Chef and co-owner of Christchurch's popular fine-dining restaurant INATI Simon Levy joined Canterbury Mornings after his restaurant won a Michelin star on Tuesday evening.

He told John MacDonald about his beginnings as a young chef under Gordon Ramsay, and what he reckons won over the judges when they anonymously visited his central city restaurant.

LISTEN ABOVE

Chef and co-owner of Christchurch's popular fine-dining restaurant INATI Simon Levy joined Canterbury Mornings after his restaurant won a Michelin star on Tuesday evening.
He told John MacDonald about his beginnings as a young chef under Gordon Ramsay, and what he reckons won over the judges when they anonymously visited his central city restaurant.
LISTEN ABOVE

Every weekday join the new voice of local issues on Canterbury Mornings with John MacDonald, 9am-12pm weekdays.

It’s all about the conversation with John, as he gets right into the things that get our community talking.

If it’s news you’re after, backing John is the combined power of the Newstalk ZB and New Zealand Herald news teams. Meaning when it comes to covering breaking news – you will not beat local radio.

With two decades experience in communications based in Christchurch, John also has a deep understanding of and connections to the Christchurch and Canterbury commercial sector.

Newstalk ZB Canterbury Mornings 9am-12pm with John MacDonald on 100.1FM and iHeartRadio.

Every weekday join the new voice of local issues on Canterbury Mornings with John MacDonald, 9am-12pm weekdays. It’s all about the conversation with John, as he gets right into the things that get our community talking. If it’s news you’re after, backing John is the combined power of the Newstalk ZB and New Zealand Herald news teams. Meaning when it comes to covering breaking news – you will not beat local radio. With two decades experience in communications based in Christchurch, John also has a deep understanding of and connections to the Christchurch and Canterbury commercial sector. Newstalk ZB Canterbury Mornings 9am-12pm with John MacDonald on 100.1FM and iHeartRadio.

Every weekday join the new voice of local issues on Canterbury Mornings with John MacDonald, 9am-12pm weekdays.It’s all about the conversation with John, as he gets right into the things that get our community talking.

Canterbury Mornings with John MacDonald

Simon Levy: INATI Chef and co owner on winning a Michelin star

https://api.omny.fm/orgs/7784f840-c291-422a-924b-ad9000bbad71/clips/0fe24a9c-d276-46c4-b9b6-b47a00185b30/transcript

Can we all just accept now that David Seymour’s school lunch programme is a dog’s breakfast?

With this report out from the Auditor-General saying only 50 percent of the lunches are up-to-scratch on the nutrition front and about 20,000 meals a day aren’t being eaten.

The Associate Education Minister has hit back of course, using his usual tricks of discrediting the report and going on about how much money he’s saved.

Tell that, though, to all the people who have been vindicated by this report.

People like Christchurch principal Peggy Burrows who ended up in a tit-for-tat spat with Seymour over mouldy lunches, and who was to blame.

The Auditor-General’s report paints a pretty shambolic picture. It says last year only 50 percent of the school lunch collective’s meals met the ministry of education’s nutrition standards.

That improved a bit later in the year.

I’ll come back to the nutrition part. Because I think a re-think is needed on that front, but I reckon the biggest concern has to be how much food is being wasted.

Not that that’s a major surprise. because we’ve seen plenty of reports of food being fed to pigs and principals getting into trouble for letting their staff take uneaten food home.

Now I’m a big supporter of the government providing school lunches.

But I can’t support that level of waste. 20,000 meals a day.

I’m a big supporter because, as anyone will tell you, it’s no use sitting a hungry kid in front of a teacher.

You know what it’s like trying to do something yourself when you’re hungry, hopeless, and that’s why we just can’t have hungry kids at school.

And if that means the government feeding these kids at lunchtime, then I’ve got no problem with that.

But I can’t turn a blind eye to 20,000 meals a day being chucked out. Which brings me to the criticism in this Auditor-General’s report that the school lunches aren’t nutritious enough.

