2. A national food security strategy
   1. This chapter explores the need for a National Food Plan in Australia. It discusses the institutional framework to support it, the ground it should cover, and identifies some Australian and international strategies that have embodied or contributed to national food planning.

Introduction

2.2Australia is regarded as one of the most food secure nations in the world. Despite this, Australia is ranked 22nd on the Global Food Security Index 2022. The main reason for this ranking is the absence of a coherent national policy addressing food security.[1] The lack of a coherent policy and the need for a national food plan was highlighted in evidence presented to the Committee.

2.3The Australian Institute of Food Science and Technology emphasised the size and complexity of Australia’s food and grocery policy and regulatory system—'involving 10 Governments and at least 20 Departments developing policy and regulations as well as numerous agencies responsible for enforcement’—with regulation touching a broad range of areas from paddock to plate. It noted that the ‘development of food policy and regulation is hampered by different jurisdictions having different expectations and institutional arrangements’, and that ‘each of these agencies imposes regulatory requirements on the food system that place a burden on the ability of business to achieve and maintain sustainable growth’.[2]

2.4The National Food Supply Chain Alliance identified existing and emerging threats to Australia’s food supply chain.[3] These include extreme weather events, rising costs, freight and supply disruptions, labour shortages, market concentration and biosecurity; and the deficiencies, risks and vulnerabilities within the supply chain exposed by COVID-19. It highlighted the lack of coordination within government, with no single agency responsible for the whole supply chain and no clear leadership from any one agency.[4]

2.5The Alliance believes that to prepare and plan for disruptions, ‘government and industry must work together to fully understand the complexities of our food system and how specific events might impact the various links in the food supply chain’. The Alliance recommended that ‘Australia urgently establish a National Food Security Plan to reduce the impact of disruptors on the nation’s food industry as well as trying to help reduce the impact on the Australian consumer’. The Alliance further noted that ‘despite countless reports and research in recent decades, Australia has so far failed to produce a nationally co-ordinated, cross-portfolio assessment of risks to Australia’s food supply chain along with measures to mitigate those risks’.[5]

2.6There was widespread support for a national food security plan or strategy. Cancer Council Australia recommended the development of a comprehensive Food Systems and Food Security Plan.[6] The Victorian Farmers Federation emphasised the need for a risk assessment ‘across agriculture and the supply chain’, and the development of ‘a nationally coordinated food security plan, which would be undertaken with a whole of government approach’.[7] Seafood Industry Australia called for a cohesive National Food Security Strategy aligned with other government policies and objectives, stating that the strategy ‘must work to underpin the efforts of federal, state and local governments as well as public, private and civil society sectors in addressing national food security challenges’.[8] The Australian Retailers Association also encouraged collaboration between government, agencies and industry to develop a national food security roadmap.[9]

What should a national food security strategy do?

2.7While there is broad agreement that a national food security strategy is required, the proposals suggested by various stakeholders, perhaps inevitably, emphasise different aspects of food security.

2.8The National Food Supply Chain Alliance envisaged the development of a National Food Security Plan ‘be undertaken between the Australian Government and the Food Industry with input from state and territory governments and relevant NGOs’. It would be a whole of government initiative, working across all relevant portfolios. In addition, an Industry Advisory Group would be created, based on the Food and Grocery Sector Forum (an information sharing network under the Department of Home Affairs). The Industry Advisory Group would identify all relevant industry stakeholders to help mitigate current and emerging risks to Australia’s food system. It would also play a major role in the design and implementation of the Plan.[10]

2.9This proposal was endorsed by the National Farmers’ Federation (NFF). It proposed that the National Food Security Plan be informed by an Australian Agriculture Supply Chain Resilience Framework. This would be an industry-led, holistic, agricultural supply chain resilience project ‘to identify and provide solutions to the myriad of risks and vulnerabilities that may prohibit Australia’s long-term food supply and contribution to global food security’.[11] The framework would ‘incorporate and consolidate the substantial work already done in this space and include analysis of risks across relevant input and post-farmgate supply chains’. The framework would respond to changes in supply chain risks as proposed solutions are implemented and new challenges arise.[12]

