Eligible students would be getting the same nutritious food regular Kiwi mums and dads were packing for their kids each day. And that, said Seymour, was not couscous, hummus, quinoa or sushi.
“If you don’t get that sushi’s woke, then I don’t know how to wake you up, but the key message here is that we are introducing the kinds of foods that are put in the lunchboxes of children, the other 75% of kids, who rely on their parents to send their lunch”, he told reporters last year.
What was delivered to students last week certainly wasn’t woke. If there’s even such a thing as woke food.
It’s hard to imagine it was what an ordinary Kiwi lunchbox looked like either. Again, if there’s such a thing.
Another said what was supposed to be macaroni cheese was more like mashed potatoes.
The meals displayed to media during the official launch of the new programme last October. Butter chicken curry, chicken katsu, lasagne, chicken pasta salad and wraps were said to be on the menu. Photo / Mark Mitchell
An Auckland parent said this meal delivered last week was "supposed to be mac 'n cheese" but the "kids thought it was mashed potatoes".
Other teething problems have hit the Associate Education Minister’s new budget-busting programme, with some lunches being delivered late – or not at all.
Seymour has acknowledged this is “a difficult time for many” and says he’s been assured that “processes will improve”.
The lunch in school programme – Ka Ora, Ka Ako – was introduced by the Labour Government in 2019.
It’s offered to schools and kura that fall within the highest 25% of socio-economic disadvantage nationally and where students face the greatest barriers that can affect access to education, wellbeing and achievement.
Lunches were costing up to $8.68 per student under the previous Government, but Seymour’s managed to cut that to $3 per student. Something he says will save $130 million annually.
It’s easy to see where the savings are being made from the initial roll-out of the no-frills meals.
Pasta with tinned tomatoes and frozen veges is much cheaper than fresh fruit, bread and dairy products. Any young family struggling with the cost of living can attest to that.
The whole purpose of Seymour’s lunch overhaul was to cut what he argued was “wasteful spending”. He was going to give students food they actually wanted to eat – as decided by him.
Instead, stories are emerging of hundreds of unwanted, leftover lunches being thrown out and schools spending extra to buy other food for hungry kids.
Rather than helping the children facing the greatest barriers to learning, some principals have argued the shambolic start will affect attendance – another issue Seymour is ironically keen to tackle with a truancy crackdown.
A $3 lunch in anyone’s book is an absolute bargain and it’s not that surprising to hear complaints about them not being as good as the previous offering.
What is surprising is how Seymour could seriously think children would eat some of the meals that have been delivered. Just because it’s provided, to some of our most vulnerable and in need, does not mean it’ll be gratefully received.
It’s hard for the phrase “beggars can’t be choosers” not to come to mind.
Sign up to The Daily H, a free newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