I’ve always said that we can go on as much as we like about our school lunches when we were kids being pretty basic.

And I guarantee my school lunches would never have met these nutrition standards the ministry of education has these days for the lunch programme.

The difference is, though, I didn’t go to school hungry in the first place. I had breakfast and I had dinner at night.
Some kids these days don’t, but aren’t we defeating the purpose if the kids themselves aren’t even eating the lunches because they don’t like them?

Which is why I think the ministry of education needs to accept that it's got things wrong. It needs to go back to what you might call the basics and serve up something the kids will actually eat.

And if that means something basic like a cheese sandwich, then do it. Because eating something has to be way better than eating nothing.

LISTEN ABOVE

Can we all just accept now that David Seymour’s school lunch programme is a dog’s breakfast?
With this report out from the Auditor-General saying only 50 percent of the lunches are up-to-scratch on the nutrition front and about 20,000 meals a day aren’t being eaten.
The Associate Education Minister has hit back of course, using his usual tricks of discrediting the report and going on about how much money he’s saved.
Tell that, though, to all the people who have been vindicated by this report.
People like Christchurch principal Peggy Burrows who ended up in a tit-for-tat spat with Seymour over mouldy lunches, and who was to blame.
The Auditor-General’s report paints a pretty shambolic picture. It says last year only 50 percent of the school lunch collective’s meals met the ministry of education’s nutrition standards.
That improved a bit later in the year.
I’ll come back to the nutrition part. Because I think a re-think is needed on that front, but I reckon the biggest concern has to be how much food is being wasted.
Not that that’s a major surprise. because we’ve seen plenty of reports of food being fed to pigs and principals getting into trouble for letting their staff take uneaten food home.
Now I’m a big supporter of the government providing school lunches.
But I can’t support that level of waste. 20,000 meals a day.
I’m a big supporter because, as anyone will tell you, it’s no use sitting a hungry kid in front of a teacher.
You know what it’s like trying to do something yourself when you’re hungry, hopeless, and that’s why we just can’t have hungry kids at school.
And if that means the government feeding these kids at lunchtime, then I’ve got no problem with that.
But I can’t turn a blind eye to 20,000 meals a day being chucked out. Which brings me to the criticism in this Auditor-General’s report that the school lunches aren’t nutritious enough.
I’ve always said that we can go on as much as we like about our school lunches when we were kids being pretty basic.
And I guarantee my school lunches would never have met these nutrition standards the ministry of education has these days for the lunch programme.
The difference is, though, I didn’t go to school hungry in the first place. I had breakfast and I had dinner at night. Some kids these days don’t, but aren’t we defeating the purpose if the kids themselves aren’t even eating the lunches because they don’t like them?
Which is why I think the ministry of education needs to accept that it's got things wrong. It needs to go back to what you might call the basics and serve up something the kids will actually eat.
And if that means something basic like a cheese sandwich, then do it. Because eating something has to be way better than eating nothing.
LISTEN ABOVE

John MacDonald: Maybe old school lunches would be better

https://api.omny.fm/orgs/7784f840-c291-422a-924b-ad9000bbad71/clips/255d10c2-508f-4a13-9b2c-b47a000cad07/transcript

I think the people at the NZ Initiative thinktank need to have an away day in Christchurch

Then they would understand why I’m poo-pooing this claim they’re making today that having multiple local councils in close proximity to each other is a good thing.

Because if there’s one thing that proves how wrong they are, it would be the disjointed situation we have with housing developments in Christchurch, Selwyn and Waimakariri.

A situation I would sum up as the left hand having no idea what the right hand is doing.

So what the NZ Initiative is saying, is the government is wrong reducing the number of local councils. It thinks that having multiple councils in close proximity to each other is a good thing, because it allows them to keep an eye on each other.

