Education (Breakfast and Lunch Programmes in Schools) Amendment Bill

I move, That the Education (Breakfast and Lunch Programmes in Schools) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Māori Affairs Committee to consider the bill.

Nelson Mandela once said that there can be no keener revelation of a society’s soul than the way it treats its children. If I could add a comment, it would be that blaming those who are too vulnerable to care for themselves and their children speaks more about our selfishness than it does about the hopelessness of poverty.

Back in April last year I was part of a big Mana party Feed the Kids gig, where we fed more than 1,500 kids up in Ōtara. They had heaps of fun, and when they left they all took away a lunch, happily chanting, “Feed the Kids.” I thought to myself, these kids get it. Their whānau get it, their teachers get it, and I sincerely hope that enough of us get it, too, because Treasury itself has told us that there are now 285,000 kids living in poverty in Aotearoa, 100,000 of whom go to school hungry every day.

It is nice to know that KidsCan feeds some 10,000 of them on most days, and that the KickStart Breakfast programme feeds about 12,000 a day, but the reality is that even with the Government’s announcement in last year’s Budget, nearly 80,000 children are still going to school hungry in Aotearoa every single day. Yes, schools around the country have started their own breakfast clubs with support from teachers, students, parents, local businesses, and the wider community, but they tell us that it takes a lot of hard work and a lot of goodwill to keep them going, and that having secure funding would be a godsend.

The really embarrassing thing is that nearly every country in the OECD, apart from us, already runs programmes to feed kids at school. Some countries like Finland and Sweden provide fully State-funded meals to every school student as part of a wider framework of child well-being. It is a commitment that sees them regularly top the international surveys in child health and educational achievement. Some countries provide free meals to kids with parents on low incomes, and others provide free meals to schools in areas of high deprivation. But although the approaches differ, they all share the same view, backed up by the same kind of research and information from teachers, doctors, nurses, and policy analysts that is available to us here: kids need a good feed every day if they are to develop into healthy and well-educated adults. New Zealand really needs to join the rest of the enlightened world and make a commitment to feeding our kids, starting with those in greatest need, to help them to grow well and learn well.

Groups like the Child Poverty Action Group have long advocated for Government-funded food in schools programmes as a simple and cheap step to reducing poverty. The report of the Children’s Commissioner’s Expert Advisory Group on Solutions to Child Poverty, released a year and a half ago now, did not recommend throwing in a few dollars only if the corporates gave some, as this Government has proposed. No, it recommended that the Government should develop and implement a Government-funded food in schools programme, and that the Government has a responsibility to provide leadership and resources to assist schools through a national strategy for food in early childhood centres and in schools in low-decile neighbourhoods.

I have been humbled by the positive responses to Mana’s Feed the Kids bill from a whole host of child, family, health, education, and faith organisations all around the country that helped raise awareness about just how many of our kids are going to school hungry in Aotearoa and what we should be doing about it. They have worked hard to remind us all that the crisis of child hunger and its devastating effects on brain development, health, and learning mean that we need to urgently focus on feeding the kids, rather than on blaming the parents; that poverty has doubled in the last 25 years and children are its greatest victims; and that poverty will not go away without big changes in employment, wages, housing, and support for families in need.

Things have changed a lot from when everyone was scoffing at Mana for even talking about feeding the kids—during the 2011 general election—right up to when a TV poll last year showed that 70 percent of Kiwis now support a Government-funded food in schools programme, and food in schools was the only policy issue to make the top 10 news stories of 2013. Much of that awareness has come about as a result of the excellent work and commitment of the Community Coalition for Food in Schools, which now has 30 members, and, in particular, through the efforts of Deborah Morris-Travers, former chief executive officer of Every Child Counts and now advocacy manager for Unicef New Zealand.

The Children’s Commissioner’s Expert Advisory Group on Solutions to Child Poverty said that child poverty does not just impact on children and their families, it costs all of us a lot. In fact, it is estimated that child poverty costs New Zealanders $6 billion to $8 billion a year in health, justice system costs, and in lost productivity and a lower tax take. Yet, we continue to be one of the worst performers in the OECD on child well-being. Our rates of preventable diseases like rheumatic fever are high, we have lower educational achievement than in other developed countries, yet we will happily spend nearly $1.5 billion a year on prisons to feed one of the highest incarceration rates in the world.

Unemployment is the highest it has been for nearly 15 years. Nearly half of all young Māori and Pacific Islanders are without work and are not in education or training, and the other half are getting ready to go to Ozzie. Feeding the kids will not solve all these problems, but it is real. It is affordable, it is something we can do right now, and we know that it will help our kids to grow up to be better, healthier contributors to society.

