Someone has to pay for 'free' school lunches. Photo / Getty
OPINION
Recently I decided I didn't like the idea of free school lunches.
I'm not a monster, I have nothing against feeding hungry kids and I appreciate the difference a full tummy and a healthy diet makes to a child's ability to absorb education.
It just seemed like a bandaid at best. Like the Government - one that made tackling child poverty a priority - was not trying hard enough to tackle the root issues in a meaningful way.
It felt wrong for the state to be feeding thousands of students - surely that is the job of their parents?
And if the parents aren't doing it, isn't that the problem we need to address?
As well, the policy would inevitably give taxpayer-funded food to kids whose parents were perfectly able to feed them well, while hungry kids in schools not part of the scheme may miss out.
In spite of all this, however, the more I thought about it, the less I agreed with myself.
The programme, Ka Ora, Ka Ako, started in 2019 with 42 schools, 10,000 students, in the Bay of Plenty/Waiariki and Hawke's Bay/Tairāwhiti. The Government committed $220 million in the last Budget to expand it to reach 200,000 students by the end of next year.
Ngongotaha School and its 400 kids were part of the pilot and principal Craig McFadyen has praised it for contributing to positive changes including better attendance, behaviour and concentration. Happier kids.
His school had this rolled out in the space of a few months. That's one of the main benefits of the programme - implementation and impact are relatively quick.
Tackling the root causes of child poverty and addressing the unique set of circumstances in each family is a longer-term effort - a multitude of efforts, really.
We could wait it out but in the meantime, there would be kids every day going to school hungry.
Of course, in an ideal world, parents should be taking care of their own children but plainly it is a responsibility some out there can't or won't manage, and it's the kids who suffer the most - though there are broader costs to society, the economy, and the taxpayer, too, down the road.
Tarring people with negligence or welfare dependence brushes en masse is another cop-out, all too easy to do from a position of privilege.
So then the question becomes how many kids need to go hungry before we stop stubbornly clinging to the idea that feeding them will only discourage their caregivers from sorting themselves out?
Whatever line is drawn will be arbitrary but I reckon we're over it, so I can accept my tax dollars going towards feeding other people's kids.
The line is clearest when we're talking about the impact of parents' bad choices or poor chances on innocent children.
But how do we balance the tension between personal responsibility and extending a helping hand when it comes to adults?
The death of a Rotorua man sparked a conversation this week about the health impacts of poverty.
Frank Tipene Walters died overnight on November 16 last year at his brother's home. He was last seen going to bed with a cup of tea. He had no alcohol or cannabis in his system but he did have synthetic cannabis.
The coroner ruled he died from heart disease with diabetes as an underlying condition.
The ruling might have gone unremarked on if not for the fact that Walter was aged only 53 and his GP, Harry Pert, believed unemployment, poverty, homelessness and difficulty accessing health services were also major contributors to his death.
Walters had bad teeth, which made it hard for him to eat the right things to control his diabetes, according to Pert.
He told NZME New Zealand had "hideously unacceptable" standards of and access to dental care. He said he was seeing the impacts of poverty more than any other time in his 45-year medical career.
Walters' brother had a different perspective, saying his brother had "got a bit slack" in managing his diabetes towards the end.
I'm not putting Walters up for judgment, but I believe we can learn something from his case and no doubt those of many others like him.
One of my favourite lines from the election was Act leader David Seymour's response to the announcements of Labour's school lunches expansion and National's dental proposal:
"Once Jacinda has fed the kids, and Judith has brushed their teeth, what's left for parents to do?"
Credit where it's due, it was a funny quip.
But Walters' case is an example of how the broader issues at play - nutrition and access to dental care - can be genuinely life and death.
To put them squarely in the personal or parental responsibility camp is, in my opinion, to ignore their reality.
There's an ethical concept called the veil of ignorance. Boiled down, it's an extreme take on putting yourself into someone else's shoes.
If, before you were born, you didn't know what you were going to be - your position in life, your talents, race, gender, nationality - how would you want society to work?
The argument goes that, in your ignorance, you would want a more equal society that would give those at the bottom of the heap a decent chance at a good life, just in case that was your lot.
Personal responsibility is valuable. We should instil it in our kids and practise it in ourselves.
But I don't think it should be any sort of bottom line when it comes to the Government addressing major social ills associated with inequality and poverty in New Zealand, especially for children.
The origins of issues matter but at a certain point, the judgments over choice versus chance just get in the way of getting things done and putting the help where it is needed most.
I've come to see free school lunches as a decent place to start on the road to eliminating child poverty in this country, but I think too little was done in the last term of Government to "keep moving" on the issue.
It must do more this time around.
The animal was euthanised after ripping through a wire fence.