 March 2015 at 1:31 am

            What about the disability benefit? That is a type of welfare, the disabled aren’t ABLE to get back into work sometimes. LOL NZ doesn’t provide the average worker WELL paid jobs. The National Government are about PROFIT, not about PEOPLE!!

      • Tracey 2.2.2
        19 March 2015 at 8:52 am

        There is an element of the neighbour principle in what he is saying. Not about spying on each other and dobbing in but offering assistance and understanding the pressures people face. Wellington struggles with this.

      • amirite 2.2.3
        19 March 2015 at 12:29 pm

        Local communities role is all good and well but what if the community is stretched with funds already, and in the meantime, Shearer doesn’t see the need to feed the kids.

        • Murray Rawshark 2.2.3.1
          20 March 2015 at 1:48 am

          +1 Shearer was probably too busy pushing pensioners off their roof painting ladders.

      • Dialey 2.2.4
        19 March 2015 at 1:08 pm

        AS soomeone who went through my entire schooling with cooked school lunches provided as well as milk and cake for morning tea (UK), I have to disagree that it is only a band aid solution. The baby boom generation had everything so good.

    • Chooky 2.3
      19 March 2015 at 9:05 am

      +100 amirite…and anyone who supported Shearer over Cunliffe , who was slandered as being “dishonnest”…is sus imo

  3. adam 3
    19 March 2015 at 8:13 am

    These Tories act out all their putrid fantasies with no love for the people. They are the representatives of a new class of salaciousness.

    This is a government with no moral fibre.

    I can here the Tory scum now

    “Feed the kids – Oh how very plebeian”

  4. Rosie 4
    19 March 2015 at 8:18 am

    +1 to Imperator Fish.

    Plain speaking from Metiria Turei:

    “Not one of us would stand in front of a hungry child and deny them something to eat. It’s a shameful day when 61 MPs collectively stand before all of our nation’s hungry kids and deny them a good lunch.”

    http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA1503/S00281/sad-day-as-pm-votes-against-feeding-hungry-kids.htm

    Thats what it comes down to. Now go and out face those hungry kids you nasty nats. Sure we need long term solutions but that doesn’t help children right now. They need food immediately . Shame shame shame indeed.

  5. Al66 5
    19 March 2015 at 8:19 am

    Free food might be a quick fix / band aid, however it is better than talk talk talk … maybe while politicians pontificate on their portly posteriers a free feed could help poor children attend school and make positive contributions rather than become more and more alienated and angry – just a thought

    • Tracey 5.1
      19 March 2015 at 8:54 am

      I agree it is better than doing nothing, or blaming parents and walking away self righteously, if those are the only alternatives.

    • Chooky 5.2
      19 March 2015 at 8:57 am

      …my Mother , a teacher, used to take bread and fillings to school to feed kids who didnt have a lunch and had not had breakfast….and that was 25 years ago…it will be a lot worse now!…a kid who has not had breakfast and does not have lunch can not learn properly …poverty is why kids don’t achieve at school

      Hone Harawira knew what he was talking about !

  6. Dont worry. Be happy 6
    19 March 2015 at 8:22 am

    Nats are disgusting creatures. Judith Collins seems to think that however poor you are you will always have a couple of pieces of bread to toast, some margerine or butter and some jam or something to put on it. I suspect that knew she was lying at the time even, as her fluency was crap and/or she has never been hard up. And clearly she has never had to cope with the voracious appetites of growing children.

    My two teenage boys, would down an entire loaf after school and then line up for dinner. By the time the dishes were done they were back in the fridge demolishing the left overs. The girls were not backward at coming forward either.

    My weekly shop was always two trolleys packed to the top. I cooked from scratch. We grew spuds, herbs, silverbeet….bought bulk honey, meat and eggs direct whenevr we could yet still the food bill on one good wage was huge for us. Frightening. Equal to our mortgage.

    Based on what my trolley looks like now and costs now…..if I was feeding my four children as we did in one generTion ago today, my weekly grocery bill would be $1,000.

    The biggest change has been the huge hike in the cost of meat and milk and fruit.

    Families with growing children cannot feed them well if they are poor. The children will be sicker and less than they could have been as a result possibly for their whole lives. End of story.

    • Chooky 6.1
      19 March 2015 at 8:52 am

      +100 Don’t Worry. Be Happy…I honestly dont know how beneficiaries and those on a low income survive…especially when they have to pay high rents … and when they have children

      This John Key Nact Government is ammoral, immoral and disgusting

      • The Pink Postman 6.1.1
        19 March 2015 at 3:49 pm

        The fact is Chooky they are Tories and that says it all. As a young kid in the 1930s working people had a well known saying ‘”There is only one type of Tory” ?
        Its just the same today.

    • Tracey 6.2
      19 March 2015 at 8:57 am

      Well said!

    • ghostwhowalksnz 6.3
      19 March 2015 at 10:26 am

      Im surprised about your kids constantly eating even after dinner.

      Its been established that the eating before and after meals increases into adulthood and is one of the prime causes of obesity, fueled by the fast food industry

    • Pasupial 6.4
      19 March 2015 at 11:53 am

      This article in The Guardian seems relevant to the issue of providing healthy food to growing learning minds:

      Mel Wakeman, a senior lecturer specialising in health and nutrition at Birmingham City University, warned that families forced into prolonged use of food banks may not be eating a balanced diet.

      She and students analysed food typically on offer at food banks and drew up menus based on the items available. “We found that it’s very much processed food being donated, with little fresh produce,” said Wakeman. “The meal plans we came up with revealed that in the long term there is a real risk of children and families becoming deficient in fibre, calcium, iron and a variety of vitamins.

      http://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/mar/18/long-term-food-bank-users-nutritional-problems-balanced-diet

      I know that when I donate to a foodbank it’ll be a can or two out of; 5 for $5, or similar, supermarket specials. Not least because it’s convenient to do so to an instore bin after going through the checkout.

    • fisiani 6.5
      19 March 2015 at 5:40 pm

      You must be having a laugh. A grocery bill of $1000 weekly. I call that bullshit!
      http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/money/9762466/Mythbusting-the-cost-of-healthy-eating
      Add up the cost of healthy breakfast, lunch, dinner drink and snacks and it comes to $9.40 at the top of the range. ($7-9.40)For seven days that’s $65.80 and multiply that by 6 people that’ s $394. How can you possibly claim it would cost $1000 esp if growing own spuds, herbs, silverbeet and bulk produce.
      Did you not think your shonky emotive figures would be found out.
      No wonder the Left constantly lacks credibility. Did you get your figures from the innumerate Greens?

      • KJT 6.5.1
        19 March 2015 at 9:16 pm

        You have to have a car to buy bulk produce.

        You have to own a house to have a garden. And buy fertiliser seeds and soil.

        And you have just confirmed my figures above that it takes over $400 to feed a family of 4. Which leaves how much out of $348 again!

        It would easily take over $1000 to feed a family of 6 they way we ate in the 70’s. Our 70’s Sunday roast alone, now costs $65.

  7. heather 7
    19 March 2015 at 8:50 am

    The voting down of Phil Twyfords Healthy Homes Bill is a disgrace. I campaigned for 12 years when on PN City Council for Healthy warm homes, I saw the results first hand of disgusting profit making landlords and I saw the result of sick sick children rushed to hospital from lung complaints caused by mould.
    Who was the national dickhead who spoke for National last night,
    what a complete utter fool, he even confessed to having read Phil’s bill not very well.
    What an apology for a Member of Parliament, faced with all the evidence from medical professionals about the results from cold damp mould ridden homes, the dickhead could only mutter stupid comments against the passing of the bill.
    This coupled with the failure of David Shearer’s excellent bill leaves me feeling upset and disgusted, yet again by the arrogance of this National Government.
    May their beds be wet, their gin bottles empty and their fridges bare.

    • Chooky 7.1
      19 March 2015 at 8:54 am

      +100 heather

    • Tracey 7.2
      19 March 2015 at 8:58 am

      Well, the Nats are all in Northland campaigning for a brighter future, aspirationally speaking, going forward for all the people of Northland, so no one of importance could speak to your pesky matter….