We have costed the bill to allow for a coordinator in each school to oversee the provision of breakfast and lunch in all decile 1 and decile 2 schools in Aotearoa, feeding more than 100,000 kids in our poorest communities and using existing programmes like KidsCan and KickStart Breakfast or working through other local initiatives. With very few exceptions, schools have supported the Feed the Kids kaupapa, because they know they will get more bang for their educational buck. Kids will turn up to school on time, they will be settled and not disruptive, and they will be ready to learn. While I am at it, I would also like to thank all the secondary and tertiary students who back this bill, because when young people say that hunger is their No. 1 priority and that food in schools is the best solution to it, then that says it all.

I know the bill is not perfect. I hear the kōrero about feeding the kids being a parent’s responsibility, but the truth is that a lot of people have been so poor for so long that they struggle to make the right choices and often end up making the wrong ones, and all the while our kids go hungry. I have heard a lot about increasing employment opportunities, upgrading housing, improving access to health care, and developing better educational pathways. All of that is necessary and good, but it takes a long time to happen, and all the while our kids go hungry.

Every other proposal that I have heard about from the Child Poverty Action Group, the Children’s Commissioner, the health promotion agencies, and advisory groups all the way up to the World Health Organization’s report on child health makes a lot of sense to me, but all I want to do with this bill is make sure that as we work through all of these other critical and important initiatives, our kids are getting fed.

I welcome the calls to extend the bill to include the kōhanga, early childhood education sector, and decile 3 and decile 4 schools and to allow those involved in school and community gardens to make a contribution to this discussion too, because this is an exercise that will require the efforts of the whole community. I urge the House to vote this bill through at its first reading, so that the Māori Affairs Committee can call for submissions from those who know best and those who care most, in order that we can develop a robust food in schools programme that enhances the well-being of our children and enhances the future prospects of our society. Tēnā koutou katoa e te Whare.

I stand to address this bill, the Education (Breakfast and Lunch Programmes in Schools) Amendment Bill. The bill seeks to amend the Education Act 1989 to provide fully State-funded breakfast and lunch programmes to all decile 1 and decile 2 schools and other designated schools in New Zealand. The meals would be available free of charge and be required to meet Ministry of Health nutritional guidelines.

Even though the member opposite, Hone Harawira, who presents this bill has got good intentions, this Government is hard at work supporting vulnerable children and working with families to ensure that children get a great start in life through early childhood education and right through their schooling years. We do not support this bill because of the work that is currently under way, work that in most regards does not need legislation because there are people in our communities who have a strong commitment to the welfare of our society.

We have expanded the KickStart Breakfast programme and last year committed $9.5 million over 5 years, which the member has acknowledged, as one part of our programme to better support children in our schools. Well over 1.5 million breakfasts have now been served. We are making a number of changes across the Government to focus on reducing hardship and its effects on New Zealanders, particularly young New Zealanders. We are ensuring that every child gets a great education. It is one of the most important things that we can do as a Government, and what we do in this regard raises the standard of living and creates a more productive economy, where every child has the opportunity as they go through our educational system to participate in it, achieve in it, and succeed in life. Our great philosophy and slogan is, of course, our belief that we want five out of five children to succeed.

We do understand that children going to school need to have nutrition in order to be able to concentrate, to learn, and for their well-being to increase and to grow. The KickStart Breakfast programme that was started back in 2009 is a partnership in New Zealand and is supported very strongly by some of our strong companies. Fonterra partners with Sanitarium, and schools right throughout this country that seek to participate can give their kids a breakfast of Weet-Bix and milk and they can enjoy the start of the day in that regard.

This bill forces boards of trustees of decile 1 and decile 2 schools to deliver a breakfast and lunch programme to students. The Secretary for Education would have the discretion as to whether to designate a school that is decile 3 to decile 10 to be part of the programme if the board requests, subject to a precondition. To meet the precondition to be a designated school, a school would need to be in the decile 3 to decile 10 bracket, it would need to have an enrolment scheme and therefore a zone, be taking a significant number of out-of-zone students, which should not be happening in any zoned school if the zone is set correctly, and these out-of-zone children would need to come from the catchments of decile 1 or decile 2 schools. The bill requires the Ministry of Education, in conjunction with the Ministry of Health, to conduct annual monitoring of the programmes. It also requires a review to be reported to the Minister of Education and Parliament within 3 years.

It is not good enough for members of the Opposition to rail against the National Government, as speakers did on the previous bill, the Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Six Months’ Paid Leave) Amendment Bill, saying that there is a lack of compassion, a lack of commitment, and a lack of feeling for the people in our communities. That is not so. I believe that right through this country people resoundingly support the Budget. It is family orientated, and seeks to undergird and support the families and the children of our country.

