On School Lunches – A Response to Jonathan Ayling
(My response to his words in point-form).
“More than lunches, children need parents – Jonathan Ayling”
– Clearly a truism.
“While there has been much talk about the quality and cost of school lunches, the debate misses a larger point, argues Jonathan Ayling – why is the Government in the business of feeding our children at all?”
– Because through the abject and ongoing failure of the State Education system (stats galore on this), poor economic management, combined with the explosion of welfare dependency the State has to accept SIGNIFICANT responsibility.
– Lindsay Mitchell details: At 31 December 2025 there were 255,300 children aged 0-17 reliant on a caregiver on a main benefit (234,429); or on an Orphan/ Unsupported Child benefit (20,871). More than a third of all Maori children were dependent (36.5 percent) versus 16 percent of non-Maori. Of the 57,705 births during 2025, one in five babies was welfare-dependent by year end. Dependence is established very early, often from birth. This pattern has persisted since the 1990s. Over two thirds of the [benefit dependant] children rely on a single parent. Half of the children depending on Sole Parent Support are Maori.
– 2023 census data shows 213,534 single parent families, up from 197,946 families in 2018 – a growth of 7.9%). Almost 1 in 5 children in NZ.
“My wife and I fell in love cooking together, but with three children 4 and under, dinners are no longer a leisurely affair. … It’s hardly glamorous, but it is the stuff of parenthood.”
– That is a credit to you. It is pretty much the situation I was in in the mid-1990s – except I was/am an appalling cook.
– Your table and high chairs may not be the best viewing platform for more trying situations. To mangle Captain Kirk, your situation is “life Jon but not as many know it”.
“But has the debate missed the more basic point? The first responsibility for feeding children belongs to their parents. Full stop.”
– It should be “full stop” but – in 2026 NZ – it isn’t. Firstly – as noted above – the State has been complicit in creating deep economic crises and divides in NZ. Secondly – when my children were in their teens the biggest Pac’n’Slave carts could barely contain the weekly groceries. When the oldest left home in 2011 the weekly saving was $183. A rough calculation of 15 years of NZ inflation sees that cost at above $300 to healthily provide for an active 18 year old. As I walk around the super-market now – with no dependents – and look at prices – I have no idea how many families – or solo parents are even close to affording things.
– In some semi-remote places, the simple things make life far more difficult. For example, the Far North many homes are reliant on rainwater. A broken gutter costs a local fortune to repair. In summer 2l of Coke is $2.50, 400mls of Pump is $4.99.
“Why has providing lunches for almost 250,000 children become a task for the state at all?”
– As above across the cumulative points.
“It is not the state’s responsibility to feed our children.”
– Until the current, and very genuine, cost-of-living crisis is solved for many families – the State does have significant responsibility. Even on the education front the State claims to be taking responsibility for challenged demographics through the Equity Index. And yet it is only $250m (of a $7.5b Vote Education) and for high EQI schools is only about 3% of their funding. We have only 460 high schools. The top 50 see an average of 85% of their students off with UE. For the bottom 50 schools the average is 4%. Many high EQI schools have over 30% of their students leave before their 17th birthday.
“And doing so is almost certainly doing more harm than what existed before the Labour Government announced funded school lunches, both to our fiscal future, but more importantly, to the fabric of our communities.”
– Nonsense. The approach of ACT has degraded a policy that was beginning to have a positive effect in many schools/communities. I saw examples first hand.
– In terms of “our fiscal future” – the annual cost of the lunches is 2.8% of VOTE Education. The government would save more if NACT had kept the promise to bring the FTE’s of the Ministry to 2700 – and do considerably more good.
“There are, of course, families in New Zealand who are genuinely unable to provide the lunches their children need. For a variety of reasons – poverty, illness, or addiction – some parents struggle to meet their children’s most basic needs.”
– Yes there are. Many of them!
“Yet, for decades, it was religious communities, charities, and schools that stepped up, targeting support to fill the gap for these few, while the majority who are perfectly capable of bringing their own lunch did.”
– In many of the towns and communities where school lunches are needed the churches, charities and schools are hardly flush – and you might note we have a HUGE decline in volunteering.