    • miravox 7.3
      19 March 2015 at 9:32 am

      Well said heather. I’m more disgusted at this bill being voted down than the food in schools bills.

      There has been so much serious research done on the poor outcomes for children living in substandard housing (and the associated public costs) that it beggars belief that landlords making free money out of misery has not been addressed before now.

    • Fran 7.4
      19 March 2015 at 10:28 am

      The new Nat list MP from PN is reputed to own over 100 rental homes. How many other Nat MP’s are in the same position? Of course they voted Twyfords bill down.

      • North 7.4.1
        19 March 2015 at 10:56 am

        Is this a former mayor of Palmerston North you refer to ? ……. ‘Jono’ someone ?

      • alwyn 7.4.2
        19 March 2015 at 12:03 pm

        Do you have some evidence for that claim, or is it of the “I know someone who’s second cousin’s wife heard from her hairdresser that the local butcher had told her that he had heard from ………………”?

    • tricledrown 7.5
      20 March 2015 at 12:45 am

      Shortsited selfishness
      +170,000 going without basics food and a warm home.
      We Johnny Key got that hand up now
      Key has forgotten not surprisingly that start in life free tertiary education etc paid for by my taxes has given him the opportunities he has taken.
      Now turned his back on others having access to those hand ups

  8. Crashcart 8
    19 March 2015 at 8:56 am

    I just don’t get why people think feeding kids in schools is a band aid fix and communitites should come up with a long term solutions.

    There are certain things that we can say society and the government as its representative can supply that improves lives. Most would agree that things like Education, Health care, and Emergency services fall in this perview. So why not food in schools?

    Every child requires a lunch at school, every day. Having that lunch helps them concentrate and improves their chances of suceeding in school.

    If every child was provided a lunch in school it wouldn’t only help families on low incomes who can’t provide lunch it would also help families who can afford lunch buyt are too lazy or too busy and provide nothing or money that goes on pies and chips.

    It provides the ability to employ staff to cook and serve meals in schools. This can even be used as a training opertunity by getting kids involved in preparing healthy meals.

    I am not ignoring the cost, it would be considerable. I would rather that money get spent on this than on many of the other stupid wastes this government puts it too.

    • Tracey 8.1
      19 March 2015 at 8:59 am

      communities are best placed to see what is driving the problems and are more innovative than they are given credit for. I am NOT saying don’t feed the children who need it today. I don’t think Cunliffe was saying that either. It is possible to address immediate and intermediate and long term needs at the same time. You have to start somewhere.

      The 27m allocated for a flag referendum no one wants is a good chunk of money to start with.

      • Crashcart 8.1.1
        19 March 2015 at 9:06 am

        I get that there are communitiy issue that will still need to be addressed. This is esspecially around things that happen out side of schools. However people often refer to feeding kids in schools as a short term band aid fix. I just don’t see it that way. It is something that could be entrenched, permanant, and positive. I don’t doubt Cunliff would be supportive, however Shearer saying that he doesn’t believe it would help is pretty plainly against it.

        I am not stupid enough to think it would solve all problems. I do think it would pay dvidends in the long run. Educated kids who feel like they are valued by society are surely less likey to go down the wrong path.

        • Tracey 8.1.1.1
          19 March 2015 at 9:10 am

          I wasn’t suggesting you are stupid. I also miswrote Cunliffe rather than Shearer.

          • Crashcart 8.1.1.1.1
            19 March 2015 at 10:10 am

            Yea I wasn’t taking personal offence and didn’t mean to imply that I thought you were calling me stupid sorry Tracey. I was more trying to say that I understand that feeding kids in school would only be one step in trying to make an enclusive supportive society.

        • Chooky 8.1.1.2
          19 March 2015 at 9:32 am

          +100 Crashcart…well said …both Hone Harawira and Internet/Mana and the Greens understand this …and I suspect Cunliffe would have too

          …it is far better than “talk , talk , talk” …by those with a hidden Neoliberal agenda… who kneecap policies and politicians of those genuinely on the Left

          …those pseudo Lefties with a Neoliberal agenda who would like de-centralise and make food and education a cronyist privilege (rather than a right of all New Zealanders)

          …and keep the NZ working class and us all shackled to their warped power and control ….hence undermining a real New Zealand nation- wide egalitarian democracy…

          … Hone genuinely understood child poverty and education for his people…Metiria Turei carried on his fight…but once again they have been knee capped by the cunning arguments of Neolibs

    • North 8.2
      19 March 2015 at 11:09 am

      Wherein “other stupid wastes” includes tens of millions of by-election bribes to plump up the towering conceit of Kids-Eat-Bridges-Key.

    • David 8.3
      19 March 2015 at 12:16 pm

      Because the narrative is always to obfuscate and polarize that’s why, these purely self interested corrupt collective of individuals claiming to represent NZ dont. They dont believe education, heatlth care and emergency services or food or education are basic human rights, which is why they are deliberately underfunded. They don’t want an educated critical thinking populace. They fund on the basis of getting the outcomes they desire or they would change it. Vunerable people are much easier to manipulate or predictably become hopelessly dissengaged.
      By advancing their carefully crafted crosby texter polarizing dialogue allows them to hide behind an idealogy, when exposed they can continue to argue that they simply have different approaches to solving the problems that they really have no interest in addressing, rather than being exposed as egotistical self serving corrupt fools who secretly serve the one true God, money. These people are zealots, worship daily and can be found in most Western Democratic Governments today, they have big plans for us and I can tell you it has nothing to do with free food for all!

      Their idolatry, excessive worship of money / percieved power is the basis for all their decisions, a quick login to their bank self affirms their mindless worship is paying off should any self doubt enter their consiousness. They will do anything to protect and advance this priviledge, they are well resourced, ruthless and on a crusade. As with all zealots they wish to spread their version of democracy and their version of freedom to world and they are doing a pretty good job I would suggest. Their carefully crafted idealogy they hide behind is all about personal gain and NEVER about people, unless alliances promote personal gain.

      They were never going to feed hungry kids, not because hungry kids don’t vote National, because simply it would work. Hungry kids wouldn’t be hungry and would have at least the opportunuity
      of advancing beyond their current circumstances. The real problem is this welfare would have a positive impact and that’s a precedent no dictator hiding behind his neo-lib idealogy will ever set.
      Fuck, what next UBI?

      • In Vino 8.3.1
        19 March 2015 at 6:14 pm

        +1 David.
        At a more personal level – most right-wingers look after their own children very well, then assume that every other parent should. They even have at times an antagonistic attitude to other people’s children who threaten to outshine their own. (Look to the sports…)
        All the time they have backed a system that favours them, but creates a hell-hole of a society where poor families in particular are doomed to being rather dysfunctional.
        So they persist in believing in their own virtues, and look away from collective responsibility in every way they can.
        “Look after number one. No-one else will.” How often have I heard simplistic, semi-educated rednecks repeat that phrase?
        Blinkered people without social vision, just a primitive urge to justify greed and a system that exploits (rips off, or profit-gouges) anyone beneath their own level.
        I would be pessimistic if I did not hope that a growing number of young people will turn the tide.

  9. TheBlackKitten 9
    19 March 2015 at 8:58 am

    Team Key as you all love to call the National party have done the right thing by rejecting this bill but have done the wrong thing by not addressing & ignoring the real issue. When is that debit card coming out John? Feeding kids in schools does not solve the issue of hungry kids. It is a false fix that fails to address the issues of hunger during the school holidays, if the kid is ill or the fact that three meals a day is a normal quota for humans. So these kids get lunch or and breakfast. What about dinner?
    The real issue needs to be tackled. As I said yesterday in another blog about this subject, I remember girls turning up to my school with no lunch day after day back in 1981. There was no Douglas and socialist polices had been the norm for NZ for 50 years. So why were those girls turning up to my school with no lunch back in 1981? Lunch theft was also another common occurrence when I was at school. The amount of times you would go into the cloakroom to get your lunch and it would be gone was not funny. That was in the 70’s and 80’s. This issue has been going on a lot longer than Team Key & Douglas and was happening when NZ was the socialist paradise that some people lament and long for.
    The issue is limited income being mis spent on highly addictive vices. We need to face reality and understand it is not a lack of income issue, but rather income that is provided to pay for the basics that is used on addictive vices with the basics being left out.
    The debit card would be the better solution and would ensure that all kids and families have food. If a family on a benefit is generally only using their income to pay for the basics they will not be effected by this. The only ones that will be effected will be those using their income to pay for vices at the kids expense. Why do people object to that? Are the kids rights to food not more important than their parents privacy rights? Or is it just easier to throw money at these people and leave them to drown in a horrible world of tobacco, drug, gambling and booze addiction?