Reducing hardship is one of National’s commitments in delivering Better Public Services to New Zealanders. We are making a number of changes across the Government, focusing on reducing hardship and its effects on New Zealanders. We would remember the statements of the Minister of Finance about protecting people from the harsh edges of the recession. During all those very difficult years, this Government supported New Zealanders. At the expense of every New Zealander, this Government took on debt to ensure that vulnerable people in this country were cared for, protected, and supported.

We are investing significantly in supporting New Zealanders off welfare and into work, because that is the single most important step households can take to help themselves. A particular focus is on addressing the hardship that vulnerable children face, so that they can be set on the pathway to a better future. One of the, I believe, more significant pieces of legislation that this Government has brought through the House is the Vulnerable Children Bill, and the Children’s Action Plan arising from that piece of legislation. It is plain to see, in fact, that this Government is very committed to the well-being of our communities.

The KickStart Breakfast programme is a fantastic programme, and it also incorporates not only the support of the Government but it has a strong degree of corporate social responsibility. Something that we do applaud and we encourage is companies that do succeed in our country being able to contribute to its well-being.

Not all poor children attend decile 1 and decile 2 schools. With KickStart Breakfast expanding to schools of every decile, it will actually target more kids in need than this bill will. Ultimately, parents are responsible for feeding their children, but we cannot ignore the fact that some kids turn up to school hungry and they cannot learn on an empty stomach. That is why this is not just about the Government, but includes the community, non-governmental organisations, and business partners that get out there with breakfast clubs, at times every day of the week, in our schools to support those kids.

We all have a shared responsibility for children. It is not good enough just to put some legislation through. What we want to see is our communities all stepping up, and we are seeing that. We have some great examples of organisations stepping in to do their bit to support families. We applaud companies like Sanitarium, like Fonterra, that step up and give back to Kiwi kids in our communities. Since 2009 Fonterra and Sanitarium have been providing, as I said, Weet-Bix—that great breakfast sustenance that probably most of us grew up on—and milk. In fact, I went to the launch of this programme in Taranaki not long ago.

Last year KickStart Breakfast was expanded to be available 5 days a week in decile 1 to 4 primary schools. Over 730 schools and over 25,000 children now participate. Eighty-five percent of decile 1 schools participate in this programme. Since the beginning of 2014 schools of any decile have been able to apply to be part of the KickStart Breakfast programme. More than 1.5 million breakfasts have been served by people in our communities—not just teachers, but parents, people from NGOs, people who care, and people who get out there and make a difference.

What we also do is we provide fruit in schools. We have a Fruit in Schools scheme available to all decile 1 and 2 primary and intermediate schools, resulting in about 97,000 students receiving a piece of fruit each day, and we fund it with $174 million a year. That is commitment. That is proof, I believe, that the intent of what this bill is about is being enacted already in our schools and in our communities. We do not need legislation to launch a Government-funded programme to support the delivery of food for schools when it is already happening through community effort, through corporate sponsorship, and through the work of this Government. Thank you.

David Shearer—5 minutes.

Labour supports the Education (Breakfast and Lunch Programmes in Schools) Amendment Bill. It supports it simply because we do not believe that kids should go to school hungry. We do not believe that kids can learn when they are hungry. We do not believe that kids can concentrate when they are hungry. And we do not believe that it is in the long-term interests of either the child or, obviously, of our society, as well. That is why Labour will be supporting this bill.

We have a number of amendments that we would like to make to this bill. We are not saying that it is absolutely perfect, but what we do believe is that this bill should have the opportunity to go to a select committee so that we can hear from people right across our community about what they want to see in this bill. Jonathan Young talked about—and it had obviously had an impact on him—the level to which we said that the National Government was uncompassionate. We are not talking necessarily about individuals, but as Governments you have choices. You have choices about what you support and what you do not support, and when you do not support something as plain and as simple as this, and you do not support it at least to a select committee where we could have a better opportunity to discuss the issue in front of us—one of the most important issues in front of us today—then collectively it shows a lack of compassion.

This bill comes on top of the bill we were looking at previously to this one—the Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Six Months’ Paid Leave) Amendment Bill—where the National Government used a policy of trickery in order to be able to change the vote so that the paid parental leave bill would not be able to go through. It is hard to escape the fact that this is a Government that responds to opinion polls rather than to what is right—rather than to what is right. Let me quote this to you; it is on paid parental leave: “[Paid parental leave] is completely out of touch with the women of the 21st century and their diverse involvement in today’s labour force.” That was Anne Tolley. That was Anne Tolley talking about paid parental leave. Let me give you another quote: “It is another example of this Government using taxpayers’ money to win some votes.”—to win some votes. That was Judith Collins. So you can see where I am coming from. When the Government is pushed with its back to the wall by the community, which says: “Do something about this issue.”, it does something, but it is certainly not with the compliance and the agreement of senior members of this Government.