I think he’s wrong. And I don’t think our three councils have any idea what each of them is up to.Because we have the Christchurch council flat out consenting townhouses and apartments to get more people living in the central city.We have Selwyn building homes too fast for the infrastructure to keep up. And, in Waimakariri, we’ve got that 850-home development proposed for Ohoka.Not to mention the Pegasus golf course development.

If these three councils were keeping an eye on each other, as the NZ Initiative guy seems to think they are, we wouldn’t have this piecemeal approach to housing developments.

But we do.

Christchurch city council has been signing off any townhouse or apartment development that comes across its desk, meaning all the people wanting to build or live on a full section in a 3- or 4-bedroom house are flocking to Selwyn and Waimakariri. Selwyn, especially.

So much so, that the infrastructure in Selwyn isn’t keeping up

You might have seen the reports about developers striking problems with sewerage capacity.

Selwyn council’s executive director of building, planning and regulatory services, Robert Love, says the systems in Selwyn are definitely under pressure.

He says: “The scale and speed of growth in Selwyn is among the highest in the country, which creates ongoing pressure on all infrastructure networks. While significant investment is being made and major infrastructure upgrades are under way or planned, including working with Selwyn Water, our treatment plants and networks are currently nearing capacity.”

And that, right there, is proof that the three councils in the greater Christchurch area are not keeping an eye on each other - as the NZ Initiative claims - and is proof that we desperately need one council. To get a much more co-ordinated approach to where homes get built.

I think the people at the NZ Initiative thinktank need to have an away day in Christchurch
Then they would understand why I’m poo-pooing this claim they’re making today that having multiple local councils in close proximity to each other is a good thing.
Because if there’s one thing that proves how wrong they are, it would be the disjointed situation we have with housing developments in Christchurch, Selwyn and Waimakariri.
A situation I would sum up as the left hand having no idea what the right hand is doing.
So what the NZ Initiative is saying, is the government is wrong reducing the number of local councils. It thinks that having multiple councils in close proximity to each other is a good thing, because it allows them to keep an eye on each other.
I think he’s wrong. And I don’t think our three councils have any idea what each of them is up to.Because we have the Christchurch council flat out consenting townhouses and apartments to get more people living in the central city.We have Selwyn building homes too fast for the infrastructure to keep up. And, in Waimakariri, we’ve got that 850-home development proposed for Ohoka.Not to mention the Pegasus golf course development.
If these three councils were keeping an eye on each other, as the NZ Initiative guy seems to think they are, we wouldn’t have this piecemeal approach to housing developments.
But we do.
Christchurch city council has been signing off any townhouse or apartment development that comes across its desk, meaning all the people wanting to build or live on a full section in a 3- or 4-bedroom house are flocking to Selwyn and Waimakariri. Selwyn, especially.
So much so, that the infrastructure in Selwyn isn’t keeping up
You might have seen the reports about developers striking problems with sewerage capacity.
Selwyn council’s executive director of building, planning and regulatory services, Robert Love, says the systems in Selwyn are definitely under pressure.
He says: “The scale and speed of growth in Selwyn is among the highest in the country, which creates ongoing pressure on all infrastructure networks. While significant investment is being made and major infrastructure upgrades are under way or planned, including working with Selwyn Water, our treatment plants and networks are currently nearing capacity.”
And that, right there, is proof that the three councils in the greater Christchurch area are not keeping an eye on each other - as the NZ Initiative claims - and is proof that we desperately need one council. To get a much more co-ordinated approach to where homes get built.

John MacDonald: Piecemeal housing a good reason for change

https://api.omny.fm/orgs/7784f840-c291-422a-924b-ad9000bbad71/clips/1853d095-6290-4848-9fed-b47900120ab5/transcript

I’ve never been on a sickness benefit. But I imagine that, for anyone who is, the government telling you what you can and can‘t spend your benefit money on, and spying on you to make sure you toe the line would be pretty degrading.

Tell that to the ACT Party, though.  

