Selecting Interventions for Food Security in Remote Indigenous Communities



Improving the food security of people living in remote Indigenous communities is an identified priority of Australian Governments. As Indigenous Australians suffer a disproportionate burden from diet-related diseases, improved food security will result in health gains. This chapter describes a practical approach to developing and selecting interventions to improve food security in remote Indigenous communities. Food security interventions aim to achieve a secure, sustainable and healthy food supply to remote Indigenous communities with increased purchase and consumption of a healthy diet by community members as the outcome. Therefore, the menu of interventions must address both supply and demand issues. Policy makers need to take three simple, yet difficult steps when choosing which interventions are suitable to improve public health. Firstly, define the problem; secondly, consider ‘what could or should be done?’; and thirdly, appraise a full range of intervention options to choose the most effective in the real world.

The types of public health interventions that could be selected to improve food security are numerous, from regulatory options, to mass media campaigns, to one-on-one health ‘education’ in a clinical setting. Sustained action across all sectors and governments are required to address the structural and systemic problems that have resulted in poor food security for many remote Indigenous communities.

7.1 Introduction

Complex and diverse environmental, economic, social and cultural factors are part of the determinants of health of Indigenous people living in remote communities in Australia. The community store plays a key role in the provision of food and other services in these communities (Altman et al. 2002; House of Representatives and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs Committee 2009) (Fig. 7.1).
Fig. 7.1

Poor quality and storage of fresh produce in a community store

This chapter focuses on the potential role of community stores in remote Indigenous communities to improve food and nutrition security and subsequent health outcomes and describes store-based government policy approaches to improving nutrition and health of Aboriginal people.

7.2 Remote Indigenous Australian Communities

Australia is a vast land with a low population density of 2.8 people per square kilometre (p/km2) which varies by geographical location (from <0.1 p/km2 in remote areas to >100 p/km2 in inner-city areas) (Australian Bureau of Statistics 2010a, b). Most Australians reside in major cities, with only 2.3% living in remote or very remote areas, yet population estimates of Indigenous Australians suggest that about 25% of Australian Indigenous people and 38% of Indigenous children live in remote areas (Australian Institute of Health and Welfare 2009; Australian Bureau of Statistics 2008). The Northern Territory and Western Australia, large proportions of the Indigenous population live in remote areas, 81 and 41% respectively.

Remoteness is measured by geographical location and access to goods, services and social interactions. There are over a thousand remote or very remote Indigenous communities in Australia, many with a population of less than a hundred people. About 175 community food stores provide the main source of food for many of these communities (House of Representatives and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs Committee 2009).

7.3 The Health Status of Indigenous Australians

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people or Indigenous Australians, comprise approximately 2.5% of the overall Australian population, and is relatively young compared to the non-Indigenous population with 65% aged under 30 years of age, and almost half under 20 years. Indigenous children comprised 4.8% of the Australian child population in 2007, and although they represent a relatively small proportion of the Australian population, they represent 38% of the Indigenous population (Australian Institute of Health and Welfare 2009).

Indigenous Australians are the least healthy of all Australians. Significant gaps exist between the health status of Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal people and, for some health conditions, the gaps are widening (Kunitz 2000). Bailie and Wayte (2006) broadly described the health problems faced by people in remote communities using three interrelate categories: infectious diseases; problems resulting from social disruption and despair; and ‘lifestyle related’ disease (poor nutrition and lack of exercise and emotional stress) (Bailie and Wayte 2006). There is a significant disproportionate risk of lifestyle-related chronic diseases, low birth weight and poor dental health among Australian Indigenous people, that is, in part, preventable through diet. ‘Lifestyle related’ implies individual choice, but must include the significant environmental and supply side barriers that make it difficult to make lifestyle choices to reduce chronic disease risk in these communities.

Food has a direct influence on health and the prevention of non-communicable disease through improving nutrition (World Health Organization 2003). It has been estimated that poor diet contributes to approximately 19% of the Indigenous health gap overall (Vos et al. 2007a). Indigenous Australians have a lower life expectancy than their non-Indigenous counterparts, 12 years less for males and 10 years less for females in 2010 (Australian Institute of Health and Welfare 2011), although rates vary between jurisdictions and location including the extent of remoteness. Chronic disease including obesity, hypertension, cardiovascular disease, diabetes and renal failure accounts for about 80% of the mortality gap (Council of Australian Governments 2009). Australian infant mortality rates are very low overall, but Indigenous infant mortality rates, particularly those living in remote areas, are about three times higher. Indigenous mothers are twice as likely to have low birth weight infants, again, even more likely in very remote areas. Australian Indigenous children have almost twice the number of decayed, missing or filled teeth at 12 years.