    • Tracey 9.1
      19 March 2015 at 9:01 am

      “The issue is limited income being mis spent on highly addictive vices. We need to face reality and understand it is not a lack of income issue, but rather income that is provided to pay for the basics that is used on addictive vices with the basics being left out.”

      Please provide your sources for this.

      • One Anonymous Bloke 9.1.1
        19 March 2015 at 9:03 am

        It’s written in the book of dogma.

      • TheBlackKitten 9.1.2
        19 March 2015 at 10:30 am

        “Please provide your sources for this.”
        See that’s the problem, there is none. What about if I ask you to provide a source to prove that it does not happen. Are you able to do that? Are you seriously saying that not one single kid that comes to school with no lunch does not come from a household where any of these vices are used by their parent/s?
        And if not, then what is your issue with implementing a system that will ensure that this will not happen?

        • One Anonymous Bloke 9.1.2.1
          19 March 2015 at 10:50 am

          No, it won’t. It will simply stroke your foul imagination.

          • The lost sheep 9.1.2.1.1
            19 March 2015 at 4:42 pm

            Sticking to the point of Kids Lunches for a second OAB, and picking up on the theme of Communities being able to best help themselves, it does seem to me that quite significant sources of money for lunches could be freed up immediately if parents in the lowest quintile reduced their very high rates of spending on ‘addictive vices’?

            Would you not think that to be something worth addressing?

            • One Anonymous Bloke 9.1.2.1.1.1
              19 March 2015 at 4:49 pm

              Sure: I refer you to the established links between the GINI coefficient and rates of drug use, alcoholism, and other mental health issues.

              • The lost sheep …
                19 March 2015 at 5:09 pm

                What specifically is your point in directing me to such a generalised linkage OAB?
                Save me wading through reams of highly complex and varied studies and conclusions and just tell me specifically please…

                How does that answer to the proposition that significant sources of money for lunches could be freed up immediately if parents in the lowest quintile reduced their very high rates of spending on ‘addictive vices’?

                • One Anonymous Bloke …
                  19 March 2015 at 5:15 pm

                  Your self-serving morally superior proposition is based on unrealistic expectations: ambulance at the bottom of the cliff stuff, except that the ambulance has no wheels. Or engine.

                  Why are you pretending that the links are “generalised”? They aren’t: they’re direct and the mechanisms are well understood.

                  No, wait, I know why: facing the truth will be an uncomfortable reality check for you.

                • tricledrown …
                  20 March 2015 at 1:08 am

                  It would help a lot if rich bastards didn’t build alcohol outlets in very high concentrations in low socioeconomic areas and banned tobacco sales took away pokies and casinos.
                  Their combined damage to our country and communities each year 18 billion Dollars
                  Yes combined Damage $18 billion per year Treasury figures.
                  This right Wing govt failed to take any personal Responsibility for this Damage as they have refused to do anything of any consequence to Stop this $18 billion loss of this addictive exploitation .
                  Why The Nactional UF govt have been corrupted with political bribes from above exploitive addictive industries.
                  Lip service from lackey National and Peter Dunne.

                  • TheBlackKitten …
                    20 March 2015 at 8:27 am

                    If you banned tobacco and alcohol you would simply drive it into the black market like drugs. Drugs are illegal yet people still use them.
                    Where there is demand someone will supply. So who would you rather do the supplying – the rich pricks under a legal system where age restrictions apply and they pay tax or the gangs who don’t give a shit if a 10 year old turns up with the right amount of money to buy P & don’t pay tax?
                    And as for you pointing out that many of these outlets are present in poorer areas, why is that? Is it because they are the higher users? If so, then this is clear evidence re my point re mis spending on limited incomes.
                    Banning something will not make it disappear like magic into thin air. Look at the prohibition in the states on alcohol in the 1920’s. Did it make the alcohol issues disappear?
                    In fact, the continuous increasing of tobacco by the anti smoking Nazis is probably contributing to those kids turning up to school with no lunch. Have you ever tried giving up tobacco? Do you know how dam hard it is. I have and let me assure you, its not easy & I can imagine that due to its nasty addictive nature that it is taking priority over food for some kids in NZ. Way to go anti smoking Nazis who have not one itoea of an idea of how hard tobacco is to give up and think simply increasing the price will do the job.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      20 March 2015 at 8:46 am

                      You’ve just debunked your own mis-spending meme (not that it’s yours, of course – right wingers believe the same rubbish the world over).

                      By the way, in the USA, drug dealers accept food stamps as currency.

            • McFlock 9.1.2.1.1.2
              19 March 2015 at 4:51 pm

              It seems so to you, does it?

              A vague stereotype (What are the “very high rates”? Dollar value or proportion of income?) suggests to you that an unknown amount of money would be “freed up immediately” if addicts made better choices (because addiction is merely a choice).

              Feel free to engage with the real world some time.

              • The lost sheep …
                19 March 2015 at 4:56 pm

                Follow the links I have given above McFlock. They are to the real world.

                • One Anonymous Bloke …
                  19 March 2015 at 5:03 pm

                  So why can’t you engage with them in any useful way?

                  • The lost sheep …
                    19 March 2015 at 5:12 pm

                    That is exactly what I am doing OAB. But I am engaging with aspects of the fact based realities that i think you are a bit squeamish about.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      19 March 2015 at 5:18 pm

                      You idiot: the links I’ve cited specifically acknowledge not only the facts you’re citing: they explain why.

                      If you’d read them you’d know that.

                    • The lost sheep …
                      19 March 2015 at 5:32 pm

                      No OAB. They don’t. You are once again engaging in your standard tactic of ignoring the point at hand and attempting to conflate and divert the discussion to ground that you feel less threatened by.

                      Either answer the question I put directly and honestly, or go on talking to yourself. I am bored with those games of yours, and I’ll bet most other readers here are too.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      19 March 2015 at 5:35 pm

                      Yes, they do. It’s just that you’re ignorant of them, and too lazy to educate yourself, especially since doing so debunks your self-serving dogma.

                      PS: the only people you’re threatening are victims of circumstances that you helped create.

                • McFlock …
                  19 March 2015 at 5:22 pm

                  lol
                  Ignoring the fact that you don’t know the difference between “above” and “below”, and the envelope maths you applied to smoking in order to produce complete bunk (e.g. assuming the rates across the quintile are uniform, rather than a lot of parents quitting), you still ignore the fact that addiction isn’t a choice.

                  • The lost sheep …
                    19 March 2015 at 5:34 pm

                    You have to choose to get into addiction McFlock, and you cannot possibly get out without choosing to do so.
                    Lots of people do.
                    It is a choice.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      19 March 2015 at 5:38 pm

                      No, it isn’t.

                    • McFlock …
                      19 March 2015 at 5:41 pm

                      Assuming you made the first choice when you were old enough to make an informed choice to start, I still remind you that the choice to stop is the first step, but not sufficient in itself to leaving an addiction. That’s actually the entire point of an addiction. Other wise the word “addiction” wouldn’t exist. We would just have the word “choice”.

                      “Lots of people” run marathons. That doesn’t mean a paraplegic can run down the block. And your math is still bunk.

                    • Bill …
                      19 March 2015 at 5:47 pm

                      Read the ‘Rat Park’ study. I’ve only provided the wiki link.

                      Alexander’s hypothesis was that drugs do not cause addiction, and that the apparent addiction to opiate drugs commonly observed in laboratory rats exposed to it is attributable to their living conditions, and not to any addictive property of the drug itself

                      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rat_Park

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      19 March 2015 at 5:52 pm

                      Let’s ignore the facts and pretend that addiction is a choice, just for a moment.

