Tackling Indigenous Australia's Food Insecurity

Malachai Clements World Food Forum Fellow 2024

Executive Summary

Remote Indigenous Australians face some of the highest food costs in the developed world, driving preventable disease, avoidable deaths, and widening health inequality. In some communities, fresh, nutritious food costs up to three times more than in metropolitan areas, while supply chains remain fragile and vulnerable to high transportation costs and extreme weather disruptions. As a result, Indigenous Australians in remote regions experience disproportionately high rates of diet-related health conditions, including obesity, diabetes, and cardiovascular disease. Without structural reform, Australia will continue spending billions treating preventable diet-related disease rather than addressing its root cause. The long-term cost of inaction is substantial. Remote dialysis (caused by diabetes & nutrition related diseases) alone can exceed $120,000 per patient annually, meaning even modest reductions in diabetes prevalence would generate measurable fiscal savings (AIHW, 2023). 

This policy proposal recommends the establishment of community orchards in remote Indigenous communities, funded and supported through the Food Security Act 2026. These orchards would provide a sustainable and culturally appropriate solution by integrating traditional knowledge with modern horticulture, fostering economic empowerment, and increasing local food production. The proposal outlines an estimated setup cost of $6 million, leveraging existing government funding and partnerships with private stakeholders.

Key benefits include: 

• Improved food security through locally grown fresh produce.

• Better health outcomes, reducing the prevalence of diet-related disease.

• Economic empowerment by creating jobs and skills training in agriculture.

• Long-term sustainability, reducing reliance on costly external food supplies.

While challenges such as land access, long-term funding and environmental risks exist, they are not insurmountable. By securing government commitment through the Food Security Act 2025, this initiative will contribute to closing the nutrition and health gap for Indigenous Australians while fostering self-sufficiency and economic resilience

Problem Identification

Food insecurity in Australia disproportionately impacts Indigenous people. Only 3.2% of Indigenous children currently meet the daily recommended intake of vegetables, and 60% of all deaths among Indigenous Australians are classified as avoidable, with strong links to nutrition (Choice, 2024; NIAA, 2024). This is of particular concern in  remote Indigenous communities, where access to affordable and nutritious food is severely limited. Communities often face exorbitant prices for fresh produce, with costs substantially higher than in urban areas (Choice, 2024). This lack of access to fresh food is exacerbated by transportation disruptions, often caused by severe weather events, leaving communities without fresh produce (University of Queensland, 2020). As a result, these communities struggle with high rates of food insecurity and associated health problems such as obesity, diabetes, and cardiovascular disease. Furthermore, remote communities pay three times more for groceries than cities. 

This issue directly impacts Australia's overall social and economic well-being. The high rates of food insecurity in remote Indigenous communities contribute to widening health disparities and exacerbate social inequalities. Without action, the cost of healthcare related to poor nutrition will increase, while the lack of access to nutritious food will hinder the potential for economic development in these communities. Addressing food insecurity would not only reduce healthcare costs and improve lives but also encourages greater economic empowerment and long-term sustainability in remote Indigenous communities. 

Context

Background

Australia has approximately 500 different Indigenous communities, with 15.4% of Australia’s Indigenous populations living in remote/very remote communities (ABS, 2023). Access to nutritious, fresh fruit and vegetables in these remote communities is severely limited. Residents in these areas pay significantly higher prices for fresh produce compared to more urban areas (University of Queensland, 2020). During seasonal weather events, access to fresh food can be disrupted, leaving communities for weeks without food (NIAA, 2024). This issue has deep historical roots in infrastructure inequalities and continues to exacerbate health disparities in these communities. 

Evidence of the Problem

The cost of food in remote areas is high: for instance, a sweet potato in Napranum, Cape York, costs $13.99 compared to just $4.00 in Brisbane’s Aldi store (Australian Parliament House, 2024). The median income in very remote Indigenous communities is 30% lower than in urban areas (ABS, 2024). Food insecurity affects 22% of Indigenous Australians, with rates rising to about 30% in remote communities, compared to only 3.7% for non-Indigenous Australians (NIAA, 2024). The issue is widely recognised and has been highlighted by politicians, advocacy organisations, and media outlets. Health workers and community leaders have called for action, emphasising the adverse impact on nutrition and health (NIAA, 2022).