7.4 Food Security, Progress and Government

At a country level, food security is closely linked to population health and economic development, a measure of a country’s progress (Vos et al. 2007b). In 2009, the Australian Government expressed the relationship between health and progress as:

‘People hope to have a long life, free from pain, illness or disability. Good health for all brings social and economic benefits to individuals, their families and the wider community’ (Health: Key Points 2009). It has been asserted that ‘The ultimate aim… [of] …food security is to arrive at a healthy and well-nourished population that can take on, to the maximum of its capacities, the development of its own community, area or country’ (Roetter and Van Keulen 2008).

Government policy responses to food security focus on different issues at a global, national and household level. Global responses are generally about meeting the demand for food; ensuring primary food production and distribution networks meet the needs for the expanding world population by encouraging agricultural sustainability and international free trade (Hazell and Wood 2008). National policy responses usually also consider economic conditions, agro-ecological factors, wealth distribution and social justice issues (Ehrlich et al. 1993). At the household level, the local food supply and accessibility (ability to access food) which depends on financial and physical resources are the focus (Kamphuis et al. 2006).

Government agricultural agencies often lead and implement government policy responses to food insecurity, with health as minor or secondary consideration. Health agencies are becoming more involved in food security policy development. The World Health Organization Assembly resolution 56.23 in 2003, called for Member States to develop national food and agricultural policies consistent with the protection and promotion of public health, highlighting food safety and sustainable food security through promotion of food products consistent with a healthy diet, fiscal policies, food programmes and agricultural policies (World Health Organization 2003).

The Australian Government’s 2004 Food Security Strategy focuses on trade liberalisation policy to increase global food security and uses the 1996 World Food Summit definition as food security:

when all people, at all times, have physical and economic access to sufficient, safe and nutritious food to meet their dietary needs and food preferences for an active and healthy lifestyle (Australian Government 2004).

The strategy recognises an available and reliable food supply at all times and asserts that at community level the security is simply a matter of access to food.

The Australian government’s domestic food security response occurs in the areas of health, agriculture and trade, if at all. Governments’ commitment to implement policies to improve food security is key to the success of the 1996 World Food Summit pledge to reduce respectively the proportion and number of people who suffer from hunger and malnutrition by half by the year 2015. However, there is little evidence of the likelihood of reaching this target. Government food security policy responses need to focus on increasing the supply of nutritious foods, the distribution of food and the causes of food insecurity to be effective.

Australians living in remote Indigenous communities are susceptible to food insecurity (Australian Institute of Health and Welfare 2008b). The increased susceptibility to food insecurity for Australians living in remote Indigenous communities coupled with significantly poorer health outcomes has lead the Council of Australian Governments (COAGs) to consider strategies to improve both the supply and demand for nutritious foods in remote Indigenous communities to address these health disparities (Council of Australian Governments 2009). Improving the supply (affordability, quality and availability) and consumption of nutritious foods in remote areas is one important strategy to improve the health of Indigenous people (Australian Institute of Health and Welfare 2008a).

Little is known about the food purchasing and dietary consumption patterns of people residing in very remote Indigenous communities in Australia. Community store turnover provides apparent consumption data and has been used to assess the impact of interventions intended to improve dietary change such as the food BasicCard, which aims to quarantine money for allowable purchases e.g. food, whilst banning tobacco, alcohol, pornography and gambling products purchases through licenced retailers (Brimblecombe et al. 2010). These stores often operate as relatively closed markets serving small populations of isolated Indigenous communities, often providing a not-for-profit community service (Altman et al. 2002). However, it should be noted that it is likely that the community store is not the only available food source in these remote areas where fishing and hunting in groups is part of the food culture (Altman 2007). Also, food sharing is a common practice among Indigenous Australians, so traditional food consumption information, based on the individual, may need to be interpreted with caution.

7.5 Food Supply in Remote Communities

The food supply in remote Indigenous communities is poor. Perishable food delivery is irregular, the variety of food available is limited and often of low quality, food prices are high and food storage and preparation facilities are inadequate (Council of Australian Governments 2009). Supply chain logistics, in part, determine food security. The integrity of the food supply chain and storage facilities determines the quality of food available for sale, particularly perishable foods. All food costs more in remote areas. Surveys consistently find that healthy food baskets cost about 20–43% more in remote areas than in major cities (Harrison et al. 2007; House of Representatives Standing Committee on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs 2009; Landrigan and Pollard 2011; Givoni and Palermo 2010; Commonwealth Government 2011). The increase in the cost of healthy food rises faster than the Consumer Price Index for Australia. Most of the increase is due to the increasing cost of foods in very remote areas rather than in the major cities (Queensland Government 2007; Harrison et al. 2007, 2010; Commonwealth Government 2011). The cost of a basic healthy food basket was 32.6% higher in stores that were more than 2,000 km from Brisbane in 2006 (Harrison et al. 2010).