We support this bill because we believe that kids deserve the right not to go to school hungry, and we know that they do. My colleague Hone Harawira—who is right behind me, as well—has talked about the numbers involved and the numbers of children who are hungry. Mr Young talked about Fruit in Schools, a Labour Party policy that this Government took away when it came into office. It took the programme away for a few months because it did not want it there, and then reinstated it because of the shouts of horror from the schools, which were saying: “Do you realise that this is actually doing some good?”. Milk in schools and healthy food in schools are Labour Party policies. That is why we support this bill.

I rise to take a call on the Education (Breakfast and Lunch Programmes in Schools) Amendment Bill. This member’s bill is in the name of the Mana party MP, Hone Harawira. But before I do take a call on the bill, I just want to state that the member for Mt Albert made an appalling accusation in relation to the bill we were debating previously on paid parental leave, and he is wrong.

I am taking a stand to speak on this bill and I want to talk just a little bit about my relationship with the member of the Mana party, Hone Harawira, because I think it goes to the heart of this bill. Not very many people know this, but Hone Harawira’s whānau and my whānau grew up together in Auckland. Hone’s whānau grew up in Avondale and mine grew up in Mount Roskill. Hone’s whānau came from Tai Tokerau and my whānau came from Tai Tokerau, or my mother did, and my father came from Ngati Porou. We were part of the shift of Māori whānau that moved to the urban areas after the First World War and the Second World War.

My father and Hone’s mother and father were probably the first members of Ngā Tamatoa. There is a lot of talk about Ngā Tamatoa in the sense that a lot of people talk about the members of that organisation from around about the 1970s and 1980s. But, in actual fact, the genesis of that organisation started a lot earlier—probably after the Second World War. My father and Hone’s parents were also supporters of Lieutenant Colonel Awatere. The talk at that time, after the Second World War and through the 1950s and 1960s, was about rangatiratanga and it was about mana motuhake. And it was about us coming into town, into the urban areas, so that we could work, so that we could have housing, and so that we could have a better education. When I say so that “we” could have a better education, it was the tamariki like me, my sisters, my brother, and Hone and his brother and his sisters.

Hone was really privileged, just like my brother and sister. In their generation they were sent off to boarding schools. Hone and his brother went off to St Stephen’s College, and so did my brother, and my sister ended up at Queen Victoria School. That was about rangatiratanga. That was about motuhake. That was about Māori whānau sending their children, their tamariki, to school, so that they could be the next generation of leaders.

I do not believe that that background, that life, that education, and that teaching from our parents back then in the 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s was so that we could then turn round and tell the State to feed our children. I do not think that when we marched in the “Not one acre more” protest against land confiscation with Whina Cooper—and Hone and his whānau were the absolute leaders of that, as well—it was about us then turning round and telling the State to feed our children. I do not think that sitting up on Takaparawhā with the whānau Ngāti Whatua was for us to relinquish our rangatiratanga and motuhake so that the State could pay for kai for our tamariki. And I do not think that those who protested against the raids on Tūhoe thought it was about relinquishing our rangatiratanga and motuhake so that the State could then turn round and feed our babies.

Therefore, I stand and, with great regret, say to my brother that this is a relinquishing of our rangatiratanga and motuhake that I would never ever challenge this member on. I grew up with him, I believed in what he said, and this is not what I thought it would result in.

Can I also add that the Internet Mana party was not something that I thought I would ever see this member—

Order! Your time has expired. [Interruption] Order!

What a bizarre argument—to say that we should not be addressing the very real needs that we see every day in schools in this country. Hungry kids are coming to school and they are unable to learn, and some bizarre argument is being laid out by Claudette Hauiti, who is saying that the Education (Breakfast and Lunch Programmes in Schools) Amendment Bill is somehow the rejection of rangatiratanga, which is just ridiculous. Tell that to the children who are hungry and who need to be fed. My apologies, Mr Deputy Speaker, for my passion, but it is just not acceptable to have this kind of argument being played out in this House.

What we know is that children are going to school hungry and need to be fed. We are a Parliament that has a responsibility for the well-being of the people in this country, including our children. We have a responsibility to put children at the heart of all the decisions we make in this Parliament, and we fail to do that over and over. This legislation gives us one more opportunity. An opportunity has already been lost tonight with the Paid Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Six Months’ Paid Leave) Amendment Bill debacle we saw earlier this evening. This is the second opportunity tonight for this Parliament to say that our children come first, that our children’s needs come first, and that we will do what it takes to make that happen.

