It has been no secret the Act New Zealand leader opposes the programme which was allocated $323.4 million in the current Budget.
During last year’s election campaign he described it as a waste of money, almost criminal in a cost-of-living crisis, and he wanted it scrapped.
Now he is in charge of reviewing the programme, which is concerning to its supporters and those who feel it should be extended, not reduced.
Figures from last October show more than 230,000 pupils in 998 schools were receiving the lunches, including about 8300 pupils in 55 schools in Otago and Southland.
The Ministry of Education says the aim of the programme is to reduce food insecurity by providing access to a nutritious daily lunch.
"Around one in five children in New Zealand live in households that struggle to put enough good-quality food on the table.
"In communities facing greater socio-economic barriers, 40% of parents run out of food sometimes or often," its website says.
This is not something highlighted by Mr Seymour.
He says there is no evidence the programme has improved attendance or achievement in any measurable way.
Forgive us for being facetious, but it is unclear how it would be possible to get an absolute answer on those questions without an experiment with a control group where lunch was withheld for months or possibly years and compared with children receiving the lunches.
Such an experiment would be unlikely to get ethical approval.
Health Coalition Aotearoa, which is keen to meet Mr Seymour to make the case for continuing the programme, points out results from a worldwide study from the Programme for International Student Assessment (Pisa) examining 15-year-olds’ achievement showed those living with food insecurity were, on average, two to four years behind their better-fed peers.
Mr Seymour is also concerned about waste.
In an interview on RNZ this week, he had inflated that wastage proportion to 25%, and he does not seem to have corrected or clarified that.
Schools report they have various ways of dealing with the leftovers, including giving them to foodbanks or other community organisations, or sending them home with pupils.
Food wastage in school lunches is not confined to this programme, as many parents will attest when their lovingly prepared nutritious lunchbox meal returns home mostly intact at the end of the school day.
Of course, the programme should be as waste-free as possible and anything to make it more efficient would be welcomed.
Prime Minister Christopher Luxon has said the review of the programme does not necessarily mean fewer children or schools will be getting the lunches.
But that is not the message we are getting from Mr Seymour.
Even though he says he is still receiving advice, he is already saying he proposes to cut the funding by between 30% and 50%.
To do this, he says either the number of schools or the number of pupils receiving the lunches could be reduced or the programme itself could be changed.
The mixed messages about this are not a good sign of cohesion from the coalition.
And another thing
Most of us had probably never heard of fledgling National member for Otaki Tim Costley until this week when he apologised for an unparliamentary remark he made last week.
Ironically, he made the irrelevant and tasteless comment about not liking the idea of Grant Robertson inspecting him in the shower, during a debate on the Local Government (Facilitation of Remote Participation) Amendment Bill.
He described the legislation as unnecessary and an excuse to waste the House’s time.
Mr Costley may be a tall man, but he still has some growing up to do.