2.10AUSVEG also endorsed the concept of a National Food Security Plan,[13] as did Seafood Industry Australia.[14] The Australian Dairy Products Federation (ADPF) recommended a National Food Security Resilience Plan, which would encompass all agri-food businesses along the supply chain—farmers and processors, distributors, retailers and consumers—to ‘identify and manage the cross-section of issues contributing to securing Australia’s food supply today and into the future’.[15] The Australian Retailers Association sought to ‘encourage collaboration between government, agencies and industry to develop a national food security roadmap, potentially through the Food and Grocery Sector Group under the auspices of the Home Affairs Trusted Information Sharing Network’.[16]

2.11Other stakeholders took a broader approach to a food security policy and plan, seeking engagement from stakeholders other than government and industry, and drawing on perspectives from across the entire food system.

2.12The Menzies Centre for Health Governance at the Australian National University (now known as the Australian Research Centre for Health Equity) argued for a systems-based human rights approach to food security. It proposed:

…a comprehensive, human rights-based Food System and Food Security Policy/Strategy, in collaboration with key stakeholders (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities, culturally and linguistically diverse groups, civil society, health, environment, research, small-scale food producers, social and community services) and drawing on international examples that is underpinned by the right to food.[17]

2.13In addition, the government would develop an action plan to implement the strategy, with clear objectives and measurable targets, identifying the responsibilities of the different levels of government. An ongoing dedicated Food Fund would ‘support activities across diverse sectors conducted by all levels of government, non-government organisations and civil society’. First Food Security (the food security of infants and young children) would be an integral part of the food system and strategy, while First Nations Peoples would be leaders in policy- and decision-making in relation to land and ecosystem management for food security.[18]

2.14The Australia’s Right to Food Coalition took a similar stance. It proposed the development of a comprehensive Australian Food Security and Food Systems Plan, serviced and monitored by a Food Policy Council. It stated that the plan ‘would need to be uniquely collaborative and take a cross-government approach’, including ‘not only Agriculture, but also Planning, Health, Water, Environment, Family and Social Services, with representatives from relevant NGOs and people with lived experience of food insecurity’. In addition, ‘this approach would need to be mirrored at State and Local Government levels and with clearly outlined responsibilities’. The national body would:

• Take responsibility for comprehensive monitoring of food security, to build a nuanced understanding of the prevalence, drivers, and risks.
• Use this information to develop contingency planning to better prepare for future shocks including pandemics, impacts of climate change (drought, severe weather events), and fuel or supply shortages.
• Incorporate the expertise and lived experiences of food insecurity, including First Nations and other community representatives. Ensure that targets are set, and that funding and resources are made available so that governments at all levels can be held accountable.
• Make funding available for programs to be conducted at a local level to develop local food hubs and shorten supply chains; and
• Work with local councils to strengthen laws to allow better control of healthy food environments.[19]
  15. In addition, the Australian Government would:
• Legislate for the Right to Food in Australia.
• Institute regular data collection on Food Security using the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Household Food Security Survey Module.
• Consider nominating a position of Minister for Food.
• Explicitly include health outcomes in planning documents and agricultural policy.
• Maintain the GST exemption for fresh fruit and vegetables.[20]
  16. Sustain, a national body and registered health promotion charity focused on designing and building sustainable food systems, called for government collaboration with key stakeholders—including ‘Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities, culturally and linguistically diverse groups, civil society, health, environment, research, non-industrial food producers, social and community services’—to develop a comprehensive Food Systems and Food Security Plan. A Food Systems and Food Security Council, representing all government departments and the stakeholders listed above, would have responsibility for implementing and reporting on the Plan, which would have clear objectives and measurable targets, indicating the responsibilities of the different levels of government. Sustain advocated for a dedicated Food Security and Food Systems Fund ‘to support activities across diverse sectors conducted by all levels of government, non-government organisations and civil society’. It also proposed using the USDA 18-item Household Food Security Survey Module to obtain regular and consistent data on food insecurity in Australia.[21]
  17. Several stakeholders outlined processes through which a strategy could be formulated. The University of Melbourne proposed a National Food Security Plan, underpinned ‘by the right to food, a human right included in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and recognised in the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, ratified by Australia’. It proposed the development of a plan guided by an independent Food Advisory Board, established under proposed Food Security legislation. Membership of the Food Advisory Board would ‘include individuals with diverse experiences, knowledge and backgrounds in the food and agriculture system’, including Traditional Owners, members from civil society organisations and academics. The Food Advisory Board would support the development of the National Food Security Plan by:
• Providing expert advice, and reviewing data and evidence on the root causes, challenges and solutions to food insecurity and food-related issues in Australia.
• Engaging and consulting with government, industry, academic and civil society stakeholders to inform the development of the Plan.
• Identifying outcomes and indicators for achieving food security, aligned with United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).
• Proposing funding mechanisms to support implementation of the Plan.
  18. Under the Melbourne University proposal, the aims of the plan would be to ‘establish long term goals and objectives for achieving food security for all in Australia’. It would:
• Identify integrated strategies and actions across Commonwealth, state and territory government portfolios to achieve food security and related outcomes. Portfolios include, but are not limited to health, environment, agriculture, water, climate change, economic development, finance, education and skills, social services, infrastructure, energy, rural development, and emergency management.
• Have regard to climate impacts on the food system, and other shocks and stresses that affect food systems, such as pandemics and global conflicts.
• Establish an evaluation, monitoring and reporting framework with specific and measurable targets for the outcomes of the National Food Security Plan.
• Identify governance arrangements for implementation of the National Food Security Plan.[22]
  19. A similar proposal was put forward by the Australian Institute of Food Science and Technology. It recommended that the Australian Government work with food system stakeholders to establish an industry-led, food system strategic advisory body, chaired at the Ministerial level, to develop a National Food Plan that:
• prioritises and guides activities supporting Australia’s food system;
• identifies and drive programs so that Australia’s food system is supported as a cohesive, nationally important whole; and
• guides government on all aspects of policy that impacts Australia’s food system.[23]
  20. A similar approach was outlined by Ms Caitlin McConnel, a lawyer and farmer from Queensland, who proposed the establishment of an independent review into the Australian food system, for the purposes of:
• giving findings on Australia's food system, based on a review of existing national or international strategies, governance models, policies, reports, recommendations, or roadmaps;
• preparing a draft National Food Security Strategy; and
• recommending whether a statutory office should be established to provide impartial advice to government on threats to Australia's food security.
  21. The proposed National Food Security Strategy would:
• use the UN Sustainable Development Goals as a guide;
• have regard to the fundamental role food, water, and natural resources play in satisfying fundamental human needs;
• strengthen and safeguard Australia’s domestic food security, and global export capabilities;
• inform the development of long-term economic strategies, plans, and polices across all Commonwealth ministerial portfolios; and
• mitigate the effect of climate change through interaction with efforts made by complementary sectors’ efforts to avoid/minimise the impacts to human rights and national security.[24]
  22. The independent reviewer would be external to government with experience across the law, agriculture and complementary sectors, and experience in corporate governance, international relations, and people management.[25] In addition, the independent reviewer would be assisted by an Independent Advisory Board to ensure that multiple sectors of government (local, State and Territory, and Commonwealth) interact with scientific, traditional, Indigenous, and business disciplines; and that:

the proposed National Security Strategy is based on the interaction between food, water, and natural resources with complementary sectors such as healthcare, energy and natural resources, Indigenous affairs and land use, climate change and natural disaster mitigation, competition and trade, education, finance, transport, planning and development.[26]

2.23Ms McConnel ultimately saw the National Food Security Strategy being overseen by an independent statutory authority, ‘much like ASIO, where a Director-General would provide impartial advice to government, through a Minister for Food’. An Independent Advisory Board, ‘in similar or varied form to that established for the purposes of the independent review’, would assist the statutory authority.[27]

Minister for Food

2.24Part of the food policy framework presented to the Committee was the need to appoint a Minister for Food. The University of Melbourne suggested that appointing a Minister for Food would ‘improve government accountability and responsibility for ensuring the food security of Australians’.[28] Dr Rachel Carey highlighted the gap in accountability for ensuring that people have sufficient access to food in Australia:

We have agriculture policy that looks at food production and we have health policy, which I would argue focuses primarily on food safety and increases in people's consumption of healthy foods, particularly fruit and vegetables, for instance; but there’s this gap in terms of ensuring that people actually have access to sufficient food. Of course, that is becoming a very significant gap at the moment in the context of increasing food insecurity.[29]

2.25Dr Carey believed that ‘a minister for food particularly needs to focus on access to food’.[30]

2.26While not advocating any particular machinery of government changes, the CSIRO highlighted the current dispersion of food policy across portfolios and the need for greater coordination across government in dealing with issues around food.[31] Likewise, the Australian Institute of Food Science and Technology highlighted the difficulties in dealing with multiple departments across multiple levels of government:

From a food perspective, we're dealing with at times up to 10 different governments, 20 different departments and 20 different parts of various policymakers and so on. Each of those is setting their own agendas. It would be really good to have something that went across the whole board. This is the idea of potentially having a minister for food who would help to coordinate what is happening within the food industry.[32]

2.27Ms Emma Germano, President of the Victorian Farmers Federation, expressed the hope that a Minister for Food would take some of the politics out of policy while creating advocacy across the food system network. Ms Germano told the Committee:

The most frustrating thing from an advocacy perspective is when you are going to one minister who is going to understand what you are talking about, but they've got to go and have a fight with a minister from within their own party. That then leads to all sorts of issues with regard to which faction they belong to, what the relationship between the ministers is, the particular thing we're talking about at a particular point in time and whether or not it suits the political narrative. I think that, yes, it would be very valuable to have a ministry that is dedicated to food security and supply chains and that can think about it from that holistic point of view rather than this agricultural lens.[33]

2.28The University of Melbourne observed that the ministerial portfolio for food was best located in the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, ‘as the portfolio will require policy coordination across many other departments whose decisions and actions affect food systems and food security’. It indicated that the key considerations in the implementation of a food portfolio are that:

• The portfolio should facilitate a whole of government ‘food systems’ approach to the governance of food security in Australia; that is, effective co-ordination across the many departments which take decisions that influence food security and other food system outcomes in Australia.
• The focus of the portfolio should extend beyond food production to consider all six dimensions of food security – availability, access, sustainability, stability, agency and utilisation.
• The portfolio should focus on the whole food supply chain from production to consumption and utilisation of food waste resources and the actions that can be taken across food supply chains to promote food security.[34]
  29. Ms Caitlin McConnel agreed, advocating for both a Minister for Food and the portfolio’s place within the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet.[35]
  30. Ms Pieta Bucello, from Cardinia Shire Council, supported the concept of a food ministry and national strategy from the perspective of local government. Ms Bucello observed that ‘at a local government level, we do need to work in partnership with other levels of government to be able to support our communities’. Furthermore, Ms Bucello stated that:

If there was a minister for food or a minister for food and nutrition, it might change that thinking around the outcome that we're actually trying to achieve when we grow food. It's about providing nutrition and food for people and for health and wellbeing. I am supportive of that, and I think it would be really beneficial to see that policy framework at the federal, state and local government level that talks to all of the different parts of the food system, not just production but how food is transported and consumed; then, of course, there is the recycling of the nutrients back into the system, because the waste component is also really important. Yes, I think that would be a really valuable piece of work.[36]

2.31According to the University of Melbourne, the responsibilities of a Minister for Food should include:

• Ensuring preparation of a National Food Security Plan, which has regard to the Human Right to Food.
• Ensuring the National Food Security Plan is reviewed and updated every 5 years.
• Accountabilities for monitoring and achieving food security outcomes and targets.[37]

Policy through the food security lens

2.32Contributors to the inquiry highlighted the need for government policy to be developed through a food security lens, with food security informing the development of policy across the whole of government.