The Green Party is proud to support this bill. We also have proposed a school lunch fund to help provide assistance to those families, those children, and the schools, teachers, principals, and communities that are affected to make sure that our kids do not go hungry. We know that a child who is well and who is well-fed is ready to learn. If we want to combat the effects of poverty on our communities, we must make sure that our kids get the best possible education. Therefore, we have an obligation to remove the barriers that prevent them from doing so, and hunger is a barrier to kids’ learning.

This legislation sets out one method for achieving that aim of protecting our children, as we are obliged to do as members of Parliament. We listen to the prayer every day in this House when we are sitting in this Chamber that asks us to put the well-being of the people of this country ahead of all else. Do we take that seriously or not?

The Green Party proposal for a school lunch fund is slightly different from this one, and it was set out in our paper on schools as community hubs. Catherine Delahunty and I, and other Green MPs, have been very proud to travel the country talking with schools about those proposals, which include the school lunch fund. Our design of the fund would be so it is available to children in schools from decile 1 to 4—so a slight extension from this legislation—so the schools are able to use that money to provide lunch for their own kids as they best see fit. Some communities have got great relationships with businesses that will donate food. Other schools will have—

💬 Catherine Delahunty: Rangatiratanga.

That is right, Catherine Delahunty—this is about schools exercising their rangatiratanga, their choice, and their control. Other schools have community gardens where they need someone to help with the production of that food so that the kids themselves, along with parents and volunteers, can actually turn that food into lunches. They are working together, cooking together, and sharing food together. Our plan would be to provide that fund to schools to use as they best see fit to provide lunch to their kids in the way that best meets the needs of those children, because those communities know what their problems are and they know how to devise the solutions to those problems. That is very similar to the proposals that have been put in this bill.

We would very much like to see the bill go to a select committee so we have a discussion on how we should meet the responsibilities as a collective, as a country, for the needs of our kids. The best situation would be, of course, that we did not need this bill. That would be preferable, so that is why we need a living wage. That is why we need decent benefits—so families can survive. That is why we need sustainable jobs and an environment that is clean and healthy—so we can go and collect our own kai, knowing that it is safe for our kids and us to eat. In the meantime, until we get to that point—because we are not there yet—we must make sure that no child suffers because of the neglect we have seen of their families over decades. That neglect is our responsibility to fix, and this legislation gives us one more opportunity to do so. Let us not waste that. Thank you.

Kia ora, Mr Deputy Speaker. I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to support the Education (Breakfast and Lunch Programmes in Schools) Amendment Bill from its first reading through to select committee consideration. We do so because I think that if nothing else has been obvious here tonight, what is obvious is that there needs to be a conversation about this issue. There are strong feelings on both sides.

I want to pick up on a point because of the demographic that my party spends a lot of time with. It often comes up, this issue of parental responsibility and who should feed children. It is really interesting having that conversation with that age demographic. I say to them: “When you went to school, you got milk every day, right?”, which they acknowledge is true. And when they went to school, they got fruit every day. Yet, there was not a single headline that said their parents were neglectful parents. There was not a single headline in the 1950s through to the 1970s that said having the State feed children meant that their parents did not give a damn. It was not a conversation about that. It was a conversation about: “These are the children of our country—give them something to eat.”

💬 Claudette Hauiti: Milk isn’t about that—it’s about health.

I do not believe that there is a single member in this House who, if a child came and knocked on their door and was hungry, would not feed that child. I do not believe that Ms Hauiti would not feed that child. I do not believe that Ms Hauiti would say: “Go home to your parents, even though there is no food in your cupboard, and you tell your parents that is their responsibility.” Of course she would not. That is not what she is saying. This is the conversation we need to have.

From a New Zealand First perspective, we are not 100 percent sold on this bill. In some ways it is too broad and in some ways it is too narrow. If I can just explain that, as we have heard, this bill would actually provide breakfast and lunch for every child in decile 1 and decile 2 schools. In one way that is too broad. There are many children who are fine. I am talking particularly about the Kāwhia coast, up there in the hills there in Hauturu, where there are some decile 2 schools. Those kids’ lunch boxes are fine. They are fine. They are full of homebaking. They have got sandwiches and rēwena bread, and so on and so forth. They do not need this programme. But then I could also take the author of this bill to a decile 8 school in Warkworth with the largest Kiribati community in the whole of New Zealand, with children showing up who do not have food. And it is not because their parents are lazy. It is not because their parents do not care or do not love their children. As a country, we should not tell people to go to their church and prove they are good enough to get some charity. That is not where we want to be. That was 18th century England; this is 21st century New Zealand.

