Kerre Woodham: The school lunch programme's become more trouble than it's worth

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 look

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:06):
You're listening to the carry Wood and Morning's podcast from
news talks. He'd b.

Speaker 2 (00:12):
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 fifty five oh
percent of the meals delivered by the new school lunch

(00:32):
program in twenty twenty five complied with the Ministry of
Education's new nutrition standards. We haven't talked about 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

(00:52):
and their rollout. Associate Minister for Education and the equivalent
of Thatcher thatcher milk snatcher, David Simol was the one
that said, no, we're going to do away with them
all together. Oh right, we'll keep them, but they have
to be cheaper. Has had out at the criticism and
fearing the Order to General took far too much notice
of malcontents. Formally involved in the scheme.

Speaker 3 (01:14):
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 answer their criticisms,
but they haven't evaluated the whole program. And it appears
that a lot of the initiation of the report and
the feed into the report came from people that frankly

(01:36):
had to be sat after they were not able to
manage the program 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 Order
to General.

Speaker 2 (01:51):
I don't think we can shoot the messenger. I mean,
the Order to General has done some you know, the
Office of the Order to 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 the more together, because when it was initially conceived,
I mean, if you look at the data, the fifty

(02:13):
percent nutrition figure for the School Lunch Collective's meals was
calculated by the Ministry of ed. It was disputed by
the Collective, which said by term three we'd got it
up to sixty nine percent of the lunches complying with
nutrition standards, and term four compliance was seventy five percent.
I bet your bottom dollar I was churning out school
lunches back in the day that did not comply with

(02:35):
the Ministry's nutrition standards. And probably if you look at
the kids lunchboxes this morning, you know there's a lot
of pressure from you know, schools and fellow parents to
produce nutritional, yet decorative, eye catching, pleasing to the palette
school lunches. Honestly, that thing where you were doing the

(02:56):
bento boxes with the pretty patterns and the sandwiches is
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 Iron indeed the MPs involved in the decision making
probably imagined a couple of marmite or cheese sandwiches, some

(03:20):
yogurt amusually bar, and an apple. Easy, why not fill
your boots do it? But that's where you and Iron
indeed the MPs are coming from a place of privilege.
Who knew that a marmte sandwich was privilege. It is
bureaucrats stuck their oars in and said no. When it

(03:43):
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 mar mighte sandwich go home
to cook 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 the poor

(04:06):
kids get their daily allowance. That's 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 vegies. And some of these kids, some of these

(04:26):
kids don't even know the texture of raw vegetables or
cuscus or rice or anything of the like. So some
providers did it very well. Remember that school in portredu
Helen where we had the lovely principle, and they got
the parents involved and they did they did their own lunches,
and they were mums and they were sensible, and they

(04:47):
knew how to make meals on the smell of an
oily rag. And how to disguise vegetables. You grate the
carrot into the spaghetti bolog names. 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. So you most parents who are listening
to the show will know how you disguise veggies and

(05:09):
to food. You usually do it when they're about eighteen
months old, nine months to eighteen 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 coscods salid on day
one and expect them to scarf it down. We come

(05:30):
back to what success looks like for this program. For me,
I imagined it would never imagined in ten trillion years
that it would cause this much angst, political toing and frowing,
that it would cost that much run three hundred and

(05:52):
twenty eight million a year, that it would take up
command so much airtime and column inches in the media.

Speaker 1 (06:02):
It's absurd.

Speaker 2 (06:04):
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

(06:26):
attendance hasn't improved, and the only data around improved classroom
performance is non existent. You just get the touchy fairlies.
The children reported as a better sense of well being. Well,
that's not getting an A plus, is it. That's not
being able to sit through a reading lesson. No, the
programs become more trouble than it's bloody worth. Do away

(06:49):
with the government being involved, you know, give some money
to the charities that do provide kids. Can provide lunches,
Sanitarium and Fonterra provide breakfast clubs. Either scale it right
back and keep it simple and keep it as cheap
as possible, sandwich, the yogurt, the apple, or just don't

(07:09):
do it at all.

Speaker 1 (07:11):
For more from Carry Wooden Mornings, listen live to news talks.
It'd be from nine am weekdays, or follow the podcast
on iHeartRadio.