                      Why are good choices inversely proportional to the GINI coefficient? Is it a coincidence that bad choices increase under National governments?

        • Tracey 9.1.2.2
          19 March 2015 at 10:59 am

          Thanks. I didn’t think so. How about you learn to frame/phrase your comments to better reflect what you are saying. For example start with

          “I think…” instead of framing something as a fact.

          You didn’t say a single kid cos of the vices of their parents…. you stated the vices of their parents are why ALL children have no lunches.

          My problem with implementing a system that targets only a vulnerable part of society in a punitive way is that you don’t want to punish all people neglectful of children (in the myriad of ways that happens) and want to take the easy myth-based way out.

          You don’t get to make an unsubstantiated statement of such flame-bait and then make everyone else prove you are wrong. I am sure you believe what you wrote, but it is not factual unless you can prove it, in totum.

          • TheBlackKitten 9.1.2.2.1
            20 March 2015 at 8:40 am

            Hay Trace, thanks for the free English lesson but I am quite happy with the way I write and don’t need any advice thanks.
            So your reason not to introduce the debit card is due to not wanting to punish all people that are neglectful of their children? Am I correct? If so then I suggest you think more about the children’s welfare rather than the parent/s rights. And why is the debit card punitive? If I was on a benefit (and this may surprise you Tracey but I have been on welfare in the past) I would have no qualms with someone giving me a card to obtain food. What is the issue with it?
            And where is the proof that I am incorrect & why is there no attempt to research these issues that I raise?

        • The lost sheep 9.1.2.3
          19 March 2015 at 12:24 pm

          There is actually a significant amount of information available around ‘highly addictive vices’ and poverty in NZ.

          “Adults who lives in the most deprived neighbourhood are three times more likely to be a current smoker than one who lives in the least deprived.”

          “Data from the Ministry of Health 2007/08 alcohol and drug use survey (2010a) indicates that men (but not women) living in more socioeconomically deprived neighbourhoods (NZDep2006 quintile 5) were significantly more likely to have used any drug for recreational purposes in the past year than people living in less socioeconomically deprived neighbourhoods (quintile 1), after adjusting for age.”

          “People living in more socioeconomically deprived areas were significantly more likely to be problem gamblers than other people, after adjusting for age. Half of problem gamblers lived in quintile 5 (most deprived) areas, compared to approximately 20 percent of the total population (figure 1)”.

          “People living in more deprived areas are less likely to have consumed alcohol in the past 12 months, but are more likely to have hazardous drinking patterns (18%), than people living in less deprived areas (11%).”

          http://www.ash.org.nz/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Factsheets/01_Smoking_statistics_ASH_NZ_factsheet.pdf

          http://www.occ.org.nz/assets/Uploads/EAG/Working-papers/No-20-How-substance-abuse-problem-gambling-impact.pdf

          http://www.health.govt.nz/publication/hazardous-drinking-2011-12-findings-new-zealand-health-survey

          • The lost sheep 9.1.2.3.1
            19 March 2015 at 2:24 pm

            There are 150,000 kids in decile 1/2, and on the basis of an average family of 3 kids, that means 100,000 parents.

            The smoking rate among those quintile 5 parents is 30%, compared to 10% for quintile 1 parents.
            If we made an assumption of even a pack a week / $20 for an average smoker, that would mean the quintile 5 parents spend $400,000 per week / $20,800,000 per year more than a similar group of quintile 1 parents.

            That would buy a lot of lunches wouldn’t it?

            • One Anonymous Bloke 9.1.2.3.1.1
              19 March 2015 at 3:56 pm

              So the way to reduce it is to lift people out of poverty, rather than punishing them. Unfortunately all history shows that the National Party creates poverty.

          • KJT 9.1.2.3.2
            19 March 2015 at 5:06 pm

            The fact that people who are so poor they are bereft of any hope in their lives need a bit of escape, to stay sane, has nothing to do with addictions, of course?

            And the people who cynically site pokies, payday loan shops, pubs and truck shops on poor areas, to make money out of peoples need for hope, are totally blameless……

            • One Anonymous Bloke 9.1.2.3.2.1
              19 March 2015 at 5:08 pm

              They kind of are.

              Those sorts of anti-social National Party ethics are also linked to the GINI.

            • The lost sheep 9.1.2.3.2.2
              19 March 2015 at 5:24 pm

              I’ve been there and done that KJT.
              If you have been also, you will know very well that it is utterly ridiculous to imply that everyone who takes addictive substances does so as a conscious means of escaping their miserable lives.

              But feel free to cite some hard evidence.

              • One Anonymous Bloke …
                19 March 2015 at 5:29 pm

                You want some hard evidence of the economic drivers of addiction and poor mental health? Are you sure?

                I cited them above and you haven’t read them.

              • KJT …
                19 March 2015 at 7:45 pm

                You have just shown that addictions rise with poverty.

                The obvious answer then, is to remove poverty with higher, incomes at the lower end.

                A higher income, worked for me.

                • The lost sheep …
                  19 March 2015 at 8:05 pm

                  I’ve got time for one answer to all…

                  The linkage between addiction rates and poverty is well established.
                  But the causes of addiction, and the role of poverty in that causation is not.
                  It is disingenuous, if not downright dishonest to imply otherwise. Just google ’causes of addiction’ or ‘poverty and addiction’ to get a sense of how complex and debated a field that is.

                  I personally was addicted to alcohol and drugs for 15 years, and during that time I remained firmly anchored in the lowest income and wealth quintile.
                  I was given a choice between a woman and addiction and so i chose to give addiction away.
                  Within 5 years I was in the top income and wealth quintile.
                  Was there a linkage between my addiction and my poverty?
                  FFS don’t make laugh. It fucks up your brain and empties your pockets.

                  During the time of my addiction I knew 100’s of other addicts and I lived in communities ranging from Otara to Brixton.
                  Regardless of the socioeconomic position they started from, show me any addict and I will take you on at 9 to 1 odds that they are currently in poverty. Duh.

                  So back to my point.
                  The facts are that parents in poverty have significantly higher rates of smoking, gambling and drug use than parents in higher deciles. They also use alcohol at a rate not far below the highest decile.
                  IMO this is something they have a degree of personal responsibility for, and could choose to do something about, with immediate effect on the ability of their children to eat lunch.

                  But you Socialists hate those words ‘personal responsibility’ and you believe that the poor have no intelligence or free will of their own to exercise.
                  Therefore they should be absolved of any duty at all to take responsibility for their own outcomes, and it is the duty of the nanny state to protect them from their own helplessness.
                  And it astonishes you that this is not the opinion of the majority!

                  • One Anonymous Bloke …
                    19 March 2015 at 8:11 pm

                    Why do people always exhibit less personal responsibility under National?

                    PS: your shuffling, corpse-like zombie lies about Socialists are lies.

                  • b waghorn …
                    19 March 2015 at 8:26 pm

                    The flaw in you’re I pulled myself up myself argument is that you,correct me if I’m wrong, probably come from a not that bad really middle class family where as a lot stuck in the claws of addiction and bad habits are 2nd and 3 red generation people that have never seen a stable house hold .
                    Its the big thing that you’re average unthinking right winger falls over on.
                    Unless every one starts on a level playing field the one size fits all mentality is doomed to fail.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      19 March 2015 at 8:30 pm

                      First he has to explain why the level of personal responsibility in a society is inversely proportional to the GINI coefficient.

                  • KJT …
                    19 March 2015 at 8:30 pm

                    So. Under our present Government, proportionately, three times, more people lack personal responsibility, than before the 80’s.

                    Thanks for your endorsement of the effectiveness of Socialism in promoting personal responsibility.

                  • tricledrown …
                    19 March 2015 at 11:59 pm

                    The wealthy don’t care about their fellow man are narcissistic.
                    This personal responsibility is never lived up to by the hypocritical Right wing Redneck’s
                    Its used as a big stick to beat the poor
                    Poor people are most likely to be poor for many reasons.
                    Including educational achievement.
                    You got a free education did you pay it back now quit your high paid job you don’t deserve it you blushed the system to get to where you are now.
                    Now you are making excuses to pull the ladder away.
                    Just because you had a hedonistic drug problem.
                    Ex druggies make good business people because they are ruthless selfish and highly manipulative.
                    And emotionally aloof.