We need to have this conversation. If we have children showing up at schools without food, let us have a conversation about, one, feeding the children appropriately and, two, fixing the cause. If we ignore this issue, if we do not have a conversation about putting the children first in this issue—not again talking about the adults when it is the children who are paying the price, as we just had in the last bill under debate, the Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Six Months’ Paid Leave) Amendment Bill. Deal with the adults after we feed the children.

I am not going to take much more time. New Zealand First will support this bill because we believe that there needs to be a conversation. It is a shame that the Government does not believe it can actually have a conversation about this, just like the bill just before this where Government members tried not to stand and speak. Give the people of New Zealand an opportunity to come in and tell you what they think. This is supposed to be a House of Representatives. This is supposed to be one of the finest democracies in the Western World. People come to see our select committee process because it is the best part of our democracy. Do not stop the voice of New Zealanders coming in. Let them have their say, then do as you will. Let them decide at the polls, but let them have their say.

I am happy to take a brief call in support of the Education (Breakfast and Lunch Programmes in Schools) Amendment Bill. I want to start, though, with the acknowledgment that I do not necessarily think it is the role of schools to be feeding kids, but if kids are arriving at school hungry, then they are not going to be learning. So this is not an ideal measure. It is ambulance at the bottom of the cliff stuff. I would rather that we built a fence at the top of the cliff, but in the absence of that being there, we have to do something. Not doing anything simply is not an option as far as I am concerned.

I visit schools up and down the country all the time and I know just how hard schools work to make sure they create an inclusive learning environment and how difficult that can be when kids are arriving at the school gate not ready to learn. It can place enormous strain on the school. It can place enormous strain on the classroom teacher and strain on the other kids. Hungry kids are not kids who are ready to get on with their learning. That is actually an easy problem to fix. Why should we not do it?

We have a bizarre sort of attitude to food in schools in New Zealand. We say that it is not the role of the school at all; it is the role of the parents. Actually, many other countries that we compare ourselves with all the time have quite institutionalised food in schools programmes. If you go to a school in the United States or the UK, school lunches are commonplace. Those schools actually provide their kids with school lunches. There may be some payment involved in that, but it is very standard for the kids to show up at school and be fed at school.

Here in New Zealand, increasingly we are seeing early childhood services providing food for the kids who are attending those centres. That is perfectly accepted. It is a perfectly accepted part of sending your kid to an early childhood centre that they will be fed while they are there. In doing that, the early childhood services are making sure that kids are getting healthy food and they are making sure that they can manage allergies. They can prepare food that is not going to cause issues for any of the other kids. It is actually a perfectly acceptable and healthy thing. So I am not sure why there is this sort of ideological opposition to the idea that schools could be providing meals for the kids who need them.

I think really we should be looking at this from the perspective that if kids are hungry, let us get on with it and feed them so that the schools can actually be focused on doing what we really want them to do, which is making sure that kids get the best possible education. It is really simple: hungry kids do not learn. I know—and I think we can all speak from experience—that when you are hungry, you get a bit scratchy, you get a bit grumpy, and you have more difficulty focusing on whatever it is that you are doing. Adults have that problem; kids have that problem. Let us make sure—

💬 Metiria Turei: Yes, that’s right.

💬 Catherine Delahunty: Look at Anne Tolley.

They definitely have that problem around here. Maybe we should have more food—I do not know. But let us just get on with it, and let us deal with the problem.

One of the things that I have been really interested to see in schools around the country is the response to the Fonterra Milk for Schools programme, because, actually, some of the concerns that are being raised about this bill were raised about the milk in schools programme when it was first introduced. Actually, I have not visited a single school anywhere around the country that has said that milk in schools has not worked for it and has not been good for it. Schools love the programme. Why should it be that we are reliant on charity for programmes like that to happen? Actually, the Government should be making sure that things like that are going on. I think it is fantastic that Fonterra is putting a bit of money into the milk in schools programme and putting that support in. Fisher and Paykel are also supporting it by supplying the fridges.

It is an excellent programme. The milk arrives and the kids actually have a role—they go and pick up the milk and take it to their classrooms. They make sure that more milk is put into the fridge so that the following day there is plenty of cold milk there. The cartons are then collected at the end of the process and taken away and recycled. It is a really good, comprehensive programme. Fruit in Schools is very, very well supported by the schools in my electorate. They all rave about it. The principals and the teachers all love it. It is a very good programme.

But those things—a little carton of milk and a piece of fruit—are not enough to get a child through the day. They actually need to have more sustenance than that. If they are arriving at school hungry, we can do something about that. We have got to tackle the causes of kids arriving at school hungry, but that is going to take time. In the meantime, let us make sure they have got food in their tummies when they are at school, so that they can actually focus on learning and so that their teachers can be focused on teaching them, rather than dealing with the consequences of them being hungry, which far too many schools are having to cope with at the moment.