7.5.1 Transport: More than Just Kilometres

Remote community food stores require most goods and services to travel long distances by road or barge. Road conditions influence the time required to transport these goods, it can take ten times as long in areas where there are simply no direct routes due to terrain. The Kimberly Echo on April 1 (2011) reported that:

Floods have forced a re-route of Kimberley supplies through two States and the Northern Territory in a return journey covering the same distance as New York to Shanghai.

Transport logistics contend with extreme outside temperatures, long distance hauls, poor road conditions (and sometimes road closures due to flooding). Adequate refrigeration is needed so that perishable foods arrive in good condition—with regard to both quality and food safety. Some remote communities only have food delivered fortnightly or monthly. The 2008 Australian Parliamentary enquiry into food stores servicing remote Indigenous communities found that the food costs were high because of transport logistics required to deliver food to small communities in isolated geographical locations (House of Representatives and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs Committee 2009).

7.5.2 Food Business or Essential Service?

Market forces and business drivers dictate grocery store locations and food prices. Global grocery chains (e.g. Woolworths and Coles) service areas of high population density but most grocery stores in regional or remote areas are independently owned. A community food store has ‘one of the main purposes of the business as the provision of grocery items and drinks’ (Northern Territory National Emergency Response at 2007: An Act to respond to the Northern Territory’s National emergency, and for related purposes 2007). As the main, and sometimes the ‘only’, provider of food in many of these isolated areas, typically servicing communities of less than 150 people, the Indigenous community food store could be considered an ‘essential service’ rather than a viable business. Store governance, financial and retail management practices influence their ability to provide a consistent and affordable food supply to the community. Store ownership and management varies. Some communities own and run the store, others are subsidised by government, or managed by a management company, usually not-for-profit (in some cases establish by government) (House of Representatives and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs Committee 2009). Food businesses are required to meet regular regulatory requirements to enforce basic standards in food safety. Staff need to be adequately trained and standards maintained. There may be only limited training opportunities, if any, in remote communities. Building conditions are often poor and maintenance services are not readily available and/or very expensive.

7.5.3 Capacity to Access Food in Remote Indigenous Communities

Food security depends on the available food supply and capacity to access that food. A family’s capacity to access food in remote Indigenous communities depends on their financial and physical resources, food budgeting and preparation skills, knowledge and attitudes. Stores may provide banking facilities and are often in a position to provide the infrastructure to assist with income management (Fig. 7.2).
Fig. 7.2

Roads, terrain and weather hinder food transportation

Some stores offer a tab, credit or ‘Book-up’ for food when community members do not have enough money to purchase foods (Australian Securities and Investments Commission 2005). Money management issues are relatively common for people on very low incomes, particularly if people run up big debts and cannot pay them off. Book-up systems may assist in emergency food relief in some communities provided they are transparently operated with achievable repayments (Altman et al. 2002). Where this is not the case there have been issues regarding theft, fraud and disclosure of PIN numbers.

Food access in remote communities may be dependent on personal transport. Many people use the community food store as their main source of food because the nearest option is in the next town which, due to distance, requires travel by car. Ready access to motor vehicles is low for Indigenous households in remote areas, 52 compared to 90% of non-Indigenous households (Australian Health Ministers’ Advisory Council 2006).

Socioeconomic status influences the amount of disposable income available to be spent on food. Consumption of a healthy diet is more expensive in remote areas. Food costs in remote northern Australia found that food prices were most expensive in the NT, probably due to the fact that the NT is almost entirely a remote area. The price of a healthy food basket costs 24–29% more in very remote areas compared to the capital city in each jurisdiction (Landrigan and Pollard 2011) (Table 7.1).
Table 7.1

Market Baskets Comparison per Fortnight for Perth (2010), Darwin (2008) and Brisbane (2006) Inflated with Consumer Price Index (CPI) Increases to September 2010 (Landrigan and Pollard 2011)


State mean

Major cities

Inner regional

Outer regional


Very remote

Increase from major cities to very remote







































aThe Brisbane CPI for food increase from June 2006 to September 2010 of 11.6% was used to inflate QLD prices

bThe Darwin CPI for food increase from June 2008 to September 2010 of 6.2% was used to inflate NT prices

cThe Darwin supermarket price was used for the cost of the basket in a Major city

Employment rates and household income levels of families living in remote areas are lower since many families are dependent on welfare. Welfare recipients need to spend a significantly greater proportion of their disposable income on food to achieve a healthy diet than those on an average income; 36–50 compared to 15–20% (Kettings et al. 2009; Landrigan and Pollard 2011; Commonwealth Government 2011).