                  • Murray Rawshark …
                    20 March 2015 at 2:30 am

                    Define poverty and I’ll put $10,000 on your 9 to 1 bet. Or more if you can afford it. Put your money where your typing finger is.

          • tricledrown 9.1.2.3.3
            20 March 2015 at 1:21 am

            So why has National allowed unfettered Alcohol availability pokies associated to prolificate in poor areas.
            Because National are on the Take rely on funding from these industries.
            Part prescription drugs are more likely to be used by the better off who can afford the Doctors visits and prescription charges.

            Recent studies show developed countries have epidemic rates.

    • One Anonymous Bloke 9.2
      19 March 2015 at 9:03 am

      You haven’t learned a thing from the material you were spoonfed yesterday. Did you even bother reading any of it.

      As I said, The Lancet is not a political ideology, and yet you persist in the pretence that anyone who references well-established research is a ‘Socialist’, (as though you can define Socialism. Pfft.)

      Drop your vengeance fantasies and stop denying the problem.

      What was 14 in 1981 is 25 today. Snide remarks about paradise simply expose the paucity of your understanding.

      • TheBlackKitten 9.2.1
        19 March 2015 at 10:32 am

        And likewise, you have not learned or thought about any of my points that I “spoon-fed” you yesterday.
        And incidentally, you still have not answered my question from yesterday – Why do you think those girls that were in my class back in 1981 showed up to school day after day with no lunch. Why did they not have any lunch in a time pre Douglas and when the country applied socialist policies?

        • One Anonymous Bloke 9.2.1.1
          19 March 2015 at 10:40 am

          It’s nice of you to say that “Socialism” delivered much better results (14/25) than the current fiasco, and it just demonstrates that you can’t define Socialism to save your life.

          I expect your anecdotes are lies too, to go with your vengeance fantasies.

          Until the GINI comes down nothing will change.

          • TheBlackKitten 9.2.1.1.1
            19 March 2015 at 10:47 am

            And the answer to my question is…………………………… tick tok tick tok … I am waiting.

            • One Anonymous Bloke 9.2.1.1.1.1
              19 March 2015 at 10:49 am

              The answer to your question is that I reject your bigoted loaded question.

              • adam …
                19 March 2015 at 10:56 am

                I would have thought it was Obvious One Anonymous Bloke. The DPB has never truly provided the life style choice – the right seem to think it was. Hell now it’s even worse.

                I’d say the girls did not get feed, because some idiot father walked out on his kids – then the ends became very hard to met.

                I’m disturbed by your authoritarianism TheBlackKitten. Want to push the state into anyone else’s life? I’m not sure I’m comfortable taking moral lessons from the right – they seem to have odd relations with children at the moment.

              • TheBlackKitten …
                20 March 2015 at 8:43 am

                The real answer is you don’t have one.

        • Colonial Rawshark 9.2.1.2
          19 March 2015 at 10:56 am

          Why do you think those girls that were in my class back in 1981 showed up to school day after day with no lunch.

          Why do you think that the school didn’t have the resources to follow that problem up and help support those families to sort it out? Didn’t you say anything about this to your parents at the time? Why didn’t they try and find out what was going on with that family and try to help?

          I mean, get real, dickhead. NZ society has been uncaring about certain issues for a long time, and turning a blind eye to many others. But the downhill slide got way worse from the Labour Government in 1984.

          • Tracey 9.2.1.2.1
            19 March 2015 at 11:01 am

            and what has Bkitten done in the ensuing years to put the situation right…

          • TheBlackKitten 9.2.1.2.2
            20 March 2015 at 9:02 am

            Next time you personally insult me with words like “Dickhead” I will not be replying so cut it out! People that use personal insults generally do so because they are losing the argument, it may pay you to take heed of that.
            OK so if I had gone to the school/teachers/parents about this issue how do you think those girls would have felt about it. Do you not think that they would have felt embarrassed, shamed and stigmatised by having another pointing out that they turn up with no lunch everyday. This is the real world & not some warm PC upper middle class fuzzy unreality fairy tail world that you seem to think it is/was.
            Secondly what could of the school done about it? If they had phoned the parent/s and advised them what would have happened to those kids when they got home for getting the schools attention by whining about wanting food? What power would have the school had to a) see if mis spending limited income was the issue and b) Do something about it to correct it. How would have they corrected it? Here’s something to chew the fat on – Say if the parents were smoking and not buying their kids lunch – what power would have the school had to make them stop and instead use their income to purchase food for their kids and not take it out on the kids with violence bred from resentment. Or do you mean with school resources that the school should have paid for their lunches with the tax dollar, ignored the issue of mis spending and ignored the strong possibility of neglect within the home environment. Bad claytons fix but I guess if that solution fits with your political ideology then that’s ok.
            Gee mate, you must have led an incredibly sheltered life to not be capable of thinking this through!!!
            And its good to see you admit that this was still an issue pre 1984, Douglas and the Key government.
            Now if you reply to this try to do so without being childish and calling me names, try by giving a constructive counter argument and we may just get somewhere.

        • KJT 9.2.1.3
          19 March 2015 at 7:29 pm

          There was one in my class at school in the 70’s, but then, both her parents were mentally ill.

          In the class I was teaching in 2008,
          There were only 3 that had lunches every day.

          In 1974 there was Government and community help which solved the problem rapidly.

          In 2008 they keep coming to school hungry. Apart from Teachers paying for their lunch every now and again. And from what I saw, most of the parents do make their kids a priority.

        • tricledrown 9.2.1.4
          20 March 2015 at 12:14 am

          Muldoon ran austerity for the poor and SMP’s for the rich.
          Wage freezes for the poor
          Price Freeze’s that were never enforced.
          Bleak Kidder.
          Norman Kirks govt was the last Market Socialist govt .
          Muldoon was a confused Capitalist Douglas a bought off Socialist.
          Ruth Richardson a fundamentalist bean counter like wise election bribe Bill Birch.
          Cullen a Neo Liberal with a tinge of Socialism.
          English a Neo Lib with a smaller tinge of Socialism just enough to win votes.

    • Tracey 9.3
      19 March 2015 at 9:11 am

      what are your sanctions for those parents who gamble, booze, sexually abuse, neglect and do drugs who are impacting their middle and upper class kids in bad ways and loosing them on the community?

      • TheBlackKitten 9.3.1
        19 March 2015 at 10:37 am

        Are they showing up to school with no lunch & being expected to learn with no food in their tummies? If so, then I would recommend a full investigation into their home life to see if neglect was an issue and if so, then they would need to have steps in place to stop it and monitor it.
        No food, no concentration equals no education despite if they are kids from lower, middle or upper class families & all situations need to be dealt with.

        • One Anonymous Bloke 9.3.1.1
          19 March 2015 at 10:41 am

          Let’s start by prosecuting vengeance obsessed ideologues.

          • TheBlackKitten 9.3.1.1.1
            19 March 2015 at 10:44 am

            Why is looking out for kids welfare “prosecuting vengeance obsessed ideologues”?

            • One Anonymous Bloke 9.3.1.1.1.1
              19 March 2015 at 10:48 am

              Punishing people for misfortune. If you took some time to read the material that’s been charitably provided for you, you might learn something about the underlying causes of poor parenting and mental health.

        • North 9.3.1.2
          19 March 2015 at 11:54 am

          Thing is Black Kitten……you’re not looking out for kids’ welfare. You gazing up the arse of TheConceitKey, mouth agape earnestly awaiting the next nugget. I think this plan would appeal to you – get Crosby Textor to write a report. Pay six figures to Dame Margaret Bazley or some such gravy-trainer to own it. Fire up the ‘blame police’ to make an example of half a dozen ferals.

          Meanwhile, let the kids eat those delicious hot-air pies with lashings of delicious hot-air sauce from the kitchens of TheHot-AirBlackKitten and TheHot-AirFizzyAnus.

          Flavourings for this delicious f-air ? No problem………just stir in the thousands of cubic metres of flatulence so kindly depoted here on The Standard by Black Kitten and Fisiani.