Food prices in remote areas can be as much as 60% higher than in regional centres and “contribute to the health gap, with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people disproportionately affected” (UQ, 2020).​ Reinforcing this, John Kop, CEO of Outback Stores, testified to the impact of collective efforts in improving food supply logistics, remarking how initiatives like weekly coordinated freight deliveries in the East Kimberley lead to a 70% increase in fruit sales, demonstrating the tangible benefits of coordinated efforts to improve supply chains in remote communities (HRSCATIA, 2009).  

In 2022-23, average health expenditure for First Nations people was approximately $12,146 per person, compared to $8,901 for non-Indigenous Australians, representing around 36% higher spending per capita (AIHW, 2024). Public hospital expenditure alone is roughly twice as high per person for First Nations populations, reflecting the elevated burden of preventable and chronic disease (AIHW, 2024). The fiscal pressure is further intensified in remote regions, where health expenditure for First Nations people is estimated to be 1.5 times higher than in major cities, underscoring the cost of service delivery when structural determinants of health remain unaddressed (AIHW, 2024). Evidence increasingly demonstrates that preventative investment delivers measurable fiscal returns. Analysis of remote primary care utilisation found that every $1 invested can generate savings of between $3.95 and $11.75 in hospital costs, in addition to improving patient outcomes (NACCHO, 2021). Without structural action, healthcare expenditure associated with diet-related disease is likely to continue rising (AIHW, 2023). Strengthening local food resilience therefore represents not only a public health priority but a fiscally responsible strategy capable of moderating long-term government spending while supporting economic participation and community stability.

Current Policy Landscape

Although food insecurity in remote Indigenous communities is widely acknowledged, existing policy responses remain predominantly short-term and supply-driven. These measures alleviate immediate pressure but fail to address the structural vulnerabilities that make remote food systems inherently unstable. Numerous policies aim to address food security and nutrition for Indigenous communities, such as the National Indigenous Australians Agency (NIAA) Act 2019 and the Closing the Gap Framework. The Agricultural Competitiveness White Paper (2015) and the Indigenous Protected Areas (IPAs) Program also touch on agricultural and environmental considerations.

Collectively, these approaches manage the symptoms of food insecurity rather than confronting its structural causes.

Legislative Setting

While the NIAA Act and the Closing the Gap Framework set out broader goals to reduce disadvantages across health, education, employment, and housing, their approach to food security is indirect. For example, the Closing the Gap Framework includes targets to improve nutrition and health outcomes for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples, and it has led to some improvements in early childhood development and community-led health services. However, it lacks specific, actionable provisions for localised food production and long-term supply chain resilience in remote areas (NIAA, 2024). These gaps hinder the development of sustainable, community-led food systems.

One promising response is the National Strategy for Food Security in Remote First Nations Communities, developed in consultation with over 400 stakeholders - including remote leaders, health organisations, and government representatives. It acknowledges persistent issues like inflated food prices and unreliable supply chains, and the Australian Government has committed $11.8 million to begin addressing these barriers (Office of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, 2024).

While community gardens are identified in the National Strategy for Food Security in Remote First Nations Communities as eligible projects, the challenge lies in implementation. Many communities lack the long-term support, infrastructure, and funding continuity needed to move beyond pilot phases. In some cases, gardens have been trialled and later abandoned due to maintenance challenges, limited horticultural expertise, or poor integration with local food systems. Without robust mechanisms for training, sustained investment, and local leadership, these well-intentioned initiatives often fail to translate into lasting food security outcomes.

International Case Studies

Similar issues have been addressed in other countries with some success. In Canada, community-led agricultural initiatives have improved food security in remote Indigenous communities. Programs supporting local food production and culturally appropriate distribution have led to measurable improvements in nutritional outcomes and community wellbeing (IHPN, 2022). In Arkansas, USA, a garden developed for the Marshallese community yielded notable health benefits - regular participants showed measurable reductions in haemoglobin A1C levels, indicating improved diabetes management (Weltin, A. 2012). They were also significantly more likely to meet daily fruit and vegetable intake targets compared to non-participants.

While not strictly remote, urban regions of California have also tackled fresh produce access through community gardens, often in low-income, food desert areas. Policies such as Urban Agriculture Incentive Zones have enabled the use of vacant lots for growing food, improving local access to nutritious produce and enhancing community cohesion (BFI, 2017). Although these models differ geographically, the underlying principle - empowering local communities to grow and manage their own food - offers valuable insights for remote Australia.

