Should the government fund free healthy lunches for all students in schools?

Yes, hungry kids can't focus and food is a basic human right.

No

Yes, it relieves cost-of-living pressure on families and boosts attendance.

No, feeding children is the sole responsibility of parents, not the state.

No, schools exist to teach reading and writing, not to act as a welfare agency.

Schools should have lunches available for students to purchase. The expense to families can be on a family income scale.

Some kind of means test

Yes, but only for lower decile schools, and for children of low income parents attending high decile schools

yes depending on if the school wants it and only certain kids should get it

Yes, if the state requires mandatory attendance then the state should fund healthy lunches.

Yes because kids who aren't able to have food deserve food and it will help lots of people with money, time, and attendence.

Yes, but with major improvements to the current model.

I think schools should have lunches available for those who need it with some kind of process to figure out who needs it, but make the lunches look like everyone else - ie maybe kids bring a lunchbox and collect things from a certain spot, but I don't think every kid needs that considering how costly it would be

I think the responsibility of this issue should be handled elsewhere OR school should only supply free lunches for children whose parents are financially struggling.

Yes, it is economically more efficient to have centralised lunches, the amount of allergy restrictions on packed lunches means that cold packed school lunches are not very nutritious, the amount of packaging is insane (glad wrap) and it's more social

If the government is serious about supporting education, it should be putting hot lunches in all schools. Most schools in Asia, America, and Europe do this already, it's not just for poor kids. It's an economically more efficient model to have the food cooked at school and delivered to the children. Plus they all eat together, which eliminates the fussy eaters issue, and it reduces pressure on parents, most of whom are already working. As a parent I wouldn't even mind a separate tax that just paid for a hot lunch at the school or part of my school fees, etc., if it meant that…  Read more I didn't have to make lunches every day that are basically just a repeat of cheese sandwiches. My school doesn't allow for nuts and there are so few things that are good cold all day - processed meats like salami are carcinogenic but I can't pack them chicken that sits about for 6 hours... cold cooked vegetables aren't appealing, so it's a carb load of breads, fruit, cheese (and the cheese gets bendy in hot days). Additionally packed lunches require so much packaging. For example muesli bars or yoghurt you can't buy without single use packaging. Whereas cooked hot lunches, like so many other countries provide, would mean that children get a nutritious meat and three veg perhaps option. Because they're eating it all with their peers, they're going to be so much less fussy about it. As long as the nutrition standard is kept high, parents in high decile places could still pay for it and low decile ones could get it for free. Plus it creates at least two new jobs per school and in many countries the children even get involved with serving and clean up.

No, the current model creates massive food waste and should be means-tested.