Ingredients:

• 1 cup contradiction (finely chopped)
• 500 grams of voter polling (preferably gullible)
• 2 tablespoons of economic nonsense (no substitutes)
• A generous pinch of legal complexity
• A dash of ambiguity (to taste)
• A sprinkling of international tax quirks
• A heaped spoonful of political expediency

Preparation:

1. Start with the contradictions: Begin by asserting that the policy will help low-income families. Avoid noting that the wealthy will nevertheless save the most money, or acknowledging that the policy might not lead to increased consumption of fruit and vegetables. Stir until thoroughly confused.

2. Add voter polling: Next, add in voter polling, but only the kind that confirms this is a good idea. If using other opinions, be sure to disregard them. Blend until smooth.

3. Fold in economic nonsense: Slowly incorporate economic nonsense by adding the idea that removing GST from fruit and vegetables will lower their price by exactly GST component. Do not acknowledge other market forces. Ignore economic advice. Throw in an extra $240m in unanticipated costs. Whisk until well combined.

4. Sprinkle with ambiguity: Generously sprinkle with ambiguity. Be vague about how to define ‘fresh vegetables.’ Should a potato crisp qualify? Or a washed carrot? Continue to leave unclear until the policy looks opaque.

5. Garnish with legal complexity: Complement with legal complexity by consulting lawyers on how to classify mixed food items. Spend significant time and money ensuring that a salad qualifies but a salad sandwich does not.

6. Stir in international tax quirks: Look to the culinary masters in the UK, who spent decades debating whether a certain biscuit was in fact a teacake. Then, take inspiration from Australia, where courts decided that an oven-baked Italian flatbread was a cracker for tax purposes. Blend these examples into the policy, until the delicious confusion and inefficiency are perfectly melded.

7. Season with political expediency: Finally, season with a heaped spoonful of political expediency, ensuring that the policy aligns with short-term political gains rather than long-term economic sense. Switch off your morals and conscience should you have any. Simmer until re-election.

Outcome:
Serve this dish to a nation expecting a thoughtful and effective approach to reducing living costs. Enjoy the unedifying spectacle of complications, contradictions, and international tax mishaps. Warning: may cause nausea in anyone expecting sound economic policy.

Pairs well with a glass of scepticism and is best enjoyed with a hearty serving of legal textbooks. Bon appétit, New Zealand!