7.5.4 The Solution: Addressing the Demand Side as Well as the Supply

Improving the affordability, quality and availability of foods and beverages consistent with dietary recommendations is likely to increase their consumption, particularly perishable foods (fruit, vegetables and dairy foods). But, simply increasing supply and affordability of food does not mean community members will purchase and eat it. Strategies are required to increase the ‘demand’ for nutritious foods whilst reducing the purchase of foods and drinks high in sugar, fat and salt. Achieving both these steps would see a dietary pattern consistent with dietary guidelines and help to protect Indigenous people in remote Australia from diet-related chronic disease.

7.6 Background to Australian Government Food Security Policy

Australian Governments have been working to reduce this geographically distributed inequity for many years, particularly to reduce the impact of food insecurity and poor health among Indigenous Australians:
  • 2001—Health Ministers approve the National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Island Nutrition Strategy and Action Plan, 2000–2010 (NATSINSAP)—priority action areas: food supply in remote communities; food security; environmental and household infrastructure; workforce; and monitoring systems. (Strategic International Nutrition Alliance 2001).

  • 2002/2003—Northern Australian Health Ministers committee releases Food North: Food for Health in Northern Australia with options to improve food availability and affordability (Office of Aboriginal Health 2003).

  • 2004—Food Security Strategy announces initiatives to enhance food security in the developing world (Australian Government 2004).

  • 2005—Remote Indigenous Stores and Takeaways (RIST) develops a national approach to improving access to healthy foods. Indigenous Business Australia commits to improve community stores sustainability and Outback Stores is established to improve the supply, quality and range of nutritious food.

  • 2006—Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Health Performance Framework reports improvements but emphasises addressing chronic disease determinants, particularly nutrition.

  • 2007—Northern Territory National Emergency Response Act 2007 (NTER) responds to the Board of Inquiry into the Protection of Aboriginal Children from Sexual Abuse (Northern Territory Government 2007). A community stores licencing scheme improves supply and consumption of nutritious food using income management and employment reforms.

  • 2008—House Standing Committee on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs, Everybody’s Business: Remote Aboriginal and Torres Strait Community Stores report outlines options for the role and management of community stores and strategies to improve nutrition, transport, food supply and affordability, regulation, policy and interventions (House of Representatives and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs Committee 2009).

  • 2009—COAGs National Remote Indigenous Food Security Strategy (NRIFSS) announced to improve health through supply and demand side strategies to increase the consumption of healthy food (Council of Australian Governments 2009). NTRE evaluation reports that income management increased household expenditure on food and children, more young men shopping and reductions in drinking and gambling, and half parents said their children eat more, weigh more and were healthier (Australian Government 2010). Income management disadvantages: less discretionary cash, managed money restrictions, blanket coverage discriminatory. NATSINSAP review highlights poor nutrition and the need for ongoing specific actions and adequate resourcing for implementation.

  • 2010—range, quality and affordability of nutritious food improved through income management and store licencing—income management extended to 66 community stores assisting 16,600 people. Strategies are needed to increase demand for and consumption of healthy food even with 83 stores licenced and reports of 71% of income management money allocated towards food (Australian Government 2009a, b). National Preventative Taskforce recommended subsidies for remote area transport of fresh foods (National Preventative Health Taskforce 2009).

Over the decade, in response to consultations, internal and external advocacy, and research providing evidence to inform actions, governments appear to be more willing to strategically address the problem through a comprehensive range of interventions, including ‘hard’ policy options such as regulation and fiscal measures.

7.7 Steps to Develop a Strategic Policy Approach to Improve Food Security

A system-wide approach is required when developing policies and interventions to reduce diet-related diseases (Hawkes 2007, 2008; Hawkes et al. 2006). Specific influences and points of leverage along the entire food supply chain can be used to modify the foods available for purchase and consumption as well as food choice (Hawkes 2008). A systematic approach consists of four main steps: firstly, define the public health problem and its key determinants; secondly, work out what can be done and what should be done; thirdly, assess and select appropriate actions; and fourthly monitor and evaluate intervention impacts to inform the policy cycle (National Public Health Partnership 2000b).