2.33The University of Melbourne observed that ‘Australian government policy-making related to food security has primarily focused on increasing food production (the availability dimension of food security), with a particular emphasis on growing food exports’. Historically, the Australian Government has had little policy focus on the nation’s domestic food supply or on other dimensions of food security, such as ensuring food access, stability or sustainability. The University noted that ‘policy to promote food security needs to take a “whole of government” and “food systems” approach’,[38] stating:

The food security of Australians is therefore influenced by government policy and decisions taken across multiple policy portfolios, including agriculture, environment, water, health, social services, transport and trade. When we consider food access as a feature of food security, the latter is also informed by public health and welfare policies and related income payments. If decisions in these policy portfolios are taken without regard to their impact on food systems and food access, it can lead to unintended and adverse outcomes for food security.[39]

2.34The University of Melbourne also argued that ‘policy to promote food security in Australia should also be grounded in recognition of the human right to food’. It indicated a need to ‘legislate the human right to food in Australia, so that it can be legally enforced and embedded in policy to promote food security’.[40]

2.35In a similar vein, Ms McConnel observed that to date most policies have been developed within policy siloes, whereas ‘food security and the issue of food equity touches on every single ministerial portfolio’.[41] Ms Emma Germano, President of the Victorian Farmers Federation, argued that ‘we should be looking at the impact of every policy we have in Australia—social policy, environmental policy, energy policy and trade policy—through the lens of food security. enforced and embedded in policy to promote food security’.[42]

2.36The Australian Food Sovereignty Alliance also advocated for developing policy through a food systems lens, stating:

A food systems lens highlights the multiple activities and actors within the food system that can be targeted for government intervention (e.g., food production, distribution, retail, and consumption), as well as the need to tackle the full range of drivers of unsustainable, unhealthy, and inequitable food systems, including those that lie outside the food system itself. It draws attention to need to consider the interconnections between the issues this inquiry is concerned with, including food security, managing the impact of climate change on the food system, and limiting the impact the food system has on the environment, and the need to address these issues in a synergistic way – rather than in departmental or policy “silos”.[43]

Food security through the health lens

2.37Cancer Council Australia urged the application of ‘a health lens to all policy where food systems and food security are integrated into all relevant areas of government policy’.[44] The Cancer Council called for more than a food security plan, seeking a ‘comprehensive food and nutrition strategy for Australia’ within which a food security plan or strategy would fit. The Cancer Council stated, ‘that would ensure that everyone had access to healthy food and would structure our food system in a way that prioritised the production of healthy and affordable foods for all people.’[45]

2.38Similarly, Dietitians Australia called for ‘a National Nutrition Policy and implementation plan which prioritises public health across all food systems and food security for all Australians’.[46] It urged a coordinated whole-of government approach ‘to support national, state and local governments to work together with non-government organisations and civil society’. The National Nutrition Policy would address ‘unhealthy food environments, reduce the incidence, prevalence and cost of diet-related health problems and promote health and wellbeing’. It would also look to ‘provide food and nutrition security for all Australians with a commitment to equitable action’. The policy would operate across government, involving departments beyond health, ‘and consider the role of sectors such as agriculture and trade’.[47]

Food security as national security

2.39Some stakeholders highlighted the national security dimension of food security. The University of Sydney observed that ‘with continuing geopolitical instability and accelerating climate change, having resilient and sustainable food supply chains is essential for Australia’s economic and national security’.[48]

2.40Investment firm Longreach Maris observed the intimate connection between food security and national security. It noted recent US Government policy ‘to ensure that America has access to safe, affordable food, that America’s producers are able to get their goods to market, and that the American food system is better prepared for threats that may harm production and cause shocks to the cost or availability of food’.[49]

2.41Ms Caitlin McConnel highlighted the absence of food security from national security policy and planning, despite acknowledgements by policy makers of the national security implications of threats to food security, especially from climate change.[50] Ms McConnel’s submissions highlighted the need to place food security within a national security context.[51]

2.42In its submission, Agsecure observed that ‘the national security dimensions of agriculture and food production must be considered by governments, communities, and businesses, ensuring that appropriate measures are implemented to protect Australia’s resilient food system’.[52] The national security threats identified by Agsecure included the threat to stability and order posed by food insecurity internationally, the hazards of cyber-attack or biosecurity incursions, or disruption to trade and supply chains, especially for critical inputs. It noted that:

