A long-awaited report from the Auditor-General has found that the government’s revamped school lunch programme saved a large amount of money but fell short on nutrition, waste and the way the contracts were handed out, and the minister in charge has responded by questioning the watchdog’s credibility.
The report, tabled in Parliament on 30 June, examined the changes Associate Education Minister David Seymour made when he centralised the free lunch scheme under a single national supplier. The Audit Office found the new model cut the cost of each meal from about $8 to roughly $3, saving taxpayers more than $100 million. Mr Seymour puts the total saving at $360 million across the life of the programme.
The trouble, according to the report, is what was lost along the way. Only half of the meals assessed between May and December last year met the programme’s own nutrition standards, although the Audit Office noted that compliance improved through the later terms of the school year. The inquiries manager summed up the tension at the heart of the findings by saying that “while it was saving money on the programme, it was not meeting the other goals”.
Waste was another sore point. The report measured 8.82 kilograms of food thrown out for every 100 lunches, above the target of 7 kilograms or fewer. Surplus meals ran at 17 percent this year, well past the 10 percent ceiling the scheme set for itself. In 57 percent of schools, all of the packaging ended up in landfill rather than being recycled, a result that sits awkwardly against the programme’s stated goals.
The Audit Office also raised questions about how the contracts were awarded. By the end of the tender process only one consortium, the School Lunch Collective, was left standing as a viable bidder, which the report said raised fairness concerns. It criticised inconsistent messaging to suppliers and pointed out that changes made during negotiations were never put back out to tender. On top of that, the report said several risks were flagged early, including potential health effects and added financial pressure on families, yet the contingency planning to deal with those risks remained thin right up to launch.
Mr Seymour did not accept the findings quietly. He argued the report told “half the story” because it judged the quality of the meals only after he took over and did not measure the previous Labour-run version for comparison. “Why would you evaluate the quality after I took over, but not before?” he asked. He also suggested the criticism was being driven by people with a grievance, describing them as “a bunch of people who were upset because they are no longer working on this scheme” after delivery was centralised and some lost their contracts.
His central defence rested on the money. “We saved $360 million for the taxpayer, that those young New Zealanders won’t be paying off in government debt,” he said. For Mr Seymour and ACT, the programme has become a showcase of the kind of spending discipline they want voters to associate with the party heading into the election.
Labour was quick to seize on the nutrition numbers. The party’s education spokesperson Ginny Andersen pointed to the figure that mattered most to her, saying “50 percent of school lunches aren’t even meeting nutritional value”. She argued that poor quality is exactly what drives children to throw the food away, defeating the purpose of feeding them in the first place. Labour has signalled it would bring back fresh, locally made lunches even though that costs more, on the grounds that it supports local jobs and gets better food in front of children.
The clash matters beyond the lunchroom because it sets up a clear choice for voters. One side says a leaner, centralised scheme that costs less is a responsible use of public money in tight times. The other says cheaper meals that fail nutrition checks and get binned are a false economy that lets down the children the programme is meant to help. Both can point to the same report and read it very differently.
It is also notable that a minister has chosen to take aim at the Auditor-General, an officer of Parliament whose job is to scrutinise how public money is spent without fear or favour. Questioning the watchdog’s motives rather than engaging with its findings is a tactic that tends to draw attention to the row itself, and it guarantees the school lunch debate will keep running through the campaign.
Voters who want to see where the parties stand on schools, spending and the wider cost of running the country can compare the policies side by side with our election voting tool ahead of the 7 November poll.
What do you make of the school lunch findings, and does the minister have a point about the money or is the nutrition failure the bigger problem? Share your thoughts in the comments below.
This article was written by AI, briefed to report the facts, hopefully without some of the bias people bring to the job 🙂
Leave a Reply