7.7.1 Step 1: Defining the Problem—Food Security and Its Determinants

How you define and measure a problem influences how you respond. This is particularly true for policy development. Achieving an agreed and specific definition of food security and its determinants is essential, as well as an understanding of the determinants. A clear definition provides the context for action and assists with identifying the desired outcomes. Farrell (2007) asserts that the Australian government’s definition of remote Indigenous communities as being in a very remote location with a population of more than 100 people and predominantly of Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander origin’ would exclude 75% of the 1,187 discrete remote communities with populations of less than 50 (Farrell 2007).

Pinstrup-Andersen reminds us that ‘food security’ is a valuable concept if it is used with a clear understanding of what it means, its interactions and how it interacts with behaviour and non-food factors (Pinstrup-Andersen 2009).

The Australian government considers the ability of individuals, households and communities to acquire appropriate and nutritious food on a regular and reliable basis using socially acceptable means, is determined by people’s local ‘food supply’ and their capacity and resources to ‘access and use food’(Council of Australian Governments 2009). Food supply refers to:

‘the availability, cost, quality, variety and promotion of foods for local population groups that will meet nutritional requirements’ and food access refers to ‘the range of physical and financial resources, supports, and knowledge, skills and preferences that people have to access and consume nutritious food’ (Council of Australian Governments 2009, p 3).

As discussed, food security determinants are complex, interdependent and vary according to the context. Policy should be considered at an individual, sub-population and a population level. The food insecure may vary in age, gender, socioeconomic status, geographic location and ethnicity. A food security model to select interventions should assess information about factors that affect supply, access and consumption of food (Pinstrup-Andersen 2009). Figure 7.3 is a schematic of food security determinants in remote Indigenous communities in Australia.
Fig. 7.3

Food security model

Fig. 7.4

Ranking grid potential remote indigenous community store food security interventions

Food security would be achieved through equitable access to a reliable supply of safe, nutritious, culturally appropriate and affordable food; social and economic status providing an adequate income, and food consumption consistent with dietary recommendations.

The COAGs NRIFSS aimed to deliver improved health outcomes by improving the supply and consumption of healthy food through a series of small, coordinated actions. Each state and territory has different local conditions and current activities e.g. the number and location of stores, store ownership, community readiness and existing interventions. The NRIFSS built on the NTER and aims to improve food security through a nationally coordinated approach to increase the supply of and demand for nutritious foods through community stores and for the partnerships to increase the capacity and infrastructure to sustain these changes. The systematic approach to identifying the problem, determinants and potential solutions engaged a number of sectors.

7.7.2 Step 2: What Could or Should Be Done?

Better health is the ultimate outcome, but many of the determinants of the problem lie outside health’s sphere of influence or are often the responsibility of other sectors, for example, agriculture, transport, education or trade. A comprehensive range of interventions need to be considered (National Public Health Partnership 2000a). Effective intervention development looks for opportunities for action at all levels and builds on what has gone before. Governments look to existing strategies, particularly those which have been well described and evaluated (often within the peer reviewed literature or through relevant consultation) to identify the critical factors for success. For example, two effective interventions to improve the food supply and increase the purchase of healthy foods in remote community stores were considered were regulatory interventions and creating demand through price elasticity.

Regulatory interventions apply policy and laws to protect public health and safety can increase the supply of nutritious food. The NT National Emergency Response Act, number 129, 2007 Part 7-Licensing of community stores (NTER) increased the supply of foods to remote stores, but acknowledged that:

the licensing scheme has not done enough to improve the affordability of food items, particularly fresh healthy food. (Australian Government 2009a, b pg 19).

Replication of this intervention was not realistic due to the cost of implementation (over $100 million over 4 years in the NT) and different regulatory environment in states not allowing for replication of the Emergency Response Intervention. However, given the effectiveness of the intervention, other ways to achieve the same end were sought, through the notion of a voluntary licencing scheme.

Price elasticity of demand options can influence food choice. A 10% reduction in the cost of vegetables could facilitate a 7% increase in purchase (Bond et al. 2010) and a 10% increase in soft drinks price would reduce consumption by 8–10% (Andreyeva et al. 2010). Food pricing surveys show opportunities to reduce the comparative cost of fruit, vegetables and dairy foods in remote stores (Landrigan and Pollard 2011; Queensland Government 2007).