Agriculture is a microcosm of Australia’s strategic vulnerabilities; its heavily trade exposed, vulnerable to supply chain shocks and lives with the threat of devastating climate and biosecurity risks every day. It offers key lessons on preparedness and resilience for the rest of the nation.[53]

2.43Agsecure stressed that food production is ‘much more valuable than just a 2% contributor to GDP, or an employer of 1.6 million people. Food itself is “fundamental”.’[54]

2.44Focusing on the interplay of domestic policies upon food security and thus national security, Ms Germano told the Committee:

When we're thinking about whether or not we should underground powerlines, at no point has anybody said to the community, 'Well, we actually need to consider national security when we put this infrastructure in place.' I think we take it for granted that there is no notion of national security and how food security links into that. I think the government could start by making a food security statement about what it acknowledges is necessary and pledges to do with regard to the impact of all those policies. I could go through a list. I could say a thousand different things that the government could be doing. But the very first thing is starting by committing to the fact that food security is part of our national security and that there will be a consideration for food security in every single policy that is put forward.[55]

Food Strategies and Reports

Australia

2.45As set out in the introduction, Australia does not have a national food plan or food security strategy. While there have been several attempts to create definitive policies at national and state level, there has been no sustained effort at implementing a coherent policy. It has been observed that the ‘absence of a contemporary national strategy has contributed to significant policy gaps, patchy implementation and the largely ad hoc approach of successive Australian governments to improving diet quality’.[56]

2.46Examples of policies and strategies that have previously informed food policy in Australia include:

• The Australian Food and Nutrition Policy 1992.
• The National Food Plan 2013.
• The 2022 NSW Legislative Assembly Committee on Environment and Planning report on Food Production and Supply in NSW.
• CSIRO’s 2023 report—Reshaping Australian Food Systems.
• Cardinia Shire Community Food Strategy 2018–26.
  47. A brief overview of these policies shows that the first two policies under previous governments have now been discontinued. The NSW Legislative Assembly Committee report addresses many of the same issues raised in the current inquiry, but without the national focus. The CSIRO report is designed to inform national policy and should be considered part of the current policy matrix that will inform future actions. The Cardinia Shire strategy is an example of local government action—a document that can inform, and ultimately be informed by, a national food security strategy. Further information on the strategies can be found in Appendix D.
  48. Some stakeholders specifically commented on the National Food Plan 2013, with mixed responses. For example, Professor Danielle Gallegos, representing the Public Health Association of Australia, observed that the plan ‘had a very strong focus on production, which of course is absolutely vital, but it needs to be much broader than that’. From her perspective, any plan needs ‘to look at the supply chain, right from paddock to plate, and to focus on the plate aspect’. For Professor Gallegos, a core element ‘of any national food and nutrition plan would be that we embed co-design with communities into that plan, in particular with Indigenous communities, so that we can provide food sovereignty as well’.[57]
  49. On the other hand, Ms Caitlin McConnel, while acknowledging the age and limitations of the National Food Plan, regarded it as ‘a critical foundation’ for a future food strategy. She believed that ‘it's important that we don't reinvent the wheel’, that any review of food policy ‘would have regard to what has already been recommended or implemented’.[58]

International approaches

2.50In recent years, several countries have developed food policies which could inform the development of policy in Australia. In 2019, the Canadian Government released the Food Policy for Canada. In 2022, the Government of the United Kingdom released its food policy after the release of two extensive reports reviewing the UK food system. Meanwhile, the Scottish Government has been on a journey of policy development resulting in the passage of legislation that provides for the development of food plans and the creation of a Food Commission. These policies address many of the issues raised in this inquiry and demonstrate the complex and coordinated responses required to meet the food security needs of the people. Further information about these international strategies can be found in Appendix E.

Committee Comment

2.51The Committee agrees with many of the stakeholders who articulated a need for a national food plan. The evidence before the Committee and the international examples suggest that a comprehensive and inclusive plan, achieving broad and deep collaboration across the food system, is required. All areas of government policy must be able to be seen through a food policy lens—the impact of food policy on other areas of government and the impact of other policies on the food system must be identified and acknowledged. Also required is an institutional framework which can formulate and deliver the plan.