          If that fails…….just have faith in TheConceitKey !

          • TheBlackKitten 9.3.1.2.1
            20 March 2015 at 9:06 am

            I am going to give you a challenge.
            Why don’t you tell me (without referring to how much you hate Key, National, Labour, Greens or any other political party) what is wrong with the debt card?
            What is wrong with a system that gives people that are on hard times the ability to purchase food but only food with it?

        • tracey 9.3.1.3
          19 March 2015 at 11:58 am

          Some more parents who need to stop complaining Black Kitten, how many of these kids are the result of mothers who drink and do drugs during pregnancy. Better start punishing them too

          http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11419782

    • Colonial Rawshark 9.4
      19 March 2015 at 10:06 am

      The issue is limited income being mis spent on highly addictive vices. We need to face reality and understand it is not a lack of income issue, but rather income that is provided to pay for the basics that is used on addictive vices with the basics being left out.

      Firstly there is a shortage of income at the bottom end of the spectrum, a desperate shortage. The income share of corporates and the top 10%

      • Chooky 9.4.1
        19 March 2015 at 10:22 am

        +100 CR

      • TheBlackKitten 9.4.2
        19 March 2015 at 10:43 am

        Why would you want the tax dollar to pay the short fall for that? Is it not better to go down the track of getting the employer to pay a fair wage for a fair days work rather than having the tax dollar propping it up by paying for food that they can’t (as some believe, but is really a mis spending issue) afford?

        • Colonial Rawshark 9.4.2.1
          19 March 2015 at 10:53 am

          Your mis-spending meme is prejudicial bullshit. It is prejudicial because it seeks to lay moral blame on those worst affected by the neoliberal economy but who have the least power and voice.

          You let the wealthy and powerful off their own bad behaviour, scott free.

          The true mis-spending which has been going on in this economy is the overcharging by corporates who take $2.5B out of the NZ economy every quarter.

          As for the short fall in both wages and jobs. Basically if the private sector refuses to cover the shortfall, it is the duty of government to do so.

        • Tracey 9.4.2.2
          19 March 2015 at 11:05 am

          But by your illogic giving them living wages wont help cos they are only taking food from their kids mouths cos they are all addicted to vices that will just gobble the extra money up? Are you back tracking from that proposition?

        • KJT 9.4.2.3
          19 March 2015 at 5:29 pm

          The net married with children rate of welfare is $348 plus accommodation allowance, if you qualify. Rarely more than $70.

          Many more people are in so called “flexible” working arrangements where they do not get more than minimum wage no matter how long they have been there. And yes, employers should be paying a living wage.
          The cheapest family accommodation is a caravan at $165 a week, only if you have a free paddock to put it on. A healthy diet for a family of 4, from a university study, in New Zealand, costs over $400 a week.

          How much is left for shoes, healthcare, school books, power, lunches and the car to drive to all those great jobs WINZ has for you, because you cannot afford to rent close to work?

          Work it out.

          • fisiani 9.4.2.3.1
            19 March 2015 at 9:11 pm

            Shonky stats I have clearly shown above that a family of 6 can eat healthily for less than $400

            http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/money/9762466/Mythbusting-the-cost-of-healthy-eating

            • KJT 9.4.2.3.1.1
              19 March 2015 at 9:23 pm

              In another post you showed they couldn’t. 🙂

              Your myth is busted.

              Can you live with a family of 4 on $348 a week?

              I can’t.

              • fisiani …
                19 March 2015 at 9:42 pm

                Can you not read.
                You must be having a laugh. A grocery bill of $1000 weekly. I call that bullshit!
                http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/money/9762466/Mythbusting-the-cost-of-healthy-eating
                Add up the cost of healthy breakfast, lunch, dinner drink and snacks and it comes to $9.40 at the top of the range. ($7-9.40)For seven days that’s $65.80 and multiply that by 6 people that’ s $394. How can you possibly claim it would cost $1000 esp if growing own spuds, herbs, silverbeet and bulk produce.
                Did you not think your shonky emotive figures would be found out.
                No wonder the Left constantly lacks credibility. Did you get your figures from the innumerate Greens?

                • KJT …
                  19 March 2015 at 9:47 pm

                  You are not reading. The point was It would cost a family of 6 at least a $1000 a week to eat like we did in the 70’s. With our 20 pound roast on Sunday, etc.

                  And you have just shown it takes near to $400 for healthy eating for a family of 4 in one of your own posts.

                  Not too far from the study. Eh!. Myth busted.

                  Welfare for a family of 4 or 6 is $348 net.

        • tricledrown 9.4.2.4
          20 March 2015 at 12:21 am

          A recent National govt survey Bleak Kidder showed those on benefits had a far lower drug addiction rate than the rest of the population.
          Only 2% as opposed to 10% over the whole population.
          Extrapolating that out means the non beneficiaries had a higher than 10% addiction rate.

    • David 9.5
      19 March 2015 at 11:10 am

      Face reality, yes a lot of Team Key need to do this.

  10. saveNZ 10
    19 March 2015 at 9:14 am

    They only love money and power.

    I guess they need an underfed underclass as we go back to the 19th century industrial age. As they frack the oceans…

    What did Oliver Twist say….

    Can I please have more…

  11. Stuart Munro 11
    19 March 2015 at 9:15 am

    A majority of overseas countries provide school lunches as a matter of course.

    Lazy backward stupid and inhuman – that’s the Gnats. And they couldn’t balance a budget to save their trivial lives.

    • Colonial Rawshark 11.1
      19 March 2015 at 11:01 am

      Balanced government budgets are a BAD BAD THING

      Foreign corporates extract $800M net out of the NZ domestic economy and our households every month. That money is shipped to their overseas owners.

      So if the NZ government does not make up that money flow extraction out of NZ by deficit spending back into our economy by AT LEAST that same number every month the private sector (and that includes households) will lose incomes and savings to the tune of $800M. Every single month.

      That’s austerity, bro.

      The Left, and Labour, need to stop looking at “balanced budgets” as if they are a good thing. They are most definitely not.

      • Wreckingball 11.1.1
        19 March 2015 at 11:52 am

        End result of your idea – Greece. The govt cannot just continually borrow $800m a year.

        • Colonial Rawshark 11.1.1.1
          19 March 2015 at 12:10 pm

          Flat out wrong.

          Greece gave up its currency sovereignty, gave up its control over interest rates, gave up its control over the issuance of money, gave up its control over inflation.

          NZ is in a totally different situation.

          Now address my points.

        • KJT 11.1.1.2
          19 March 2015 at 7:41 pm

          There was one in my class at school in the 70’s, but then, both her parents were mentally ill.

          In the class I was teaching in 2008,
          There were only 3 that had lunches every day.

          In 1974 there was Government and community help which solved the problem rapidly.

          In 2008 they keep coming to school hungry. Apart from Teachers paying for their lunch every now and again. And from what I saw, most of the parents do make their kids a priority.

        • KJT 11.1.1.3
          19 March 2015 at 8:36 pm

          The second part is correct. You forgot to complete your statement.

          “The govt cannot just continually borrow $800m a year, and give it to wealthy tax dodgers to spend overseas, and then expect the taxpayers on low incomes, to pay it back. Just like Greece”

      • Stuart Munro 11.1.2
        19 March 2015 at 12:00 pm

        An inability to balance budgets is nevertheless not a virtue. It is a basic competency akin to the ability to produce chords among aspiring conventional rockstars. The Gnats fail even basic neoliberal competence – they fail by their own standards.

        • Colonial Rawshark 11.1.2.1
          19 March 2015 at 12:11 pm

          What are you talking about? It’s easy for a government to balance budgets: it extracts more money from businesses and households, decreases your savings and income by taking a larger share of them from you, and spends less on goods and services for the people, mostly by firing workers and keeping them permanently unemployed. The net effect forces the private sector into deficit and allows the government to balance its books.

          Why would you see that as some kind of a virtue? Well, the government’s ledgers and spreadsheets are balanced (wow great) but your people and your real economy are stuffed into an austerity hole while the government enjoys good books.

          The government is not a household. It is not a business. Household and business budget analogies do not apply to the government because the government can tax, can control the value of the currency and can issue money. Your household cannot.