Income management including the use of a food BasicsCard, quarantining a proportion of welfare payments for use at the store dis-allowing the purchase of alcohol, tobacco and pornography appears to have had a temporary effect on food purchasing (Brimblecombe et al. 2010). However, there are conflicting findings concerning longer term outcomes. Government reports show a range of benefits (Australian Government 2009a, b) whereas other authors suggest limited impact and question the value for those most at risk (Brimblecombe et al. 2010; Farrell 2011).

7.7.3 Step 3: Appraising Interventions to Decide Options

Intervention selection requires a critical appraisal of options. A comprehensive portfolio of strategic and effective interventions is required to reach public health outcomes. The NRIFSS aimed to identify a small set of coordinated and specific actions to improve food security by:
  1. 1.

    Improving the supply of healthy food in remote Indigenous community.

  2. 2.

    Increasing the consumption of healthy food in remote Indigenous community.

  3. 3.

    Improving the way sectors worked together.


The relative strengths and weaknesses of interventions are systematically assessed against criteria (National Public Health Partnership 2000a; Pollard et al. 2008). Discussing intervention assessments leads to a shared understanding of what is being proposed. Views on the potential effectiveness of interventions will vary based on and experience. Ample opportunity should be provided to share the reasoning behind each sector’s ranking to form an agreed understanding of the relative benefit, or not, of each intervention type (see Figure 7.4).

Relying on the available evidence, their knowledge and professional judgement, each decision-maker weights each intervention to select priorities for action. Seven intervention types across 12 priority areas are ranked against each criterion (effectiveness, sustainability, feasibility and political acceptability (National Public Health Partnership 2000a, b)) to assess their suitability. The grid is deceptive in its simplicity, but it is a broad-brush assessment that works best when well-informed decision makers are at the table and when evidence of effectiveness of interventions is available. As always, the devil is in the detail. Once interventions are assessed, difficult decisions relating to potential partners, funding and specific responsibilities need to be considered.

Ministers agreed on specific strategic actions that could be undertaken by the Commonwealth of Australia, QLD, WA, SA and the NT (Council of Australian Governments 2009). Strategic actions were to develop national community stores standards (e.g. retail and financial management, governance, infrastructure, nutrition promotion and food safety); a Quality Improvement Scheme; incorporate stores under the Corporations (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander) Act 2006 to ensure high standards of governance and accountability of stores; and a national healthy eating action and workforce plan.

7.7.4 Step 4: Continuous Improvement Cycle

Specific and measurable goals and targets help manage policy implementation, and require a prediction of the amount of change that would reasonably be expected in a given time (Nutbeam et al. 1993). Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Justice Commissioner and the Steering Committee for Indigenous Health Equality targets to close the Indigenous health gap include; that >90 per cent of indigenous families have access to a healthy food basket for a cost of less than 25 per cent of their available income (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Justice Commissioner and the Steering Committee for Indigenous Health Equality 2008). This would require monitoring of food pricing, household income, expenditure and welfare payments. Targets measuring change in food security in remote Indigenous community are difficult due to the lack of monitoring and surveillance of the issues and reliance on proxy measures (Webb et al. 2006). Comprehensive monitoring and evaluation of the impact of food security interventions using indicators such as food chain management outcomes (quality, affordability, reliability), access (income, economy), supply, purchasing, consumption and nutrition is warranted with an emphasis on those most at risk—infants, children and the elderly.

7.8 Conclusion

Policy makers need to take four steps when choosing which interventions to improve food security. Define the problem, consider ‘what could or should be done?’, appraise the intervention options and then monitor the impacts to continue the improvements. Sustained action across all sectors is required to address the ­structural and systemic problems that have resulted in food insecurity in many remote Indigenous communities.


