From Michelin stars to school lunches, sublime, ridiculous. I think it's safe to say none of the school lunches on offer will be getting Michelin stars. Then the last lot probably wouldn't have either. A scathing report has been issued by the Auditor General, which says only 50% percent of the meals delivered by the new school lunch programme in 2025 complied with the Ministry of Education's nutrition standards. We haven't talked about the school lunches for a hot minute, have we?
Remember when it was the topic du jour? The parliamentary watchdog also took aim at inaccurate costings for the lunches, safety issues, contingency planning, and their rollout. Associate Minister for Education and the equivalent of 'Thatcher Thatcher milk snatcher', David Seymour is the one that said no, we're going to do away with them altogether, oh all right we'll keep them, but they have to be cheaper. He’s hit out at the criticism, inferring the Auditor General took far too much notice of malcontents formerly involved in the scheme.
“What they haven't done is a comparison of the quality before and after I took over. So they've been very critical in various ways and I'm happy to to answer their criticisms, but they haven't evaluated the whole programme and it appears that a lot of the initiation of the report and the feed into the report came from people that frankly had to be sacked after they were not able to manage the programme when I came in, and those who previously supplied the government, often at twice the current price. None of those people are very happy and they seem to have had a pretty good hearing from the Auditor General.”
I don't think we can shoot the messenger. The office of the Auditor General has done some sterling work over the past few years and they're just simply looking at the numbers. But should we just do away with them altogether? Because when it was initially conceived, I mean if you look at the data, the 50% nutrition figure for the School Lunch Collective's meals was calculated by the Ministry of Education. It was disputed by the Collective, which said by Term 3 we'd got it up to 69% of the lunches complying with nutrition standards, and in Term 4 compliance was 75%. I bet your bottom dollar I was churning out school lunches back in the day that did not comply with the Ministry's nutrition standards. And probably, if you look at the kids' lunchboxes this morning, there's a lot of pressure from schools and fellow parents to produce nutritional, yet decorative, eye catching, pleasing to the palate school lunches. Honestly, that thing where you're doing the bento boxes with the pretty patterns in the sandwiches, as if parents didn't have enough to do of a morning. Anyway, they probably wouldn't meet the criteria every day either.
And that's the thing. When school lunches were first envisaged, you and I, and indeed the MPs involved in the decision making, probably imagined a couple of Marmite or cheese sandwiches, some yoghurt, a muesli bar and an apple. Easy. Why not? Fill your boots. Do it. But that's where you and I, and indeed the MPs, are coming from a place of privilege. Who knew that a Marmite sandwich was privilege? It is. Bureaucrats stuck their oars in and said, no, when it comes to the school lunches for certain children, the school lunch may well be the only regular meal of the day. You privileged people with your Marmite sandwich go home to cooked dinners full of protein and veggies. These children don't. Therefore, we must cram as many nutrients and veggies as we possibly can into the school lunch to ensure these poor kids get their daily allowance. That's where it all got very, very, very complicated. Because if you're trying to make the school lunch the main meal of the day, generally it'll have to be heated. And you'll have to pack it full of veggies and some of these kids, you, some of these kids don't even know the texture of raw vegetables or couscous or rice or anything of the like.
Some providers did it very well. Remember that school in Porirua? Where we had the lovely principal and they got the parents involved and they did their own lunches. And they were mums and they were sensible and they knew how to make meals on the smell of an oily rag and how to disguise vegetables. You grate the carrot into the spaghetti bolognese. You don't put it there in big lumps because they're not used to that, a lot of these kids – they don't want to eat chunks of carrot. Most parents who are listening to this show will know how you disguise veggies into food. You usually do it when they're about 18 months old, nine months to 18 months old. You don't make it slop, but get them used to texture and chewing and the like. And that's what you do. You don't hit them up with a couscous salad on day one and expect them to scarf it down.