2.52A national food plan needs to engage the whole food system, from paddock to plate and beyond. It needs to deal with the production and distribution of food, supply chain resilience, access to food, good nutrition (diet and health), and the management and disposal of food waste and other waste products. It needs to deal with the food system across jurisdictions and different levels of government. It must focus on the food system at a national level but provide the means for greater engagement in the food system at the community level. As shown by Cardinia Shire’s Community Food Strategy, local government has a potentially substantial role to play in the development of the food system at a local level.

2.53A national food plan needs to be able to identify and address the health implications of the food system. It also needs to address the national security implications of food security—identifying and addressing vulnerabilities, particularly regarding food system infrastructure and vital inputs. A national food plan must have clear objectives and measurable targets set out in regular updates and action plans. It should also take account of, but not be bound by, the extensive work done in Australia and overseas, to develop comprehensive food policies and plans. The policies developed in Canada, the United Kingdom and Scotland provide useful guides to the development and implementation of national food policy and plans.

2.54The Committee also agrees with those stakeholders who proposed the creation of a Minister for Food. The Committee considers that a minister with specific responsibility for oversight of the food system, the creation and oversight of a national food plan, and a coordinating role for the food system across government, is required. This minister should sit within the Prime Minister’s portfolio, where it will be able to coordinate the activities of different agencies across the entire food system.

2.55The Committee notes that in several jurisdictions advisory councils have been created or proposed to assist government in the development of food plans, oversee the implementation of those plans, and provide expert advice to government across the gamut of the food system. Given the breadth and complexity of the food system, it may be that the best coverage is achieved by having a single food system council covering the entire food system supported by expert committees focused on individual areas. These areas could include production, transport and logistics, retail, health and nutrition, defence, education, access to food, environmental sustainability, waste management (including utilisation of waste products) and Indigenous communities (for example access to food, health and nutrition, and the development of food systems based on Indigenous knowledge). A key focus, of course, must be the economic viability of food producers.

2.56The Committee recommends that the Australian Government, in consultation and cooperation with State and Territory Governments, relevant industries, sectors and the community, develop a comprehensive National Food Plan providing for the food security, including nutritional security, of the nation and its people. The National Food Plan must have clear objectives and measurable targets set out in regular updates and action plans, and subject to regular review.

2.57The Committee recommends that the Australian Government appoint a Minister for Food, within the portfolio of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, with responsibility for the development and implementation of the National Food Plan, regular monitoring and updating of the plan, and accountability for achieving outcomes and targets under the plan.

2.58The Committee recommends that the Australian Government appoint a National Food Council, made up of industry and community experts, to advise the Minister for Food on matters pertaining to the food system, and support the development, implementation, monitoring and evolution of the National Food Plan. The National Food Council is to be supported by expert committees covering sectors including but not limited to:

• production;
• transport and logistics;
• retail;
• health and nutrition;
• defence;
• education;
• access to food;
• environmental sustainability;
• waste management; and
• Indigenous communities.

Footnotes

[1]Professor Johannes le Coutre, Professor of Food and Health, University of New South Wales, Committee Hansard, 6 July 2023, p. 10.

[2]Australian Institute of Food Science & Technology, Submission 85, p. 9.

[3]National Food Supply Chain Alliance, Submission 49, pp. 2–3.

[4]Mr Richard Forbes, Chief Executive Officer, Independent Food Distributors Australia, Committee Hansard, 8 March 2023, p. 1.

[5]National Food Supply Chain Alliance, Submission 49, p. 3

[6]Cancer Council Australia, Submission 56, p. 4.

[7]Victorian Farmers Federation, Submission 110, p. 3.

[8]Seafood Industry Australia, Submission125, p. 9.

[9]Australian Retailers Association, Submission 140, p. 3.

[10]National Food Supply Chain Alliance, Submission 49, p. 3.

[11]National Farmers’ Federation, Submission 103, p. 24.

[12]National Farmers’ Federation, Submission 103, p. 24.

[13]AUSVEG, Submission 99, p. 8.

[14]Seafood Industry Australia, Submission 125, p. 10.

[15]Australian Dairy Products Federation, Submission 136, p. 3.

