Household food insecurity is a growing public health concern in Australia, with families with dependent children experiencing a disproportionate burden(1). Current Australian school food systems largely rely on families to provide daily lunches that are affordable, nutritious, acceptable to children and practical within the school environment. As interest in school meal policy grows nationally, evidence is needed to understand whether proposed models address the needs of households experiencing food insecurity. This study examined differences in school lunch challenges, support for school meal programs, intended use, willingness to pay, and preferred program features among Australian parents and carers according to household food security status. A cross-sectional online survey was conducted among parents and carers of school-aged children attending schools in New South Wales, Australia. Participants reported household characteristics, current school lunch practices, food insecurity status, and perspectives on a potential school meal program. Households were classified as food insecure if they reported running out of food and being unable to purchase more in the previous 12 months. Differences between food secure and food insecure households were examined using chi-square tests and independent samples t-tests. Binary logistic regression was used to examine the association between household food insecurity and strong support for school meal programs. Among n = 527 respondents, 13.4% of households were classified as food insecure. Compared with food secure households, food insecure households reported significantly greater school lunch challenges, including cost of healthy food (84.3% vs 37.4%, p < 0.001), child sensory issues (27.1% vs 13.0%, p = 0.002), and uncertainty about what to pack (37.1% vs 24.2%, p = 0.022). Food insecure households had higher odds of strongly supporting the introduction of a school meal program compared with food secure households (82.0% vs 63.7%, OR = 2.6, 95% CI: 1.3–5.1, p = 0.006). Food insecure households were also more likely to report they would welcome support and regularly use a school meal program (69.0% vs 48.6%, p = 0.044), but reported lower willingness to pay ($4.66 vs $5.93 per child per day, p < 0.001). Food insecure households more frequently identified free or low-cost access as an important factor influencing program use (54.1% vs 32.9%, p = 0.001). These findings highlight an important equity consideration for Australian school meal policy: households experiencing food insecurity demonstrate strong demand for school meal programs but have reduced capacity to contribute financially. Future school meal initiatives should prioritise affordable access models, including free or subsidised provision, to ensure programs reach families most likely to benefit and contribute to broader food security goals.