  1. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Justice Commissioner and the Steering Committee for Indigenous Health Equality. (2008). National Indigenous Health Equality Targets Outcomes from the National Indigenous Health Equality Summit Canberra, March 18–20. Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission.Google Scholar
  2. Altman, J. C. (2007). Alleviating poverty in Indigenous Australia: The role of the hybrid economy. In Topical issue (Vol. 10, pp. 1–9). Canberra: Centre for Aboriginal Economic Policy Research, The Australian National University.Google Scholar
  3. Altman, J., McDonnell, S., & Ward, S. (2002). Indigenous Australians and competition and consumer issues: A review of the literature and an annotated bibliography. CAEPR Working Paper No. 12/2002. Centre for Aboriginal Economic Policy Research. Canberra.Google Scholar
  4. Andreyeva, T., Long, M. W., & Brownell, K. D. (2010). The impact of food prices on consumption: A systematic review of research on the price elasticity of demand for food. American Journal of Public Health, 100(2), 216–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2008). 4704.0- The Health and Welfare of Australia’s Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples. Canberra.Google Scholar
  6. Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2010a). Regional Population Growth, Australia, 2009–10. Retrieved May, 2011, from
  7. Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2010b). Year book Australia, 2009–10. Retrieved May, 2011, from
  8. Australian Government. (2004). Food security strategy. Canberra: AusAID Public Affairs Group.Google Scholar
  9. Australian Government. (2009a). Report on the Northern Territory Emergency Response Redesign Consultations. Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia.Google Scholar
  10. Australian Government. (2009b). Future Direction for the Northern Territory Emergency Response: Discussion Paper. Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia.Google Scholar
  11. Australian Government. (2010). Closing the Gap. Prime Minister’s Report 2010. Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia.Google Scholar
  12. Australian Government. (2011). Northern Territory emergency response evaluation report 2011. November 2011. Canberra, Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs.Google Scholar
  13. Australian Health Ministers’ Advisory Council. (2006). Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Health Performance Framework 2005. Canberra.Google Scholar
  14. Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. (2008a). Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Health Performance Framework, 2008 report: Detailed analyses. AIHW Cat. No. IHW 22, Canberra.Google Scholar
  15. Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. (2008b). Australia’s Health 2008. Canberra: AIHW.Google Scholar
  16. Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. (2009). A picture of Australia’s children 2009. Canberra: AIHW.Google Scholar
  17. Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. (2011). Contribution of chronic disease to the gap in mortality between Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people and other Australians. Cat. no. IHW 48.Google Scholar
  18. Australian Securities and Investments Commission. (2005). Dealing with book up: A guide. Canberra.Google Scholar
  19. Bailie, R. S., & Wayte, K. J. (2006). Housing and health in Indigenous communities: Key issues for housing and health improvement in remote Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities. Australian Journal of Rural Health, 14(5), 178–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Bond, C., Williams, M., Crammond, B., & Loff, B. (2010). Taxing junk food: Applying the logic of the Henry tax review to food. The Medical Journal of Australia, 193(8), 472–473.Google Scholar
  21. Brimblecombe, J. K., McDonnell, J., Barnes, A., Dhurrkay, J. G., Thomas, D. P., & Bailie, R. S. (2010). Impact of income management on store sales in the Northern Territory. Medical Journal of Australia, 192(10), 549–554.Google Scholar
  22. Council of Australian Governments. (2009). National strategy for Food Security in Remote Indigenous Communities. Retrieved February 9, 2011, from
  23. Ehrlich, P. R., Ehrlich, A. H., & Daily, G. C. (1993). Food security, population and environment. Population and Development Review, 19(1), 1–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Farrell, D. (2007). Housing and infrastructure in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Communities. Australia 2006 (Reissue) (Vol. 4710.0). Canberra: Australian Government.Google Scholar
  25. Farrell, J. (2011). Income quarantining—the cure or the cause? Parity, 24(6), 33–35.Google Scholar
  26. Givoni, N., & Palermo, C. (2010). Monitoring the cost of healthy food. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health, 34(4), 433–434.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Harrison, M., Coyne, T., Lee, A., Leonard, D., Lowson, S., Groos, A., et al. (2007). The increasing cost of the basic foods required to promote health in Queensland. Medical Journal of Australia, 186(1), 9–14.Google Scholar
  28. Harrison, M., Lee, A., Findlay, M., Nicholls, R., Leonard, D., & Martin, C. (2010). The increasing cost of healthy food. Australian & New Zealand Journal of Public Health, 34(2), 179–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Hawkes, C. (2007). Regulating and litigating in the public interest: Regulating food marketing to young people worldwide: Trends and policy drivers. American Journal of Public Health, 9(11), 1962–1973.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Hawkes, C. (2008). Agro-food industry growth and obesity in China: What role for regulating food advertising and promotion and nutrition labelling? Obesity Review, 9(Suppl 1), 151–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Hawkes, C., Asfaw, A. et al. (2006). Evidence on the determinants of dietary patterns, nutrition and physical activity, and the interventions to maintain or to modify them: A systematic review. London, The International Food Policy Research Institute to the World Cancer Research Fund, American Institute for Cancer Research.Google Scholar