Policy Options

The measure of success for addressing food insecurity in remote Indigenous communities should be improved access to fresh, nutritious food through sustainable, culturally appropriate practices. This should be assessed through increased availability of affordable fresh produce and improved health outcomes.  

There are multiple ways this can be achieved:

Option 1: Implement Community Orchards

Establishing community orchards to grow fresh fruits and vegetables locally will provide a sustainable, low-cost source of fresh produce, be a community building activity and support traditional knowledge and land management practices, integrating cultural practices. The disadvantages are the initial setup costs for land, irrigation and infrastructure (which can be high), environmental challenges (e.g., poor soil quality, water scarcity) and the need for long-term community maintenance, which may be difficult in some areas​. The estimated cost would be about $6 million (in initial set up costs), and this option would be implemented by the Australian Government (Department of Health). Local governments would then be responsible for maintaining the orchards long term (mowing grounds, pruning trees, cleaning up before wet season etc.) & require the local council workers for this. Cost working: $6 million / ~1200 Indigenous communities = $5000 per community 

Option 2: Improve Local Infrastructure

Upgrading transportation systems and infrastructure to support reliable food supply chains is a viable option. This reduces reliance on expensive, inconsistent resupply flights/barges/trucks and long supply chains. It can improve overall community logistics and access to essential services beyond food, which benefits the whole community. In order to achieve this, a high upfront investment in infrastructure development would be needed. There would also need to be considerable time allocated to implement this and there is the potential for mismanagement or inefficiency. This project would cost approximately $3-$7 billion total, and implementation would be the responsibility of the federal Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development, Communications, Sport and the Arts (DITRDCA). Infrastructure development of this scale requires long planning horizons, complex procurement processes, and sustained political commitment. Major projects also carry risk of cost overruns and implementation delays, particularly in geographically challenging environments. While improved transport networks would strengthen supply reliability, this approach does not fully resolve structural dependence on externally supplied food systems. Cost working: cost based on other large scale infrastructure projects. 

Option 3: Incentive Program

Another possible short term relief option is to offer incentives for purchasing and consuming healthy food, such as discounts or vouchers. This encourages positive dietary changes, directly targeting food choices and health, can be easily implemented through existing welfare programs and has immediate, measurable impact on food access. This does not address the root causes of food insecurity, such as transportation or infrastructural issues. The incentives may not be sustainable without long-term funding or strong political support. Some communities could perceive this as coercive. Finally, in some communities, where very limited fruit/vegetables options are available, the incentives wouldn’t be practical. The estimated cost would be approximately $100 million per annum and fall under federal jurisdiction. Cost working: $100 million / ~1200 Indigenous communities = ~$83,000 per community to fund food discounts

Policy Recommendation

The NIAA along with the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries & Forestry (DAFF), Department of Health, Disability & Aging (DHAC), and DITRDCA should establish community orchard programs funded by the Australian Government to address the critical issue of food insecurity in remote Indigenous communities. The policy would focus on the development and maintenance of local orchards managed by local councils, offering long-term sustainable solutions for food security. The orchards will be tailored to individual communities, growing local foods alongside traditional fruticulture crops. 

This policy would be implemented through existing Closing the Gap governance and partnership structures, building on established agreements between governments, local councils, Aboriginal Community Controlled Organisations (ACCOs), and Indigenous communities. Legislative change, in the form of the Food Security Act 2026, would also be needed. This Act would aim to address the current gap of expensive and unreliable food chains, making fresh, nutritious food more accessible and affordable to these communities. 

While the National Strategy for Food Security In Remote First Nations Communities addresses many fundamental aspects of food security, there are several reasons why a dedicated Food Security Act 2026 (the Act) would be a more effective approach. Firstly, the Act would focus specifically on the development and maintenance of community orchards, offering localised, sustainable food solutions not covered by the broader national strategy. The Act would also prioritise the cultivation of both traditional and native crops, reflecting Indigenous communities cultural connections to food, an area that is not currently emphasized by the national strategy. Finally, the Act would secure long-term targeted funding and structural support for orchard projects, ensuring their sustainability beyond general food security initiatives.  

To maximise effectiveness while ensuring responsible use of public funds, the initiative should be delivered through a staged national rollout beginning with communities experiencing the highest levels of food insecurity and supply vulnerability. Early implementation in high-need regions would allow the government to refine delivery models, establish best-practice horticultural frameworks, and build local workforce capability before expanding progressively across remote Australia. This phased approach supports both fiscal prudence and long-term scalability.

