12. Question No. 12—Education (Partner Schools)Hon JAN TINETTI (Labour) to the Associate Minister of Education (Partnership Schools)Question No. 12—Education (Partner Schools)12. Hon JAN TINETTI (Labour) to the Associate Minister of Education (Partnership Schools): Does he stand by his statement that the previous Government had committed to the school lunches spending programme without commissioning any robust empirical study to evaluate its effectiveness"; if so how does he reconcile this with the New Zealand Healthy School Lunches pilot/Ka Ora Ka Ako interim evaluation on the Ministry of Education website?Hon DAVID SEYMOUR (Associate Minister of Education (Partnership Schools)): Yes I certainly stand by that statement and I can very easily reconcile it with this interim evaluation which itself says a larger group of schools is needed to assess whether there has been any improvement in attendance patterns over the longer term. So I think when a study itself says that it couldn't reach the conclusion asked that is almost by definition not robust.Hon Jan Tinetti: Does he then acknowledge the other reports—the many other reports—that have been done on the Ka Ora Ka Ako programme have increased the numbers of schools have had the voices of 10694 secondary learners brought into the research and the final report—or the most recent report—which shows that thus in specific schools and kura we found the programme contributed to increased attendance?Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: There have been five studies in total commissioned by the Ministry of Education. None of them has done a robust statistically significant comparison that has been able to find that the programme has increased attendance at school—those are the basic facts. I know that the former Minister probably thinks that she commissioned reports that are good enough for the taxpayer but this Government is in favour of actually doing robust analysis when we go out and spend their money. But unfortunately I read again from the Treasury: "However the evaluations have found no impact on attendance and ākonga Māori who make up around 48% of students receiving the programme have not benefited on most metrics such as school functioning … health and mental wellbeing". Unfortunately the former Minister went out and spent nearly 350 million bucks and she can't say whether it worked.Hon Jan Tinetti: Does he stand by his statement on Checkpoint: "The Treasury got on to that and also pointed out that they were wasting around 25 percent of the food that they had."; and is he aware that it was never 25 percent and that the Ministry of Education told the Education and Workforce Committee that food wastage had halved from 12 percent in the beginning to 6 percent?Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: Unfortunately there's a wide range of ways that the food is being wasted. For example an email received just today from a high school says "We have a volunteer group in town who picks up all unopened lunch packs to distribute amongst the elderly and needy in town. The quality of lunches has dropped off to such an extent that the elderly people no longer want them. A lot of food is being wasted—money as well." Unfortunately in many places 25 percent wastage would be an improvement.Hon Jan Tinetti: Does he stand by his statement also on Checkpoint that "Cuts of 30 to 50 percent are in the ballpark."; and if so what does he say to Christopher Luxon who said in the election campaign "We are supporters of the programme and it will continue to improve each and every year under our National Government"?Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: I absolutely stand by my statement and what I'd say to Christopher Luxon—and the Prime Minister for that matter—is that we are going to keep improving it: first of all by wasting less money and second of all by making sure that it's going to the students most in need in a way that we can demonstrate a difference.Hon Dr Megan Woods: You're cutting it.Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: And I just heard Megan Woods say "You're cutting it." and that's why she didn't get the finance job because you see when we say we're cutting it we mean we're going to spend less money to get more results. That's what this Government needs to do—that's what anyone in finance needs to do—and that's why Megan Woods didn't get the job. Hon Jan Tinetti: Why does he think—[Interruption]SPEAKER: Wait a minute—OK.Hon Jan Tinetti: Why does he think it is appropriate to prioritise tax breaks for landlords and property speculators above providing healthy and nutritious lunches to children in our poorest community?Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: I actually don't have responsibility as Associate Minister of Education for the Budget process. But I'm a helpful sort of a guy so let me just lean into this one for the member's benefit. The Government is not making such a decision—the Government is having to make the most it possibly can in a range of policy areas because after six years of this lot doing less and less with more and more taxpayers' money this Government now has to do more and more with less taxpayers' money and try and pay down the debt besides. If only that Government had been a bit more fiscally responsible this Government would be having an easier time. Thankfully we're up to it.Hon Nicola Willis: Can the Minister confirm that the outgoing Government provided precisely zero dollars in funding for the next financial year for the school lunch programme an enormous fiscal cliff; and can he also advise whether he has considered an approach to that problem like that suggested by the member Tinetti that he simply appropriate it because New Zealand doesn't have a debt problem as she told Mike Hosking.Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: Yes I can—[Interruption] Yes I can confirm—[Interruption]SPEAKER: Just wait.Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: Yes I can confirm that there is a major fiscal cliff in the funding of pharmaceuticals that this Government must now—oh wait sorry Mr Speaker that's my other portfolio. You see they're leaving so many fiscal cliffs around that sometimes even I can't keep up! Back to education: the fiscal cliff around school lunches is such that this Government has to actually find money to continue something that the Opposition said we were trying to cut and that's why we've got to do it better and smarter in a more targeted way that benefits the kids who really need it where these guys failed.Hon James Shaw: Point of order Mr Speaker. I just want to draw your attention to Speaker's ruling 205/4 which says "Ministers should not bring another political party which has not been involved in the questioning into an answer." as a longstanding rule that you shouldn't be using patsy questions to attack the Opposition.SPEAKER: That is true. But the question from the first question the primary question strayed quite a way along the track. As I've said before and other Speakers have said before me when there is a political aspect to a question that's where the answers are likely to go and that's where there is slightly more lenience. But we are not then using the question time to directly attack a previous Government. The Rt Hon Winston Peters—this will be interesting.Rt Hon Winston Peters: Could I ask the Minister could he in the interests of education find a copy of the Andy Williams song "Lonely Street" and send a copy to that party over there so they can feel a bit more happy about life?Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: I have no responsibility—that would be my good friend and colleague the Hon Paul Goldsmith the Minister of arts and heritage who I am sure can give him a hand. However what I will say as Associate Minister of Education is that our job is an education system where people feel they can go to school and be equipped to make a difference in their own lives—that's what makes people happier."