How good have school lunches been in term two?
Photo:
RNZ / Samuel Rillstone
The school lunch programme has been a "success by any measure" in term two, says the minister in charge, citing numbers that show complaints are down and on-time deliveries are up.
But the opposition says the programme has not been fixed, and a school principal is pointing out that the issue of quality has not been resolved.
Chris Patel, principal of Kopuarahi school near Thames, told RNZ it was "really sad" children no longer anticipated meal time like they did during the previous lunch programme.
She said complaints might be down because schools were resigned to the current programme.
Associate Education Minister David Seymour
launched a cut-price version of the scheme this year
, but it was plagued by reports of late, inedible, repetitive and nutritionally questionable lunches.
One meal contained melted plastic, another left a student with burns.
The Auditor-General's office had
announced plans for an inquiry into the programme
after concerns were raised both in the media and directly with them.
In May, the Auditor-General's office announced plans for an inquiry into the school lunch programme that has drawn criticism since a revamp.
Photo:
RNZ / Marika Khabazi
Seymour told RNZ he marked himself 8/10 for Term 2, compared to a 4/10 for Term 1 "at best".
"Yes, there were problems. We owned them. We never denied them, and we fixed them. I think that there's a very good story in that," said Seymour.
He pointed to the stats from the last term showing more than 98 percent of lunches were delivered on time each day, and complaints were down by 92 percent since March.
He also said student satisfaction was at 67 percent, up from 46 percent the previous term, and pondered the lack of media coverage "now the programme is a success".
He explained the programme got more trucks and streamlined delivery routes to help deliver lunches on time. Equipment was also upgraded, and staff numbers increased "to increase meal production and control quality better".
"Production is now exceeding daily targets, and two million meals are expected to be ready for distribution by the start of Term 3."
He called the programme a "real triumph", pointing to the amount of money saved by the taxpayer.
"We took on one of the most ambitious challenges and programs that New Zealand has ever seen in the food industry in order to save the taxpayer $170 million a year.
"The way that people view it, I believe, says more about people's disposition towards ambition and problem solving than the scheme itself."
He said if the previous Labour government had "done it our way", there would be $800 million less debt on the government's books, "debt that unfortunately will be inherited by the very children at school today".
He said since the beginning of Term 1 this year, more than 13.8 million nutritious meals had been delivered to 242,000 students in 1011 schools.
"This marks the first time a single national supplier has provided meals at such scale, let alone meals which children enjoy, are nutritious, and are delivered on time."
But Labour's education spokesperson Willow-Jean Prime did not accept the programme was fixed.
Labour Party education spokesperson Willow-Jean Prime.
Photo:
VNP / Phil Smith
"David Seymour said that everything would be sorted by term two for the debacle that has been the school lunch programme, and he's boasting delivery times as one of the key metrics."
She also pointed out there had been such a high level of complaints to start with, a "92 percent drop still means there's a significant amount of complaints that are being made",
She criticised these metrics as a measure for considering the success of the programme, and said there was a seeming lack of transparency from the minister around the issue of wastage.
"We have been trying to get the information from the minister about the level of waste, and he refuses to tell us what is going into pig buckets and only what is being returned unopened and uneaten."
Information gathered by Labour pointed to about 200,000 lunches returned in one half of term two. The party said at $3 per lunch, that amounted to nearly $600,000 wasted.
"We have seen children not eating their lunches, not having full tummies and therefore reaching their learning potential," Prime said.
"This minister is looking at this particular initiative as an economic initiative, as opposed to an education initiative.
"He is simply looking at how much savings can be made from this programme and giving our children the scraps."
Prime gave both term one and term two a "thumbs down".
Chris Patel, principal of Kopuarahi school near Thames, acknowledged the numbers looked better this term, but said less complaints might just mean schools were resigned to the programme.
She sent daily messages to those in charge in term one, and said some of her colleagues were surprised she'd kept up that process.
"I think there's a meal fatigue.
"You know that no amount of giving feedback is going to make a difference, so... what's the point."
Patel wanted the programme to succeed but only gave term two a mark of 3.5/10. That's up only slightly from 2/10 in term one.
"As much as it's sad that we've got the ambulance at the bottom of the cliff, I really do want it to succeed."
Part of her frustration, she said, was going from a system that had been working for the children at her school to one that was not really working now.
For Patel, and her students, it came down to an issue of quality and palatability.
"Despite I think the best intentions the School Lunch Collective may have, there's been very little movement on the quality of and palatability of the meals."
Her students would often only have "one, two, three, four mouthfuls" she said, despite sometimes having no food of their own.
"These are children who are hungry.
"Most of them come to school with some food from home or little or in a couple of cases, no food from home for one reason or another."
Patel said it was about how the country valued children.
"It says a lot about how we really don't value our kids, how we really don't value what we're doing to them.
"We're spending a lot of money and there's a - a lot of food is wasted. It's not filling their tummies, it's not doing - it's not hitting the spot. It's not doing what it was designed to do."
She said thought the problem was creating meals in bulk. "You can tell that they're made in bulk, they're not made with love.
"So it's all very well for minister Seymour and the prime minister to say, we're providing a meal, but if 60-80 percent of that meal goes back in the container it was delivered in... I question that. How sustainable is that?
"This is not about fussy kids."
Patel questioned what sort of "benchmark" on-time deliveries was.
"Yes, timeliness of delivery really is crucial. But actually the purpose of the lunches, is to build attendance, engagement and student achievement.
"Help take barriers away from kids learning."
Seymour said taste testing was underway for term three and so far there'd been 73 percent positive feedback.
Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero
,
a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles

RNZ News
26 minutes ago
- RNZ News
Massive overhaul of NCEA coming
The Education Minister Erica Stanford is announcing a massive overhaul of the NCEA secondary school qualification system. NCEA level one is to be replaced with foundation literacy and numeracy two and three would be replaced with a New Zealand Certificate of Education and an Advanced Minister says evidence shows NCEA is inconsistent and doesn't always deliver what students need. John Gerritsen is RNZ's Education Correspondent. Susie also speaks with PPTA President Chris Abercrombie. Tags: To embed this content on your own webpage, cut and paste the following: See terms of use.