Benefits of the Recommendation

This policy presents numerous benefits for both the community and the broader health landscape. The primary advantage is the improvement in food security. Community orchards would materially increase the availability of affordable, fresh produce, directly addressing the high costs and inconsistent supply of food in remote Indigenous communities. Improved access to nutritious food would help reduce health disparities linked to poor diets. Additionally, the initiative would provide opportunities for economic empowerment, as it would offer employment and skills training for locals. The recommendation is sustainable as localised food production is more resilient to disruptions like weather events or transportation issues, ensuring a consistent food supply.

However, securing suitable land in remote communities could present logistical and legal challenges. This policy would require changes to existing legislation to streamline land allocation for food security purposes. The management of the orchards, including training council workers and ensuring proper agricultural practices, will require careful planning and continuous support to avoid potential health hazards, such as mould or pests. Additionally, ongoing maintenance could pose a financial strain on local governments. 

Economic and Fiscal Impact

The economic consequences of food insecurity in remote Indigenous communities extend beyond grocery costs, contributing to rising healthcare expenditure across state and federal systems. Investing in local food capability offers a pathway to moderate these costs by addressing a key upstream determinant of chronic disease (AIHW, 2023). Community-led food production should therefore be understood not only as social policy, but as a long-term fiscal strategy capable of reducing high-cost treatment expenditure while strengthening national health outcomes.

Markers of Success

The success of the community orchard programs would be measured by several key markers. Improved health and nutrition would be the key outcomes, measured by indicators such as reductions in diet-related health issues like diabetes, obesity, and cardiovascular disease. The program would also aim for increased local food production, with orchards successfully producing a variety of fruits and vegetables, reducing reliance on external food sources. Another critical success marker would be the reduction of food insecurity, reflected in a measurable decline in the percentage of food insecure households in remote Indigenous communities. Finally, an increase in community participation, as evidenced by local involvement in picking their own fruit and assisting the local council with maintenance, would be a key marker of long-term program success.

Feasibility and Costings

Looking at previous funding examples, the CERES Community Orchard project had a setup cost between $10,000 and $20,000 while the Westgate Community Orchard project cost around $8,000 for implementation. Based on these figures, the estimated cost of each community orchard project would range from $5,000 to $10,000 for initial setup, covering land preparation, planting, and basic infrastructure. The total estimated cost to launch this project would be $6 million. Ongoing maintenance costs, such as watering, pest control, training and labour would add to the annual budget, with most of the labour being undertaken by local councils. However, these costs would likely be lower than the ongoing purchase of food from external sources and fall under the local government’s budget.

In terms of existing funding, the Australian Government has allocated approximately $2.6 billion in the 2023-2024 budget for the NIAA, which focuses on Indigenous health and economic development. However, food insecurity is not yet a specific focus within this budget. 

The departments involved in implementing this policy would include the NIAA for oversight in collaboration with local governments and communities, the DAFF for technical agricultural expertise and funding distribution, and the Department of Health and Aged Care for integrating this initiative into broader Indigenous health programs. Funding for the program could come from the existing NIAA budget, potentially reallocated or supplemented with targeted funding through the proposed Food Security Act 2024. Private sector partnerships could also contribute to covering maintenance costs and infrastructure, particularly for larger orchard projects.

Barriers and Risks

Securing suitable land in remote Indigenous communities presents one of the key barriers to implementing community orchard programs. Land rights in these areas are often governed by Indigenous land claims and negotiations with Traditional Owners can be a lengthy and resource-intensive process. In addition to land allocation, initial funding is a hurdle. While the setup costs for orchards are relatively low, securing consistent government funding is challenging, especially in a space where numerous Indigenous health and economic initiatives compete for resources.

There are also substantial risks associated with health and safety. Improper management of the orchards could lead to health hazards such as mould, pests or contamination which would undermine the goal of improving health outcomes in these communities. Sustainability is another concern. If the program does not secure ongoing government support the orchards could become unsustainable, with funding and interest potentially decreasing over time. Similarly, financial viability poses a risk. If the cost of maintenance outweighs the financial benefits, the program could be discarded. The community orchards must also align with local food practices and values to gain acceptance. Resistance could arise if the program is seen as externally imposed or incompatible with traditional practices. 

Environmental risks such as droughts, floods and other severe weather events, could disrupt orchard operations, particularly in remote areas with limited infrastructure. These environmental risks would substantially disrupt existing food transportation systems also. The ability of orchards to withstand these challenges will need to be considered in the program’s design to ensure resilience.

