I fail to understand why some oarents have multiple children when common sense says you cannot afford to bring them up and provide a good life for them. I realise circumstances change but many seem to have more children when they are already struggling.
It is not a right to have children if you know they cannot be supported by the parents.

It is not a sad indictment of today’s parents but of our society. If you are paying half of more of your salary for rent then there is little wonder that you cannot feed your children. Is it every second Pacific Islanders parents who are to blame that one in every two children in the PI community go hungry. No of course not how many jobs do two parents need to have to feed their kids. The blame is squarely on politicians of both colours who have allowed this to happen.

Seymour is a bloody disgrace.

You almost got it right Trevor, here is what you should have written…

“It is a sad indictment of today’s neoliberal policy settings that the state needs to feed their children but it is a reality so it needs to be a good meal that keeps them coming back for more which means they need to be in school to get it.”

You are welcome.

However, I personally wouldnt mind the meal pictured.

Slops are a health hazard due to the production method and insecure packaging-a number of reports of broken seals upon delivery.

School lunch programmes, left to schools and local communities, working fine.

Then Scrooge Seymour first says schools should not feed children, then realises, this is a chance for a backhander to his mates if he gets them a contract.

Why could the prick not leave well alone.