          • Stuart Munro 11.1.2.1.1
            19 March 2015 at 12:42 pm

            Quite. But this government chooses the ideological blinkers of the household analogy – but proves to be hopelessly improvident.

            It’s a curiously self-defeating approach.

    • fisiani 11.2
      19 March 2015 at 11:39 pm

      Can you name me one country in Africa that provides school lunches as a matter of course?

  12. BMW 12
    19 March 2015 at 9:26 am

    Upper class business persons fashion their moooobs and dimpled cellulite arses from the scrapings stolen from the poor

    They hang in gaggles and self important cliques at John Keyes’s door

    Cheap just like some dirty red lip stickered lower class whore, wanting to get high up on the economic Ponzi scheme standing tall on the poor.

    Feed me some tax breaks, feed me some poor

    I like cheap dumb labour it keeps the latest BMW just outside my door…………..

  13. Lanthanide 13
    19 March 2015 at 9:37 am

    It’s a pity we don’t have some sort of mechanism where the first reading of members bills have to be voted down by 67% + 1 votes, rather than just a simple majority.

    I think members bills generally should be going to select committees for further analysis, even if it’s some sort of abridged process when they’re not supported by a majority of the house.

    Still allow them to be voted down at first reading if there’s a super-majority though.

    • Crashcart 13.1
      19 March 2015 at 10:15 am

      The idea has merit but I would be worried about the ability of oposition parties (NACT will not always be in power) to use it to bog down good governance by introducing as many nuisence bills as possible.

      • Lanthanide 13.1.1
        19 March 2015 at 11:39 am

        “to use it to bog down good governance by introducing as many nuisence bills as possible.”

        Then they’d look stupid to the public, wouldn’t they?

        Member bills are strictly rationed and drawn out of a ballot. So I don’t think there’s much room for nuisance bills.

        • Crashcart 13.1.1.1
          19 March 2015 at 11:52 am

          Tell that to the US where congress acheives almost nothing due to Republican filibusters and then Republicns win both houses in a landslide.

          With the right amount of money and slick advertising people can be convinced of almost anything.

          • Lanthanide 13.1.1.1.1
            19 March 2015 at 12:08 pm

            What occurs in the US government isn’t relevant to NZ, because our Parliament operates under very different rules.

            Speaking of fillibusters, you’ll note that for almost the entire first term of National’s government, Labour and Grant Robertson fillibustered on a technical bill for a northern council (can’t remember details), purely in order to prevent a vote from being taken on National’s private members bill that got rid of compulsory student union membership.

            National found a method by which to break the fillibuster, which they used at the very end of the term, so the only thing Labour achieved was a complete loss of any other member bills being passed or making progress. In the 2nd term, 11 members bills were passed, including the marriage equality one.

  14. saveNZ 14
    19 March 2015 at 9:45 am

    I hope the well heeled retired politicians wave to the hungry kids, as they fly off business class to London each year on the taxpayer dollar.

    Umm we can’t afford to feed hungry kids but can afford to send retired MP’s on business class holidays each year.

  15. Sable 15
    19 March 2015 at 9:49 am

    If anyone wants clear and emphatic evidence of what a malignant government we currently have this is it. I’d suggest Keys and co hang their heads in shame but then I do not suspect they know what the word means.

  16. saveNZ 16
    19 March 2015 at 9:52 am

    I had a brief browse of the Herald, couldn’t see anything about it.

    Still articles about X Factor though…

    This corrupt morally evil government is also propped up by MSM that won’t report the news.

  17. The Murphey 17
    19 March 2015 at 10:01 am

    No to providing positive assistance to those who could genuinely benefit in NZ

    Yes to depleted uranium war and killing abroad

    These decisions equate to suffering and death of innocents

    Q. Who/What are the primary drivers to voting bills of this nature down ?

    Q. Are we being ruled over by a death cult ?

  18. Chooky 18
    19 March 2015 at 10:54 am

    The Neolib John Key Nact agenda is to divest all New Zealand state responsibility for New Zealand childrens’ wellbeing …hence food ,shelter,education, and health

    …when you hear cunning arguments from pseudo Lefties to abdicate New Zealand state responsibility …and to splinter, de-centralise and privatise the ‘PRIVILEGE’ ( not the ‘RIGHT”) of food , health , shelter and education ….be very wary ! ( take a good hard look at who is saying this….and ask yourself what their agenda is…how privileged are they?…are they trying to preserve their privilege and superiority?..do they undermine and kneecap real Left politicians? )

    ….and note these Lefty wolves in sheeps clothing also throw in arguments for parental responsibility…as if it is the parents’ fault for the distress and under-achievement of their children…nothing like kicking the victims when they are down …eh?!

    ….unfortunately New Zealanders have been seduced by these Neoliberal cunning arguments made by pseudo Lefties …this is why the NZ Left is so fucked…and why real Left politicians and Parties like the Greens and Mana/Int have been fucked over

    ….under the Neolib agenda we are supposed to beg for our supper ( we will get it if we have been a good boy or good girl) ..it has gone from being a ‘RIGHT’ for our children to being a ‘PRIVILEGE”….we are under the power and control of the self appointed elite and their sycophants…and they sure as hell dont want to lose their superiority ,privileges and their power and control over the rest of us …they are our morally superior ( and probably genetic) betters and we should know it!

    Martyn Bradbury puts it succinctly:

    ‘National vote down feed the kids – welcome to the horror of John Key’s NZ’

    “Under National we are a land of the wrong uptight crowd, led by a multimillionaire Hawaiian mansion money trader who with a compliant mainstream media, abuses political power using a laid back ease that appeals to the anti-intellectualism of middle Nu Zilind.”….

    http://thedailyblog.co.nz/2015/03/18/national-vote-down-feed-the-kids-welcome-to-the-horror-of-john-keys-nz/

  19. greywarshark 19
    19 March 2015 at 1:30 pm

    David Shearer was mentioned in the news this morning and reported as putting forward the idea of education about healthy food, rather than the actual provision of eats direct to the child. And that is what is needed, and all children can be given an apple or whatever fruit or green veg like crisp washed celery sticks that are in season and cheaply available. Then no one can feel diminshed by being a ‘povvy’ or some unpleasant label from others not getting free lunches.

    Beneficiary mothers and fathers looking for work could be employed to prepare lunches in a kitchen at school, that would also be a food and cooking skills classroom, and children could have one period helping with the food and learning at the same time. Learning something practical to go alongside the fact-based, technology-based, theory-based education that forms most of their learning.

    And yek bawling out like a primary school loudmouth that he had someone call up some schools to see how many didn’t have lunch today – the most is seven he yelled in triumph. This is the level of our fine information-based praqctical, wise governmental scrutiny of the problem – find a focus group somewhere that says what you want to hear and act on that. And we spend millions of dollars on policies as if we had a real government that had real information and statistical based research accompanied by advice from government employed educated and experienced professionals. And we get the PM getting his mates to find out stuff and base the practices that we use to run our lives on that!

    I’m so angry, and worried about this country and where we are heading with these disgusting male and female pollies who are either yobboes or anti-social, class-ridden autocrats who aren’t fit to run a prison much less act on behalf of the people of the country.

    We’re neutered by these neo libs in trying to find practical, community-based answers to problems. They have a tight little model that is about efficiency and best practice and market-based answers and lowering budgets. Not interested in democracy (Nick Smith said it gets in the way of things!), they aren’t interested in serving people’s needs if they haven’t appeared in a scoping document from their favourite professional advice juggler. Like with the hospital food, thinking practically and looking for outcomes that meet requirements and favouring practical-based local rather than creating mass for volume efficiency, no we can’t do that. We must pay an overseas company so further rarking up our current account deficit and ignoring the need for people to do it themselves in NZ by NZ paid in sticky NZ cash that stays here. We are going to get Compass, a worldwide provider of things people should be making for ourselves.

    (Anything could be done, but nothing must be done for the first time. I think Sir Humphrey said that, and what a fine dissembler he was.)

