Last week as the world puzzled over war and peace and the end of globalisation and rules based free trade, New Zealand was watching the slow-motion train wreck of a free lunch programme.  

David Seymour, a long-term opponent of the idea, was put in charge of it by the Prime Minister Christopher Luxon. Which may have been a genius political move but may rebound in his face.  

The Act Leader then reckoned he could centralise it and cut costs until each lunch cost 3 dollars a child.  

But the providers had problems. None more so than Libelle who went bust and we finished the week bringing in lunches from Australia.  

But there was more sting in the tail. 

Long time listener Matt, and long-time opponent of the idea, was incensed by part of a story from last week and sent me an email.  

It was part of the story about a Gisborne kid who got burnt by his school meal.  

But what got Matt is the revelation that the school orders 310 lunches each day.   

But 150 go untouched by the kids who don’t like the look of the offering.  

And some have given up on the school lunches and they’ve started bringing their own meals from home.  

Which is exactly what the parents should have been doing in the first place.  

Matt hates the entitlement of those who took the meals but didn't need them. But I think it’s entirely predictable. Offered a free meal who says no.  

Except it’s not free. Taxpayers pay for it. But some parents will argue that’s them getting their tax back  

Labour thought that if one child goes hungry then all children should be fed which opens this up to exploitation. 

So how do we fix this.  

Help should be targeted. If a kid comes in hungry and empty handed, then they should be helped. 

How about a lunch club. Where the children are offered the chance to make a meal for themselves if they need it. A toasted sandwich or even a marmite sandwich to make the PM happy. 

What’s that Chinese proverb. Give a man a fish then he eats for a day. Teach him how to fish and he feeds himself for a lifetime.