The two haggled over how many kids come to school without lunch.
I found it trivial in the scheme of things.
But here is the PM's last respone:
Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I have been to numerous schools where KidsCan has been in operation. I have been to those schools with Julie on numerous occasions. This is actually the Government that gave KidsCan $500,000 more for raincoats, and $900,000 more to deal with headlice. We are providing extensive support. But I will say this. I went to one of the schools where every child was given a raincoat, and, yes, we fully supported that. The argument around that is that children do not have raincoats. So I actually asked about 20 of the kids: “Do you own a raincoat?” Every single child told me: “Yes.” So it is great they have got another one, and we support KidsCan and we are giving them money, and we think they are a great charity, and they are doing good work, but just because you give kids a raincoat does not mean they did not own one beforehand.
What is the message here?
Need cannot be accurately measured by acceptance of aid.
And the government wasted money, albeit $500,000 is small beer.
Really though. A PM trailing around with KidsCan, and then haggling with the Greens over who can waste more money???
Update. It was too late to go searching for this quote last night but it also illustrates the principle above. What researchers found when they analysed breakfast in schools programmes,
"Rather than increasing breakfast consumption overall many children who previously ate breakfast at home appeared to swap location (substitution effect)"