[16]Australian Retailers Association, Submission 140, p. 3.

[17]Menzies Centre for Health Governance, Submission 41, p. 8.

[18]Menzies Centre for Health Governance, Submission 41, p. 8.

[19]Australia’s Right to Food Coalition, Submission 148, p. 8.

[20]Australia’s Right to Food Coalition, Submission 148, p. 9.

[21]Sustain, Submission 72, p. 5.

[22]University of Melbourne, Submission 34.1, p. 6.

[23]Australian Institute of Food Science & Technology, Submission 85, p. 3.

[24]Ms Caitlin McConnel, Submission 77.1, p. 3.

[25]Ms Caitlin McConnel, Submission 77, p. 28.

[26]Ms Caitlin McConnel, Submission 77.1, p. 6.

[27]Ms Caitlin McConnel, Submission 77.1, p. 6.

[28]University of Melbourne, Submission 34, p. 1.

[29]Dr Rachel Carey, Senior Lecturer in Food Systems, School of Agriculture, Food and Ecosystem Sciences, University of Melbourne, Committee Hansard, 4 August 2023, p. 10.

[30]Dr Rachel Carey, Senior Lecturer in Food Systems, School of Agriculture, Food and Ecosystem Sciences, University of Melbourne, Committee Hansard, 4 August 2023, p. 10.

[31]Dr Michael Robertson, Director, CSIRO Agriculture and Food, Committee Hansard, 16 June 2023, p. 34.

[32]Dr Michael Depalo, Board member, Australian Institute of Food Science & Technology Limited, Committee Hansard, 16 June 2023, p. 19.

[33]Ms Emma Germano, President, Victorian Farmers Federation, Committee Hansard, 9 August 2023, p. 6.

[34]University of Melbourne, Submission 34.1, p. 4.

[35]Ms Caitlin McConnel, private capacity, Committee Hansard, 10 July 2023, p. 11.

[36]Ms Pieta Bucello, Coordinator, Health and Social Planning, Cardinia Shire Council, Committee Hansard, 11 August 2023, p. 8.

[37]University of Melbourne, Submission 34.1, p. 5.

[38]University of Melbourne, Submission 34, p. 3.

[39]University of Melbourne, Submission 34, p. 4.

[40]University of Melbourne, Submission 34, p. 4.

[41]Ms Caitlin McConnel, private capacity, Committee Hansard, 10 July 2023, p. 10.

[42]Ms Emma Germano, President, Victorian Farmers Federation, Committee Hansard, 9 August 2023, p. 2.

[43]Australian Food Sovereignty Alliance, Submission 147, p. 8.

[44]Cancer Council Australia, Submission 56, p. 5.

[45]Ms Clare Hughes, Chair, Nutrition, Alcohol and Physical Activity Committee, Cancer Council, Committee Hansard, 2 June 2023, p. 26.

[46]Dietitians Australia, Submission 39, p. 2.

[47]Dietitians Australia, Submission 39, p. 3.

[48]University of Sydney, Submission 152, p. 2.

[49]Longreach Maris, Submission 114, p. 7.

[50]Ms Caitlin McConnel, Submission 77, pp. 17–22.

[51]Ms Caitlin McConnel, Submission 77.1, p. 4.

[52]Agsecure & Saba Sinai, Submission 180, p. 2.

[53]Agsecure & Saba Sinai, Submission 180, p. 4.

[54]Agsecure & Saba Sinai, Submission 180, p. 4.

[55]Ms Emma Germano, President, Victorian Farmers Federation, Committee Hansard, 9 August 2023, p. 7.

[56]Nichols, T., M. Craike, I. Thevios & R. Calder, 2020. Nutrition policy in Australia: adopting a harm minimisation approach. Policy evidence brief 2020-01. Mitchell Institute, Victoria University. Melbourne, p. 12.

[57]Professor Danielle Gallegos, Subject Matter Expert, Food and Nutrition Special Interest Group, Public Health Association of Australia, Committee Hansard, 2 June 2023, p. 26.

[58]Ms Caitlin McConnel, private capacity, Committee Hansard, 10 July 2023, pp. 10–11.