Not only that. In this policy announced yesterday, instead of your own GP signing you off for the sickness benefit, you'd need to see a government-approved doctor. 

Which sounds a bit like ACC, doesn’t it? 

Last week, when we were talking about ACC, people were telling us about their dealings with ACC’s own doctors and how it felt like their main priority was turning people down. 

Which is exactly what it would be like under this system David Seymour wants to introduce for the sickness benefit. 

He says a person’s GP or specialist would still be able to provide medical history details, clinical notes and supporting evidence. But it would be doctors employed by the government who would decide whether someone qualifies. 

And we know what would happen, don’t we? More and more people would be turned away. We know that, because the only reason David Seymour wants to make these changes, is to get less people on the benefit.  

David Seymour says these government-employed doctors would have one job. Getting people back to work. Which sounds all kind and supportive. But I don’t buy that for a minute. 

Then there’s this bit where he wants to stop paying the sickness benefit into people’s bank accounts. 

Instead, the benefit would go onto a payment card that would track how the money is spent and wouldn’t let people spend it on alcohol, gambling and tobacco, or get cash out.  

This would kick-in after someone has been on the benefit for four  months. 

I’m not sure which of these two ideas is worse. 

Getting through the hoops with these government-employed doctors, as I say, sounds like ACC all over again.  

But I actually think telling people what they’re allowed to spend the benefit money on and forcing them to use this special card that would be monitored by the government would be nothing short of degrading. 

Because, yes, I know there will be people out there on the sickness benefit who are taking the mickey. 

LISTEN ABOVE

I’ve never been on a sickness benefit. But I imagine that, for anyone who is, the government telling you what you can and can‘t spend your benefit money on, and spying on you to make sure you toe the line would be pretty degrading.
Tell that to the ACT Party, though. &nbsp;
Not only that. In this policy announced yesterday, instead of your own GP signing you off for the sickness benefit, you'd need to see a government-approved doctor.&nbsp;
Which sounds a bit like ACC, doesn’t it?&nbsp;
Last week, when we were talking about ACC, people were telling us about their dealings with ACC’s own doctors and how it felt like their main priority was turning people down.&nbsp;
Which is exactly what it would be like under this system David Seymour wants to introduce for the sickness benefit.&nbsp;
He says a person’s GP or specialist would still be able to provide medical history details, clinical notes and supporting evidence. But it would be doctors employed by the government who would decide whether someone qualifies.&nbsp;
And we know what would happen, don’t we? More and more people would be turned away. We know that, because the only reason David Seymour wants to make these changes, is to get less people on the benefit. &nbsp;
David Seymour says these government-employed doctors would have one job. Getting people back to work. Which sounds all kind and supportive. But I don’t buy that for a minute.&nbsp;
Then there’s this bit where he wants to stop paying the sickness benefit into people’s bank accounts.&nbsp;
Instead, the benefit would go onto a payment card that would track how the money is spent and wouldn’t let people spend it on alcohol, gambling and tobacco, or get cash out. &nbsp;
This would kick-in after someone has been on the benefit for four &nbsp;months.&nbsp;
I’m not sure which of these two ideas is worse.&nbsp;
Getting through the hoops with these government-employed doctors, as I say, sounds like ACC all over again. &nbsp;
But I actually think telling people what they’re allowed to spend the benefit money on and forcing them to use this special card that would be monitored by the government would be nothing short of degrading.&nbsp;
Because, yes, I know there will be people out there on the sickness benefit who are taking the mickey.&nbsp;
LISTEN ABOVE

John MacDonald: Beneficiary-bashing. It must be election year

https://api.omny.fm/orgs/7784f840-c291-422a-924b-ad9000bbad71/clips/16c26e17-1ded-4b77-ad06-b478000d001b/transcript

Simon Levy: INATI Chef and co owner on winning a Michelin star

In 1 playlist(s)

Canterbury Mornings with John MacDonald

Social links

Follow podcast

Recent clips