I suppose it was inevitable that something would go wrong.   

It wasn’t like the new school lunch providers all had the opportunity to ease into their work. They didn’t do huge practice runs or slowly build capacity over time.   

For most of them it was a case of going from zero to one hundred. Day one of the school year and they had to be zipping along in fifth gear.   

And all you needed were photos of a few mishits and word of a few schools with missing lunches and news spread on social media in a way that blunders never would have under the last school lunch regime.   

Think about it: last year, all anyone had to compare school lunches to was the previous regime, when schools were provided with nothing. Now, there’s a different precedent.   

If we’re honest, there is also a political dimension at play. David Seymour is so attached to the school lunch funding cuts. But he’s a polarising figure, especially in education communities. And just as he is happy to make soak up political support for being the guy making the funding cuts, I’m sure there are more than a few educators who are quietly willing Seymour to fail.   

All that being said, I don’t think anyone who’s seen the examples of some of the stodgy offerings being sent out to schools (or not being sent out, as has also been the case) could possibly argue with the young students who’ve reportedly been comparing them with dog food.

I was listening to Newstalk ZB the other day when someone said that presentation doesn’t matter. It’s simple; the kids don’t eat the meals then they can’t really be that hungry.   

For anyone who’s actually spent time around children will know just how naive and misguided that is. Sure, if we were in the midst of a full-blown famine, you might reasonably expect kids to eat any old slop. But mercifully, we’re not in a famine. And actually, hungry kids don’t always act rationally. Most young children would prefer to go without kai for an afternoon than be forced to eat a tray of dog food. You probably would too. Presentation matters.

I was discussing it with a mate this week, who said the whole thing still annoys him because it should be parents’ responsibility to feed children and not the New Zealand taxpayer.  

Sure, I said. In a perfect World, I totally agree. But unfortunately, this ain’t it. For whatever reason, there are thousands of kids who without school lunches would not be eating three meals a day. Even if you think it’s all the parents’ fault, none of those kids can choose their folks any more than we chose ours!   

And here’s the thing I think risks being lost in this episode: full bellies aren’t just good for the kids who would otherwise be going without. They’re good for all of us.   

At a moment in time when the government is literally soliciting for ideas to drive economic growth, there are few things that will drive our future productivity like better educational achievement. Kids who are hungry do not learn.

An investment in a full belly today is an investment in growth in twenty years’ time. It’s an investment in skills, in businesses, in innovation.   

The new school lunch programme is off to a lumpy start (literally). Teething issues were inevitable, and I really hope it’ll improve.   

But I can tell you this much, for all the concern over the state of the books, the savings made from the school lunch programme are worth nothing if the kids don’t eat.