Kia ora. I stand to take a call on this bill, the Education (Breakfast and Lunch Programmes in Schools) Amendment Bill. You know, you do not need legislation to launch a Government-funded programme to support the delivery of food or meals at schools unless you want the board of trustees to do work other than govern their school—the role they have been put into.

I take offence at the fact that people have said that we do not put children at the heart of our policies. Of course we do. Look at the vulnerable children policy that we have provided and the Children’s Action Plan. Where was Labour when it came to looking after the kids when it ruled for 9 years? It was nowhere. It was absolutely nowhere to be found when it came to looking after our kids. It has been this National Government that has stepped up and put children at the heart of our policies.

I just want to talk a little bit about our KickStart Breakfast programme. Already, 85 percent of decile 1 schools participate in the Government’s KickStart Breakfast programme. We are a Government that is about a hand up, not a handout. We respect what parents’ roles are in raising their children. We respect that, and that is why we want to be able to give some support to them, but not take away their mana as a parent raising their children. The KickStart Breakfast programme is in almost 600 schools, and over 25,000 children are benefiting from the programme. And not all the children are from poor families in decile 1 and decile 2 schools; they are from across all schools. This is what this Government is doing. We have responded to the needs of all children.

Actually, in 2014 National extended the KickStart Breakfast programme to schools of all deciles, as I said, that wished to participate. It is their choice. It is about choices, and that is what this Government is about. In 2013—

💬 Tracey Martin: What about the hungry children in the decile 5 schools?

—if Ms Martin would just listen—this Government invested $9.5 million across 5 years towards the breakfast in schools programme. And let me say again, Labour never did a thing in its 9 years—nothing, nada. Businesses in New Zealand have stepped up. They have stepped up to do their bit for children. Fonterra and Sanitarium have provided Weet-Bix and milk in our decile 1 to decile 4 schools.

This Government continues to support young kids. KidsCan continues to provide food for 4,500 children a day. KidsCan is in 223 schools. That is absolutely amazing. The Fruit in Schools scheme also has received $174 million per annum, which results in 97,000 students receiving fruit on a daily basis—a daily basis. Opposition members cannot turn their noses up at that. We are doing it. We are doing it for the children of this country.

Let us talk about the Tip Top Nourish Our Kids programme, which is working with KidsCan. What is it doing? It is making an annual donation of 100,000 loaves of bread, delivered weekly to primary and intermediate schools, decile 1 to decile 4 schools, across this country. That is about 7,200 children a day being fed by the Tip Top Nourish Our Kids programme.

The potential cost of providing school breakfasts and lunches to all pupils in decile 1 and 2 schools is unlikely to be less than $100 million per year. That is a lot of money. The number of full-time equivalent students at the 500 decile 1 and decile 2 schools is approximately 108,300, based on the March 2013 roll, which is provisional. This includes both primary and secondary school students. When you start to add $5 per day per person per meal, we are looking at approximately $100 million a year—$100 million.

This Government is continuing to invest in the children of our country. We are looking after their education needs—remember, no other Government has; we have—and we are working with various businesses and organisations to ensure that those who are most vulnerable are receiving the best start to their school day through food in schools programmes and schemes. National does not support this bill.

What an absolutely bizarre contribution that was from Joanne Hayes. It is absolutely bizarre to stand up and claim that a Labour Government over 9 years, a Labour Government that was focused absolutely on the core business of lifting the well-being of people and children, did nothing to support children. I have got a couple of really simple policies, which obviously the member missed, that would be quite educational for her to remember.

Working for Families lifted over 100,000 children out of poverty. We are proud of that policy, and clearly the National Government is too, because it has done nothing to remove it. The member raised the issue of vulnerable children and care and protection issues. We were the Government that made sure that Child, Youth and Family was properly resourced to do its job. We reviewed Child, Youth and Family Services in 2006 and we boosted its support and the number of social workers. Paid parental leave—something that the Government just voted down—is something that Labour has a proud track record on.

When it comes specifically to the issue around things like food in schools, we have a bill that says that we want food to be in all decile 1 to decile 3 schools. It is slightly different from this member’s bill, the Education (Breakfast and Lunch Programmes in Schools) Amendment Bill, but that, obviously, is why we support the bill before us today. Annette King, when she was the Minister of Health, put in Fruit in Schools as recognition of the need to encourage healthy eating in our schools. We promoted healthy food in our school canteens and tuck shops—something that the Government voted down.

The member Joanne Hayes said, if I remember her words correctly: “We support a hand up not a handout, and mana for families.” There is no mana in poverty. There is no dignity in poverty. The children who are afflicted by it, and who lose the opportunities as a consequence of it, are the ones who lose their mana, because where are they then left? To prove a point, the National Government would rather leave those children behind. We, when we are in Government, will make sure that children are at the heart of everything and that we do not place moral judgments on parents that end up costing their children. Who is better off when we do that?

