In August 2025, we released a discussion paper seeking public feedback on the proposed scope for the National Food Security Strategy. We received over 400 responses from people across Australia sharing their diverse views and experiences. This included industry associations, farmers, retailers, manufacturers, nonprofits, researchers, government officials, and the public.
Read the submissions to the discussion paper on Have Your Say.
Feedback themes
Support was provided for the principles outlined in the discussion paper. Additionally, there was a call for governance, transparency and accountability and equity and inclusion. Many submissions also indicated a preference for the strategy to work towards a long-term horizon, with short- to medium-term actions.
Below is a summary of the key themes.
Submissions highlighted that farmers and fishers are central to food production. However, they noted that ongoing pressures that affect long-term viability are also faced. Respondents pointed to workforce shortages and skills gaps. Key issues mentioned included the need for:
- better pathways into farming and fishing
- wellbeing support
- migration options
- access to training.
Producers were described as facing overlapping pressures beyond their control, including:
- rising costs
- land and resource constraints
- trade volatility
- regulation
- climate impacts.
Respondents also noted two timeframes for food security: Australia is food secure now but exposed to future risks, while localised food insecurity is already being felt. Topics outlined as important included:
- more consisted and efficient regulation
- investment in local and regional food systems to support producers
- regional economies
- supply chain resilience.
Submissions said Australia’s food abundance masks uneven access. They argued equity should be central to food security. Respondents highlighted the need for fair access to nutritious, affordable and culturally appropriate food. This was particularly important for remote and low-income communities. Links were noted between this and broader issues such as income, housing and transport. Some called for recognition of food as a human right to strengthen accountability.
Support was expressed for First Nations food sovereignty. There is a desired focus on community-led approaches that return benefits locally.
Respondents also highlighted dignity in food access. It was argued that food relief should not replace long-term system change. Geography was also seen as a key barrier, as distance and higher costs affect price and choice. Some respondents noted that strong international rankings can hide gaps in national coordination.
Submissions noted that market concentration can affect how fairly the food system works. Respondents described pressure on producers through factors such as:
- uneven terms of trade
- limited transparency
- less bargaining power.
Some also pointed to fewer processing options. This included regional abattoir closures, which can reduce opportunities for smaller producers.
Fair and competitive markets were seen as important for keeping food affordable and accessible. This was especially notable in rural and remote areas, with affordability often described as the ‘front door’ of food security. Ongoing pressure on margins was also seen as limiting reinvestment and the system’s ability to adapt.
Submissions reflected that climate risk and environmental sustainability should be central to future food security.
Long-term food production and the need to protect natural capital were linked to:
- climate change
- biodiversity
- soil health
- water security
- pollution
- land-use change.
Responses included calls to better connect water management to ecosystems, food production, and regional livelihoods. Support was expressed for climate-resilient and regenerative farming that improves soil and biodiversity. However, it was noted that one-size-fits-all approaches were not suitable.
Respondents also outlined pressure from competing land uses. They described the need for stronger planning. It was emphasised that reducing food waste and improving circularity requires system-level change rather than ongoing reliance on food relief.
Submissions reflected that health and nutrition should sit at the centre of food security. Respondents linked poor diets to rising non-communicable disease. This included concerns about ultra-processed foods. Improving food literacy and education was viewed as important for building skills and confidence in making informed choices. Food environments were seen as shaping everyday choices. Retail settings and marketing were discussed as influencing what people eat. Respondents noted that food security should include nutrition security, not just access to calories. They supported strong food safety, labelling and science-based regulation.
Food insecurity was also described as a health issue. Responses from public health organisations highlighted its links to poverty, insecure housing, disability, unemployment, and social isolation.
Submissions said food security can be seen as part of national security and regional stability. They outlined this is true both domestically and for trading partners.
Respondents noted that digitisation and AI bring benefits but also raise risks of disruption to food production and distribution. Reliance on imported inputs and packaging was seen as a vulnerability during global shocks.
Strengthening sovereign capability was viewed as important. This includes more reliable:
- logistics
- cold chains,
- back-up systems.
This is in addition to greater local processing to reduce import dependence. More diverse supply chains and trading relationships were also seen as ways to reduce risks linked to highly consolidated and just-in-time systems.
Respondents said technology and new business models offer clear opportunities for the food system. Submissions noted that data and AI could change how food is produced, distributed and who captures value. However, innovation was more often framed as improving the current system rather than transforming it. Some respondents pointed to a gap between pilots and commercial scale. Additionally, views on regulation were mixed, balancing enablement with risk and trust.
Place-based and community-led models were also seen as innovative. In these models, local supply chains and regional manufacturing support resilience and complement large-scale production.