  32. Hazell, P., & Wood, S. (2008). Drivers of change in global agriculture. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci, 363(1491), 495–515.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Health: Key Points. (2009). In Measures of Australia’s progress 2006 (Vol. 1307.0, pp. 32–29). Australian Bureau of Statistics.Google Scholar
  34. House of Representatives, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs Committee. (2009). Everybody’s business. Remote aboriginal and Torres Strait community stores. Canberra: Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia.Google Scholar
  35. Kamphuis, C. B. M., Giskes, K., de Bruijn, G.-J., Wendel-Vos, W., Brug, J., & van Lenthe, F. J. (2006). Environmental determinants of fruit and vegetable consumption among adults: A systematic review. British Journal of Nutrition, 96(4), 620–635.Google Scholar
  36. Kettings, C., Sinclair, A., & Voevodin, M. (2009). A healthy diet consistent with Australian health recommendations is too expensive for welfare-dependent families. Australian & New Zealand Journal of Public Health, 33, 566–572.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Kunitz, S. J. (2000). Globalization, states, and the health of indigenous peoples. American Journal of Public Health, 90(10), 1531–1539.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Landrigan, T., & Pollard, C. (2011). Food access and cost survey, Western Australia, 2010. Perth: Department of Health in Western Australia.Google Scholar
  39. National Preventative Health Taskforce. (2009). Australia: The healthiest country by 2020. National Preventative Health Strategy—the roadmap for action 30 June 2009. Canberra: Australian Government.Google Scholar
  40. National Public Health Partnership. (2000a). Deciding and specificying an intervention portfolio. Public health planning and practice improvement. Melbourne: National Public Health Partnership.Google Scholar
  41. National Public Health Partnership. (2000b). A planning framework for public health practice. Public health planning and practice improvement. Melbourne: National Public Health Partnership.Google Scholar
  42. Northern Territory Government. (2007). Ampe Akelyernemane Meke Mekarle “Little Children are Sacred” In our Law children are very sacred because they carry the two spring wells of water from our country within them. Report of the Northern Territory Board of Inquiry into the Protection of Aboriginal Children from Sexual Abuse. Darwin.Google Scholar
  43. Northern Territory National Emergency Response at 2007: An Act to respond to the Northern Territory’s National emergency, and for related purposes. (2007).Google Scholar
  44. Nutbeam, D., Wise, M., Bauman, A., Harris, E., & Leeder, S. (1993). Goals and targets for Australias health in the Year 2000 and beyond. Sydney: Commonwealth of Australia.Google Scholar
  45. Office of Aboriginal Health. (2003). FoodNorth: Food for health in North Australia. Perth: Department of Health in Western Australia.Google Scholar
  46. Parliament of Australia. House of Representatives Standing Committee on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs. (2009). Inquiry into community stores in remote Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities: Comments against terms of reference, Canberra.Google Scholar
  47. Pinstrup-Andersen, P. (2009). Food security: Definition and measurement. Food Security, 1, 5–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Pollard, C. M., Lewis, J. M., & Binns, C. W. (2008). Selecting interventions to promote fruit and vegetable consumption: From policy to action, a planning framework case study in Western Australia. Australia and New Zealand Health Policy, 5, 27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Queensland Government. (2007). The 2006 Healthy Food Access Basket (HFAB) Survey.Google Scholar
  50. Roetter, R., & Van Keulen, H. (2008). Food security. In R. Roetter, H. Van Keulen, J. Verhagan, M. Kuiper, J. Verhagen, & H. Van Laar (Eds.), Science for agriculture and rural development in low-income countries (pp. 27–56). Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  51. Strategic International Nutrition Alliance. (2001). Eat well australia: a strategic framework for public health nutrition/national aboriginal & Torres Strait Islander nutrition strategy & action plan. Canberra, Melbourne: National Public Health Partnership.Google Scholar
  52. The Kimberley Echo. (2011). Reporter Kim Macdonald, Truckies’ epic drive to deliver food April 1, 2011, 7:05 am. Retrieved March 26, 2011, from
  53. Vos, T., Barker, B., Stanley, L., & Lopez, A. (2007a). The burden of disease and injury in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples 2003. Brisbane: School of Population Health, The University of Queensland.Google Scholar
  54. Vos, T., Goss, J., Begg, S., & Mann, N. (2007b). Projection of health care expenditure by disease: A case study from Australia. Centre for Burden of Disease and Cost-effectiveness, School of Population Health, Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, University of Queensland.Google Scholar
  55. Webb, P., Coates, J., Frongillo, E. A., Rogers, B. L., Swindale, A., & Bilinsky, P. (2006). Measuring household food insecurity: Why it’s so important and yet so difficult to do. The Journal of Nutrition, 136(5), 1404S–1408S.Google Scholar
  56. World Health Organization. (2003). World Health Assembly resolution WHA57.17—Global strategy on diet, physical activity and health. Geneva: WHO.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Western Australia Department of HealthCurtin University’s Policy, Law, and CommunicationPerthAustralia

Personalised recommendations