References

Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) 2024, Estimates of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians, ABS, Canberra. Available at: https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/people/aboriginal-and-torres-strait-islander-peoples/estimates-aboriginal-and-torres-strait-islander-australians/latest-release

Australian Indigenous HealthInfoNet 2024a, Cardiovascular disease among Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, Australian Indigenous HealthInfoNet. Available at: https://www.indigenoushpf.gov.au/measures/1-05-cardiovascular-disease

Australian Indigenous HealthInfoNet 2024b, Dietary behaviour among Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, Australian Indigenous HealthInfoNet. Available at: https://www.indigenoushpf.gov.au/measures/2-19-dietary-behaviour

Australian Indigenous HealthInfoNet 2024c, Avoidable and preventable deaths among Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, Australian Indigenous HealthInfoNet. Available at: https://www.indigenoushpf.gov.au/measures/1-24-avoidable-and-preventable-deaths

Australian Indigenous HealthInfoNet 2024d, Leading causes of mortality among Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, Australian Indigenous HealthInfoNet. Available at: https://www.indigenoushpf.gov.au/measures/1-23-leading-causes-of-mortality

Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (AIHW) 2023a, Potentially preventable hospitalisations in Australia by Indigenous status, AIHW, Canberra.

Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (AIHW) 2023b, Australian Burden of Disease Study: Impact and causes of illness and death in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, AIHW, Canberra.

Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (AIHW) 2023c, Chronic kidney disease in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, AIHW, Canberra.

Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (AIHW) 2024, Expenditure on health for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people 2022–23, AIHW, Canberra.

Australian Parliament House 2024a, Food pricing and its impact on remote Indigenous communities, Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra. Available at: https://www.aph.gov.au/-/media/02_Parliamentary_Business/24_Committees/243_Reps_Committees/Indigenous/Food_pricing/Report.pdf

Australian Parliament House 2024b, Access and supply of food in remote Indigenous communities, Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra. Available at: https://www.aph.gov.au/binaries/house/committee/atsia/communitystores/report/chapter%204%20access%20and%20supply.pdf

Berkeley Food Institute 2017, Urban Farms: Bringing Innovations in Agriculture and Food Security to the City, Berkeley Food Institute, Berkeley. Available at: https://food.berkeley.edu/policy-brief/urban-farms-bringing-innovations-in-agriculture-and-food-security-to-the-city/ 

Choice 2024, Groceries cost more than twice as much in some remote First Nations communities. Available at: https://www.choice.com.au/about-us/media/media-releases/2024/october/groceries-cost-more-than-twice-as-much-in-some-remote-first-nations-communities

House of Representatives Standing Committee on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs (HRSCATIA) 2009, Everybody's Business: Remote Aboriginal and Torres Strait Community Stores, Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra. Available at: https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Committees_Exposed/atsia/communitystores/report. 

Indigenous Health Professions Network 2022, Community gardens: An effective approach to food equity. Available at: https://ihpl.llu.edu/blog/community-gardens-effective-approach-food-equity

National Aboriginal Community Controlled Health Organisation (NACCHO) 2021, The economic value of Aboriginal community controlled health services, NACCHO, Canberra.

National Indigenous Australians Agency (NIAA) 2024, National Strategy for Food Security in Remote First Nations Communities, Australian Government, Canberra. Available at: https://www.niaa.gov.au/our-work/health-and-wellbeing/national-strategy-food-security-remote-first-nations-communities

Office of the Prime Minister and Cabinet 2024, Improving food security in remote First Nations communities, Australian Government, Canberra. Available at: https://ministers.pmc.gov.au/mccarthy/2024/improving-food-security-remote-first-nations-communities

Royal Flying Doctor Service (RFDS) 2022, Annual report 2021–22, RFDS, Canberra.

University of Queensland 2020, Solutions to food affordability and availability in remote communities, University of Queensland, Brisbane. Available at: https://stories.uq.edu.au/medicine/2020/solutions-to-food-affordability-and-availability-in-remote-communities/index.html

Weltin, AM & Lavin, RP 2012, The Effect of a Community Garden on HgA1c in Diabetics of Marshallese Descent, Journal of Community Health Nursing, vol. 29, no. 1, pp. 12–24. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/07370016.2012.645724

The views and opinions expressed by Global Voices Fellows do not necessarily reflect those of the organisation or its staff.