We have got to remember the context in which we are debating this bill. There are 285,000 children living in poverty. One in three Māori and Pacific Island children are living in poverty. That is an absolutely alarming statistic. We cannot sit back and allow moral judgments over personal responsibility to get in the way of assisting those children, and that is ultimately what this bill is all about. But even beyond the poverty statistics, which are focused primarily on income, even if you look at other markers—if you look at material deprivation, that is an assessment of whether or not a family has enough money to buy three healthy meals a day and whether or not children are living in overcrowded housing. We have seen that get as high as 21 percent in recent times. We know that has consequences.

The member sponsoring this bill, Hone Harawira, talked about the cost of poverty. Even if the Government does not want to follow the moral obligation that we on this side of the House feel towards children in New Zealand, even if it does not want to buy into that, it should at least buy into the fiscal responsibility. Poverty costs us money, and a lot of money—up to $6 billion. If we get this right, if we do something positive for children, we can actually save ourselves money as a country. Not only that, we start to see that we can enhance the opportunity for kids.

I am not saying this is just pie-in-the-sky stuff. The Programme for International Student Assessment results have strongly suggested to us that, yes, we have a good educational system in New Zealand but that, actually, social deprivation is starting to impact on our educational outcomes. Its strong recommendation to us—and from the OECD—was that if we wanted to start improving our outcomes, we have got to look at the child’s wider context. It is not just about what happens to them when they walk in the school gate; it is about what happens in their lives at home, it is about what kind of support they have, it is about whether or not there is enough money to put food on the table, and it is about whether or not they are hungry at school.

That is the pure and simple issue we are debating. If you strip that right back, do we want our kids to go hungry? The obvious answer is no. That is why Labour is supporting this bill.

Nobody denies that there is considerable hardship in many communities in our country. Nobody denies that a child who is consistently hungry at school is ill prepared to learn and needs our compassionate help. But the Education (Breakfast and Lunch Programmes in Schools) Amendment Bill is not the answer to that problem. In fact, for those who have just tuned in, it is worth pointing out that the implication of this bill would be to force every decile 1 and 2 school in New Zealand to deliver a breakfast and lunch programme for every child. Not only that, it is worth pointing out that because of the way our decile system works, not every child in New Zealand who attends a decile 1 or 2 school comes from a poor family. The reverse of that, of course, is that there are many children from poor homes who are not attending decile 1 or 2 schools. So this is a very inefficient and inexact way of trying to deal with the problem.

It has been estimated that the cost of this measure would probably be in excess of $100 million per annum. That is significant when you consider what else is being done by this Government and by many generous companies, organisations, and individuals throughout the land in order to try to tackle the very real problems. As a constituency MP, I am always heartened and humbled by those in my electorate in Hamilton West who are in schools and community organisations in my electorate early each morning delivering food in schools programmes and breakfasts in schools. I salute them. I thank them. I know that all the children and their families, parents, and caregivers also appreciate that. But it is something they have done to meet the needs of children in their community—children whom they know well. It is not blanket compulsion, across the decile system, that does not take into account any other circumstances.

Other speakers on this side of the House have quite rightly pointed out a number of initiatives we have seen introduced in recent times. It was about a year ago that the Prime Minister announced that the Government would support KickStart Breakfast with $9.5 million in funding over 5 years, and that that would be matched by Sanitarium and Fonterra. That was an outstanding gesture by those companies, and I was proud of that initiative by the Government. More than 1.5 million breakfasts have been served since the expansion of that programme last year. We do not need legislation to launch a Government-funded programme to support the delivery of food or meals at schools unless we are determined to force boards to do something they may be totally unwilling and ill-equipped to do. That is one of those things.

Tip Top Bakery has also very generously supported this need in our community with its Nourish Our Kids programme. It works with KidsCan. It consists of an annual donation of 100,000 loaves of bread, which are delivered weekly to primary and intermediate schoolchildren in decile 1 to 4 schools across the country. This is practical and it enables those who are in receipt of those significant donations within the school communities to ensure that they can identify the children who are in need. It is done in a discreet, compassionate, and sensitive way. These are just some of the many initiatives that are responding to the need we have in our community.

The member’s bill takes a blanket approach and does not take into account what is already being done. It instead imposes huge cost, in many instances where it is not justified, in order to try to meet the needs of those who do require help. I have sympathy for his concern because, like all members of this House, I have great sympathy for hungry children—

💬 Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The time has come for the House to rise.

Debate interrupted.

The House adjourned at 10 p.m.