    At one time in Nelson the hospital grew their own vegetables. Could a disability group who are helped by hospital services, form a gardening club, grow stuff, get some pocket money and be part of a social club for hospital volunteers that had some bus trips and help them have a happy life with social activity? No it wouldn’t be efficient and in accord with the accounting principles the hospital adheres to and the demands that central government put on them. Annette King set hospitals up to be autonomous but apparently didn’t give them the authority to decide many things themselves.

    Now isn’t it strange how RW will quote about government killing off initiative etc ‘The Dead Hand of Government’, something that they found in Adam Smith’s treatise and are probably quoting out of context. Yet it is bad, narrow-minded government locked into unyielding models even after they are proven impractical and expensive that actually do the most damage and harm. And it is RW governments who specialise in that model.

    • Chooky 19.1
      19 March 2015 at 8:40 pm

      +100 greywarshark…except children need food now….before education about food…and this government has cut Adult Community Education

      agreed….”narrow-minded government locked into unyielding models even after they are proven impractical and expensive that actually do the most damage and harm. And it is RW governments who specialise in that model.”

  20. M Scott 20
    19 March 2015 at 2:49 pm

    Feeding hungry children won’t fix the problem of child poverty. Treating injured victims of car crashes, won’t stop traffic accidents. It’s obvious really.
    In some parts of the world, school lunches are an institution, always have been. Why not here? NZ is a food basket after all. What a weird, weird world.

    • Colonial Rawshark 20.1
      19 March 2015 at 9:14 pm

      We export enough food to feed 5M people overseas in exchange for electronic credits, and let our own children hunger.

  21. Macro 21
    19 March 2015 at 4:04 pm

    The poor deserve everything they get! They are morally deficient, lazy. and don’t eat proper food. So what else can you expect. If the poor want a nice warm house like me they can work hard and buy one – you only need to save $100,000 for a deposit. Key is a good bloke who really cares about people – I mean he’s off to lead the troops to kill a few of those middle eastern people who go around killing people! (Well maybe he’s not going to lead them – but it was his idea to send them wasn’t it?). And he’s going to build bridges . Politics is all about building bridges. And fast broadband. I’m so happy I live in NZ. We can’t go wasting money on feeding kids when we have to build another yacht. /sarc

  22. AUDNZD 22
    19 March 2015 at 4:19 pm

    Why stop at lunches? Why not dinners and ticket to the movies?
    C’mon out of this world Greens: you want non-thinking docile voters, don’t ya?

    • One Anonymous Bloke 22.1
      19 March 2015 at 4:27 pm

      Oh hahahaha, yeah yeah, and then I said “fuck the children” and we all laughed like trash.

      Such a great joke.

    • Macro 22.2
      19 March 2015 at 5:37 pm

      Hey! That’s not a bad idea! Free drinks all round too! I know! a swimming pool in the back yard – just like the one John’s got. And a super patio/ BBQ area, and then we could invite John and his mates round for a beer. Need a big SUV tho for all the kids. Nice new one would be good? How about one of those? And a holiday home in Hawaii. Near a golf course. mmmm

      • Macro 22.2.1
        19 March 2015 at 5:39 pm

        Oooops forgot the yacht! Oh yeah that’s already being dealt with.. Man you guys think of everything.

        • KJT 22.2.1.1
          19 March 2015 at 10:29 pm

          You can have the BBQ and pool, but leave my bloody yacht alone. It is all I have left after feeding the tribe in my basement.

          The tribe is, of course, still there because of 1984 Labours and then Nationals, “Brighter Future”.

    • Colonial Rawshark 22.3
      19 March 2015 at 6:02 pm

      Why stop at lunches? Why not dinners and ticket to the movies?

      And don’t forget catered seats in the SkyCity box with an open bar.

      But that kind of tax payer subsidised privilege is only OK for MPs and corporate management, right?

      • Chooky 22.3.1
        19 March 2015 at 6:09 pm

        yup…cronyist capitalism…”tax payer subsidised privilege”… it is their rights

    • Macro 22.4
      19 March 2015 at 6:21 pm

      Now this is interesting!
      http://www.dia.govt.nz/about-us-our-organisation-ministers-expenses
      Alright for some!
      Oh yeah – what’s mine stays mine! don’t think just because I get a free lunch on taxpayers expense you poor kids can have one too!

    • KJT 22.5
      19 March 2015 at 9:34 pm

      Yes. It would be good if more families could have dinner, and movies, once in a while.

  23. Macro 23
    19 March 2015 at 6:40 pm

    Actually thinking about it – we can’t have tax-payers hard earned money being ill spent by hopeless politicians. I reckon all MPs should be placed on a zero hour contract paying minimum wages.And NO LUNCH BREAKS Yep! That would sort the buggers out.

  24. Macro 24
    19 March 2015 at 9:45 pm

    Oh I know what you mean..
    I also do all the cooking … and the shopping. And have never darkened the door of Mac D’s or the KFC or any other.. I also am fully aware that providing for a family doesn’t only count the cost of food!
    RWNutters seem to think that everyone owns their own home!

    • KJT 24.1
      19 March 2015 at 10:03 pm

      Yeah we lived on the sickness benefit for a while, but I already had a house, car and all the essentials. Even then it was a struggle.

      The kids in my basement, on the $170 a week, for the times when WINZ doesn’t find some excuse not to pay it, are always running out of money for essentials.

      One of which has to be a car, especially for the girls, as there is no public transport.

      The benefit is stopped if you miss even one appointment, or yet another interview for another dead end minimum wage, 12 or zero hours job, for whatever reason.

      One of them, who is mentally ill dared to grump at a WINZ officer and now he is in the Kafka/catch 22 situation of not being allowed in the WINZ office, and WINZ will not pay the benefit without a meeting. Doing it on the phone or internet, or through me as an intermediary. is beyound WINZ capabilities or policies.

      • Macro 24.1.1
        19 March 2015 at 10:24 pm

        Yep – I know exactly what you mean – Nats are so good at cutting down on the benefit payouts – by not actually paying them to those who are entitled. And those who are left out end up sleeping on someones couch or on the streets. Its appalling .

        • KJT 24.1.1.1
          19 March 2015 at 10:39 pm

          Had up to 18 kids in the basement. At least it is more comfortable than couch surfing, which a lot of them have to do.

          Noddles and baked beans disappear in seconds.

          It is unbelievable how much a hungry teenager can eat.

          • Macro 24.1.1.1.1
            20 March 2015 at 12:37 am

            The food bank in Thames has been under extreme pressure since before Xmas when 100 people were laid off when one of the sawmills in the town closed. We just send unsawn logs to China instead. 🙁 Yep FTA ‘s work wonders for the economy.

            Sounds like you are doing stirling service there KJT.

            There are 20 + young people sleeping out in Hamilton central every night. At a TPPA rally last year I came across a young woman who was feeding these kids on a regular basis. She had her own young family to look after but was raising money and caring for these as well.

            This really should not be happening in NZ.

            5000 years ago someone in Babylon wrote on a clay tablet that the measure of a society was how well it treated its most vulnerable. That still applies.

  25. millsy 25
    20 March 2015 at 7:00 am

    John Key was born in 1961, so he got his free school milk still, even if he was in J1 or whatever it is nowadays.

    Thanks to the School Dental Service (which was set up because we had kids teeth rotting in their mouths, and putting a dental clinic in each school was seen as the best way to sort this) we now woos voters with that smile of his…

    Hypocrisy much?

    • Chooky 25.1
      20 March 2015 at 8:33 am

      John Key also lived in a State house provided by the New Zealand Government and New Zealand taxpayers over the generations, …in a very good area of Christchurch where there was mixed socio economic classes..ie wealthy lived alongside poor.

      ..and John Key also went to very good New Zealand State primary and secondary schools….also provided by the New Zealander taxpayers

      ….then he went to the high quality state University of Canterbury…free to him…also provided by New Zealanders

  26. Robert Glennie 26
    20 March 2015 at 11:59 am

    The problem is, this is what you get for a third term Government if so few people turn out to vote as did last time. Whilst Labour probably would not have been able to form a Labour dominated coalition, it might have had the numbers to form one where the Greens and New Zealand First could contribute a couple of Ministers each.

    Third term Governments are apt to not really care any more about public opinion since they know history is against them getting a fourth term in peace time.