We come back to what success looks like for this programme. For me, I never imagined in 10 trillion years that it would cause this much angst, political toing and froing, that it would cost that much, around $328 million a year, that it would take up, command so much airtime and column inches in the media. It's absurd. I thought it would be a lunch as you and I know it, not every single calorie and veggie a child would need in a day. That it would be about improving attendance because when the kids knew there was a good meal for them, they'd turn up to school, and performance would improve.
But no, that hasn't happened. School attendance hasn't improved and the only data around improved classroom performance is non-existent. You just get the touchy feelies – the children reported a better sense of wellbeing. Well, that's not getting an A+, is it? That's not being able to sit through a reading lesson. No, the programme's become more trouble than it's bloody worth. Do away with the government being involved, you know, give some money to the charities that do provide, KidsCan provide lunches, Sanitarium and Fonterra provide breakfast clubs. Either scale it right back and keep it simple and keep it as cheap as possible, the sandwich, the yoghurt, the apple, or just don't do it at all.
Kerre McIvor, is a journalist, radio presenter, author and columnist. Currently hosts the Kerre Woodham mornings show on Newstalk ZB - where this article was sourced.

5 comments:
Seymour should resign over his failed low quality school lunch programme. Can't deliver anything. He centralized supply like all good communists like to do. So much for ACTs free market ideals. After decades of world famous chefs like Jamie Oliver promoting & showing how to make wonderful nutritious lunches for youngsters to promote healthy eating and fight obesity, the ACT Party, which I once tried to help, but no more, has turned on young Kiwis in the name of saving a few bucks to give its puffed up leader a shallow pretence of pursing fiscal responsibilty.
I have yet to view a starving child lining up for the meals.A starving child would eat the meals regardless.
Down with poor people.
In Kathmandu in the early 1980s, in winter while walking to my hotel I saw peculiar dark pyramid heaps on the pavements, steam rising from them. It took me a while to realise that they were heaps of street kids piled up together to try to keep somewhat warm. These street kids were the really hungry ones.
New Zealand school kids should not be hungry when they they arrive at school. Their parents may be poor but if they work and pay their share of taxes (10% ?) they receive back far more if Working for Family Credits and other tax credits. What do their parents really spend their money on ?
Those street kids in Kathmandu would demolish those school lunches and be so happy and much healthier for them.
Those street kids would not need the extravagant lunches that Labour used other taxpayer monies to supply. Did Hipkins go hungry in paying from his own pocket ? No bloody way. I bet he's never given a cent to a homeless person either.
People in NZ do not know what being hungry really means. It is easy for people like Hipkins to be the kind uncle --- as long as its not his own money.
During the latter part and after WW1 in England I remember the rationing and the minimal food supply we had to eat. And I worked latter in life with people from Germany who stayed in bed all day to keep each other warm because there was no food or fuel.
So, for goodness sake, get bloody real ! These kids are not starving, they do not need a gourmet menu. Politicians who play tis game make me want to vomit --- preferably over them.
As for Prof. Robert McCulloch, I am very disappointed in what he expressed. This is not in the vein of what he has proclaimed over many years. He was a straightforward person: now he's changed completely. Have the Lefty Wokist at his Uni finally got him to grovel in order to rehabilitate himself in their blinkered eyes ?
Remember, hungry kids would eat those nutrious school meals provided under ACTs leadership. Maybe they are not really hungry; maybe their parents think they can also rort the system by not providing their kids breakfast because it will be provided by other taxpayers eh ?
Me converted to lefty woke ideology says anonymous? No, I go with Cost Benefit Analyses that ACT was meant to support. AI summarizes them = "UK cost-benefit analyses consistently show that expanding Free School Meals is highly economically beneficial. Universal provision generates Benefit-Cost Ratios ranging between 1.38 and 2.44 over a 20-year period, with benefits driven by improved educational attainment, better lifetime productivity, and reduced NHS healthcare costs". And we know through Master Chefs they can be done way better quality for affordable prices than ACTs near offal grade offerings. I go with chefs and economics = not ideology on these matters.
Post a Comment
Thank you for joining the discussion. Breaking Views welcomes respectful contributions that enrich the debate. Please ensure your comments are not defamatory, derogatory or disruptive. We appreciate your cooperation.