ECE Food Contract: Audit Confirms Procurement Failures but Bigger Problems Persist
NEWS – 3 July 2026
The Auditor‑General has confirmed what the Office of Early Childhood Education (OECE) uncovered last year: the Government’s ECE Food Programme was built on a flawed contracting process that left only one organisation, KidsCan, in a position to receive the $8 million grant.
In a report just released, the Audit Office found that the Ministry of Education designed selection criteria that effectively narrowed the applicant pool, leaving KidsCan as the only viable candidate. The analysis used to justify directly awarding the contract was “limited,” and siloed information hindered the Ministry’s ability to properly assess risk. According to the report, a combination of factors left the decision “open to the perception that, from the outset, only one organisation was considered.” See the full report.
These findings align with OECE’s 2025 investigation, which revealed that Associate Education Minister David Seymour had been in discussions with KidsCan months before the Government announced the expansion of the Ka Ora Ka Ako healthy lunches programme into early childhood education.
OECE chief advisor Dr Sarah Alexander says the Auditor‑General’s findings validate concerns raised last year about the Ministry’s procurement process. She notes that the secrecy surrounding the contract created a lack of transparency that warranted independent scrutiny. Read the OECE’s original investigation.
While the Auditor‑General’s role is limited to examining the contracting process, OECE says significant on‑the‑ground issues remain unaddressed. These are issues that no public agency is known to have yet questioned the Minister or the Ministry about.
Those issues include:
- Low uptake: Fewer than half of eligible ECE centres received food in the early months of the programme.
- Eligibility inconsistencies: Although Minister Seymour repeatedly stated that only “low‑equity, community‑based” (not‑for‑profit) centres would qualify, 42% of centres that joined in the first wave were for-profit private centres.
- Fee concerns: Some participating centres already provided food to children before joining the programme. While the Ministry told these centres they cannot charge parents for KidsCan‑supplied food, they are not required to reduce their fees, even though they no longer bear food costs.
- Lack of consultation: Providers of low‑equity centres were not consulted on what model would work best for them. Many may have preferred funding to cover their existing food provision, or a lunch‑box model, rather than weekly deliveries of ingredients requiring refrigeration, cooking facilities, and additional staff time.
The Auditor‑General’s report answers one set of questions but leaves many others hanging. For ECE providers and families, the investigation highlights a programme launched without consultation, inconsistent eligibility rules, and operational challenges that have yet to be fully acknowledged by officials.