RNZ News
an hour ago
- RNZ News
Trump trade tariff decision came 'blunt and late', Prime Minister Christopher Luxon says
Prime Minister Christopher Luxon said the 15 percent trade tariff is "not what he wanted". Photo: RNZ / Mark Papalii The decision by US President Donald Trumo to hit New Zealand exporters with a 15 percent tariff came "blunt and late", the Prime Minster says. Speaking to Morning Report, Christopher Luxon said the tariff, which had been expected to be at 10 percent, being at a higher percentage was "not what New Zealand wanted". "We disagree with tariffs," Luxon said, "the president is pretty fixed on his views and unlikely to change." "The decision came pretty blunt and late." Despite this, top diplomat Vangelis Vitalis was flying to Washington in the wake of the announcement, with Trade Minister Todd McClay intending to visit in coming days too. Luxon said prior to the announcement New Zealand had "really constructive" conversations with the US about trade, and the decision had been made close to the announcement. Despite the higher tariff, Luxon said the government had "played it well". "We continue to register our disappointment about the decision, we've also done it since April." He believed New Zealand exporters were "nimble and agile" and there was still huge demand for New Zealand products and services globally. But the opposition, said the 15 percent tariff was a "slap in the face" for exporters. Labour's trade spokesperson Damien O'Connor told Morning Report , it was a major fail for the government and noted other leaders managed to cut deals that kept tariffs at lower rates. "This is a disadvantage relative to our competitors," he said. "There is a strong demand for our beef in the US, but this will start to squeeze the market." O'Connor said New Zealand would be competing head-to-head with other countries like Australia, Argentina and Uruguay who all had 10 percent tariffs. "That's going to be tough... That's going to hurt." Kate Acland, chairperson of Beef and Lamb New Zealand agreed competing countries having a lower tariff rate would hurt New Zealand. "I think the key is we're on a different rate to many of our competitors," she told Morning Report , "this is more than $300 million additional hit if it can't be passed on to the consumers." "It will have an impact, this is quite significant." Acland said New Zealand was "one of the good guys" who played by the rules when it came to trade, but perhaps the reason for the higher tariff was that it didn't have much to bring to the negotiating table. "There's quite a queue to negotiate over there, I think the strategy was right, it'd hard to know what we could have done. Kate Acland, chairperson of Beef and Lamb New Zealand said the US needed New Zealand meat exports. Photo: © Clare Toia-Bailey / "Going over there now is the right thing to do." Acland said there was a global shortage of protein, particularly beef, so the US did need New Zealand meat exports. "They need that lean beef so we do have a good story to tell there on the beef side. She believed exporters would be okay, but it did put them at disadvantage. Felicity Roxburgh, director of the International Business Forum agreed New Zealand was now at a disadvantage. She told Morning Report , exporters had done a really good job t absorbing the cost so far, but only time would tell what the impact of 15 percent would be. "We can't invent new markets overnight as an exporter it takes time to invest... There not endless headroom to pass the price to consumers." She said she welcomed Vitalis heading to Washington to try and press New Zealand's case. Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero , a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.

RNZ News
2 hours ago
- RNZ News
Watch: Government proposes replacing NCEA school system
The government is proposing replacing all levels of NCEA. Prime Minister Christopher Luxon and Education Minister Erica Stanford are making the announcement in Auckland. Under the proposal, NCEA level 1 would be replaced with foundation literacy and numeracy tests. Levels 2 and 3 would be replaced with a New Zealand Certificate of Education and an Advanced Certificate. Students would be required to take five subjects and pass at least four to get each certificate. Marking would be out of 100 and grades would and range from A to E. The changes would be phased in from next year, with the foundation award replacing level one from 2028. The new certificates would be in place for year 12 from 2029 and year 13 the following year. Luxon said evidence showed NCEA was inconsistent and did not always deliver what students needed. Consultation on the proposal begins next month. The proposal includes: '"This is about making sure our national qualification opens doors for every young person, whether they're heading into a trade, university, or straight into work," Stanford said. The government's decision is a sharp reversal of the previous government's 2018/19 decision to overhaul and retain level 1 because some schools wanted it either as a stepping stone to level 2 or as a base qualification for the nine percent of students for whom it would be their highest school qualification. The Education Ministry said it spent $157.6m from July 2021 to October 2024 on setup and initial consultation for the NCEA Change Programme and work, the full development of level one of NCEA, and the majority of the level two development until it was paused. NCEA was the only qualification held by about nine percent of school leavers in most years of the past decade. The Education Review Office last year reported the newly-revised level 1 needed another overhaul or should be scrappped . Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero , a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.