– In some communities that was happening with the school lunches under-Labour with some employment, feel-good, and much better quality food (and less waste). The centralisation and obsession with saving a few bucks by Seymour has undone much of the very good work.
“The overwhelming majority of Kiwi parents are able to make a sandwich, cut up an apple, and put together a lunchbox before school.”
– A SIGNIFICANT minority are genuinely struggling to do so. Good quality school lunches, a much better EQI provision for schools, localised provision, etc – can be one means that enable NZ to be in your parents providing lunch UTOPIA in 10-15 years.
“I’m not saying this because it saves taxpayer dollars and wasted food, though it undoubtedly does.”
– As above … ending school lunches would save stuff all in comparison to much more significant waste in education – let alone other Ministries.
“More importantly, it is about recognising that a healthy society depends upon responsibilities resting with the people best placed to fulfil them.”
– Far more people that you think are not well placed – and their children are struggling. When working with South Auckland Middle School I was aware of families with up to 14 living in a garage – with their grand-parents doing a remarkable job of caring for them.
“This is the insight behind the principle of subsidiarity, one of the oldest ideas in political philosophy. It holds that responsibilities should be exercised by the smallest and closest community capable of carrying them. Larger institutions should support families, but never replace them or their duties.”
– It would be good for you to go into some of NZ’s poorest communities and elucidate them on the “principal of subsidiarity”.
– At this stage in NZ’s history – things like school breakfasts and lunches are one of the ways “larger institutions” can support parents (not replace them).
“Nonetheless, to compensate, governments build layers of procurement, logistics, contracts, nutritional standards, reporting requirements, audits and compliance systems.”
– Yes. In one of the great ironies of current NZ politics, ACT took a devolved and improving system, centralised it and created the problems you mention – while lowering quality and increasing waste.
“The result is exactly what we have witnessed: enormous complexity devoted to performing a task that millions of parents quietly accomplish every morning, incredibly, without a single ministerial briefing, procurement framework, or threat of an Auditor-General’s report.”
– As the comment just above – well done Ass. Minister Seymour.
“The Government should commit to removing this untargeted policy.”
– No. It was reasonably well targeted before and what all parties should commit to do is creating an economy that is actually growing with gains across the demographics and creating an education system with the characteristics that actually lifts challenged groups up. When we have the worst education system in the OECD for gaps between demographics, and full-attendance around 50%, and 14% NEETS – as well as the social stats above – there is little hope. Add top that the cabinet paper that noted that the new qualifications system is likely to make things worse for marginalised groups.
– We need an approach where NZ improves all of these areas, and fully supports parenting, and aims to eliminate the need for food support in schools by 2041.
“Where parents cannot provide, we must ask why. A hungry child at school points to a deeper problem. We must address hunger, but we should do so by investing in its cause, not merely outsourcing the parental role.”
– As above – decades of failure and neglect via the State education system (20% currently leaving with no qualifications), decades of poor economic management, a social welfare system that has not encouraged social responsibility.
“The objective should always be to help parents resume the indispensable role that only they can fulfil.”
– Yes – but it is a far bigger problem than you seem to be able to understand. The political will to help poorer families in NZ is almost entirely missing and can be generalised by seeing that – for those that vote from poorer/Maori/Pasifika homes – National/ACT don’t care as they will never vote for them and Labour don’t care as they will vote for the LEFT anyway.
“The strongest societies are not those where government does the most. They are those where families are expected, equipped and encouraged to do what only families can.”
– A society becomes strong when the government is a good economic manager, the education system provides for all students (not just the middle class), and families that need it get high quality help in the short-term and genuine mechanisms to break inter-generational cycles.
– Children being able to pull themselves up by their boot-laces is a myth (with a few exceptions) that goes back to the times of standing in cow-pats to warm your feet on the way to school.
– To quote MLK from 1964: “I have the audacity to believe that peoples everywhere can have three meals a day for their bodies, education and culture for their minds, and dignity, equality and freedom for their spirits. I believe that what self-centered men have torn down men other-centered can build up.”
Jonathan – you need to get out a lot more. Please drop me a line and I would be happy to take you around some communities/schools in South Auckland, West Auckland and the Far North so as you can get a better understanding of how the other third live. It is a genuine offer.