Analysis: When Associate Education Minister David Seymour was given responsibility for free school lunches, many feared the worst.
Libertarian to a fault, Act – under Seymour’s leadership – has decried the nanny state, wasteful government spending, and gaslit Labour on the impact of the Ka Ora Ka Ako – Healthy School Lunches Programme.
But on Wednesday, Seymour put his ideology aside to deliver a sensible solution to the school lunch problem.
Labour funded school lunches to the end of 2024, leaving what the Coalition Government describes as a “fiscal cliff”. Labour says it always planned to continue funding the programme, but wanted to wait for evaluations before deciding on the permanent shape of lunches in schools.
Regardless, it left the incoming Government with a difficult decision to make: spend precious funds on a programme it isn’t convinced is effective or efficient, or stop feeding the country’s poorest kids.
Weathering months of speculation and negative media stories about expected cuts to the programme, Seymour has managed to deliver an interim solution that most – even unlikely supporters – seem to be happy with.
Sure, it includes a centralised model, where the state makes sweeping decisions about what kids should eat, and then pays for those meals – things Act has long been opposed to.
“The vast majority of parents can take care of their own kids. Politicians shouldn’t be taking over the job of parents. It sends the wrong message and undermines personal responsibility,” Seymour said last year, in a press release opposing Labour’s school lunch programme.
But Government makes a hypocrite of many, and so the practical needs of hungry kids and a fast-approaching Budget won out.
In a pre-Budget announcement on Wednesday, the coalition Government committed $478 million to continue the healthy school lunches programme for this year and next (at a cost of $239m a year), saving about $107m a year compared with Labour’s programme, it says.
Under Labour, 235,000 students in more than 1000 schools were receiving the lunch. Labour had budgeted $323m for the school year, but the Ministry of Education said the actual cost would be $342m, because of food inflation and population growth.
Every child who currently receives a school lunch will continue to receive that lunch, under the same regime as before – if they want it.
For years 7-13, an “alternative provision model” will be used from the start of next year, which will see schools buy packed lunches from a centralised source.
Using economies of scale, and the state’s buying power, Seymour believes he can drive down the cost per lunch. “I don’t know if you’ve ever bought 200,000 lunches before but they tell me that if you do, it’s less than if you buy maybe a couple of hundred for your local school,” he says.
Charity KidsCan buys lunches for $2 each, so Seymour has budgeted $3 a lunch – taking into account inflation and meal quality. That’s a significant ($5) saving on Labour’s $8 per lunch.
These lunches will be “more like sandwiches and fruit”, with less variety and choice for schools – the possible drop in nutritional value and limits on choice are two of the few criticisms of the plan.
Meanwhile, free lunches will also be extended to 10,000 children aged between two and five in low-equity, non-profit, community-based early learning centres.
“Investment in the early stages of life is more effective than at any other stage that the Government can put its money and resources into,” Seymour says.
This approach is supported by research from the former chief science advisor Sir Peter Gluckman and the child development specialist Nathan Wallis.
Meanwhile, Seymour has convened a yet-to-be-revealed ministerial advisory group, which includes representatives from organisations such as KidsCan, The Heart Foundation, Save the Children, and Ryman Healthcare, to undertake a full-scale review of the programme. The group will start by looking at the centralised model and related nutritional aspects, then expand its brief to analyse more fundamental questions, for example whether school lunches should be provided via the education budget.
The group’s findings will inform the future of the school lunch programme for 2026 and beyond. The fact there’s no solid commitment beyond 2026 has raised questions, but Seymour reckons this isn’t akin to creating another fiscal cliff – only time will tell.
He went on to imply that if there were a need, school lunches would continue in some form.
“I think it would be wonderful to live in a society where every single parent had the will and the ability to put a healthy lunch in their kid’s lunchbox every day. I can’t think of anyone who wouldn’t want that,” he says.
For some children, this free lunch is the only meal they get each day; some take leftovers home for dinner or other family members.
Before fronting media at Parliament, Seymour spent an hour speaking to principals about his plan. He says some were anxious about having to run two models in tandem: one for years 1-6 and one for years 7 and 8.
But by and large, the questions were “thoughtful, polite and respectful”.
Both the primary and secondary teachers’ unions came out in support of the interim programme, as did the Child Poverty Action Group – this support, from groups usually highly critical of Act policies, is nothing to be sniffed at.
The Health Coalition Aotearoa has criticised the Government for opting for more processed foods and snack foods for intermediate and high school kids.
And Labour education spokesperson Jan Tinetti says the Government’s policy is a “win for kids”. Though she does refer to the decision as a “backtrack”.
If that’s the worst he gets, Seymour’s shoulders will have dropped on Wednesday afternoon.
Getting the announcement out of the way – following those months of speculation – would have been a relief for someone who didn’t particularly want to take on this portfolio in the first place.
So, while the Government has settled on a sensible middle-ground, Seymour’s school lunch announcement and his plan for student absenteeism, are not what educators and parents expected from the Act party associate education minister.
Last month, Seymour announced a crackdown on parents’ freedom to decide when to send their kids to school, and when to pull them out of class for a family holiday. He went on to create guidance that tells parents when their kids are sick enough to stay home.
Labour leader Chris Hipkins, someone who often weathered attacks from Seymour over too much Government intervention, had one word for Seymour – hypocrite.
Perhaps this departure from Seymore’s core libertarian values is a symptom of needing to find consensus within the coalition; and perhaps it’s harder to stick to an ideology when faced with the messy realities of making decisions for the country’s most vulnerable kids.
He also knows these aren’t the policies his hardcore base expects, which is why he also threw them a bone to chew on: “woke foods” such as quinoa, hummus and sushi are off the menu.
Seymour is just playing the slippery politician. The ideology he promotes has produced both the child poverty and need to give thousands of children at least ONE cooked healthy meal a day. He has taken that meal away.
By sowing distractions about woke food and providing food to preschoolers he has convinced the author and others that there a kind side to libertarians. Like in the work houses of the 19th century the Beagles promote a false sense of goodwill and charity.
Until the reason for why so many families can’t feed and house themselves is addressed, these young people face a bleak life of workhouse charity and megaprisons.
Seymour IS the associate minister of education you would expect from a libertarian politician.
So Seymour thinks “it would be wonderful to live in a society where every single parent had the will and the ability to put a healthy lunch in their kid’s lunchbox every day.” The pre-requisite is that they have the means to do it — that is what really would be wonderful. Instead, relief is promised for “the squeezed middle”, while increasing an already near impossible to manage pressure on those on social welfare and the squashed really hard who work for a pittance. David Seymour would do well to search out a few of these people,and get first-hand accounts on how they struggle to maintain a bare existence.
I’m sure the many NZ’ders of Asian origin will be shocked to know that Act considers sushi, a food product consisting mainly of one of the most widely eaten grains in the world, rice, is a “woke” food. Tells you a bit about the narrowness of its base of supporters.
In addition to not understanding the realities for the students gerring the lunches such as it being the only decent meal of the day and the social and cultural aspects around food, what Seymour didn’t communicate clearly is that for year 7 to 13 the schools are responsible for “ordering, storing, preparing and distributing” lunches which we dont have the facilities for or the staffing and there is no funding allocated for this.