Australia remains one of the world’s great agricultural exporters, producing enough food to supply tens of millions of people beyond its own shores. But a growing political revolt in the bush is being fuelled by warnings that decades of water restrictions, rising farm costs, shrinking productive land and population growth could eventually threaten the country’s ability to remain self-sufficient in basic foods.
The warning sounds extraordinary for a country whose national anthem celebrates “golden soil and wealth for toil” and whose farmers have spent generations feeding Australians while exporting enormous quantities of grain, meat, dairy and other commodities around the world.
Australia is not currently running out of food.
Its agricultural sector remains enormously productive and export-oriented.
But the argument emerging from rural Australia is about trajectory rather than today’s supermarket shelves: population is growing faster than the underlying volume of agricultural production, while farmers say governments are simultaneously making it harder and more expensive to produce food.
Australia remains an agricultural powerhouse
Any discussion of a looming food crisis needs to begin with what the official numbers actually show.
Australia has just come through a record agricultural production year.
ABARES, the Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics and Sciences, forecasts the gross value of agricultural production will reach about $98.3 billion in 2026–27 after an exceptionally strong 2025–26.
Agricultural exports are forecast at approximately $74.8 billion.
Those figures are not evidence of a country presently incapable of feeding itself.
They show a highly productive farming economy that continues to sell enormous quantities of food and fibre overseas.
But value and physical production are not the same thing
This is where the food-security warning becomes more complicated.
The dollar value of agriculture can rise because commodity prices increase even when the physical volume of food being produced grows much more slowly.
Analysis cited in the current rural political debate suggests that since 2000 the value of Australian agricultural production has roughly doubled while actual production volume has risen by only about 30 per cent.
Over approximately the same period, Australia’s population increased by about 50 per cent.
It is that divergence — rather than today’s export earnings — that has prompted warnings about Australia’s long-term capacity to maintain food self-sufficiency.
The warning is about what happens if the trend continues
Nobody needs to panic about Australia suddenly becoming unable to stock supermarket shelves.
The more serious argument concerns what the country could look like in another decade or two if agricultural production continues growing more slowly than domestic demand.
Projections being promoted by Nationals leader Matt Canavan suggest Australia could develop significant domestic production shortfalls across a range of common foods by 2040.
Under those scenarios, imports would increasingly be required to make up the difference.
Some of the projected gaps are substantial.
Pork, butter and eggs among projected shortfalls
Canavan has cited projections suggesting domestic production could fall short of Australian consumption by about 47 per cent for pork by 2040 if longer-term trends continue.
The projected shortfall for butter is around 40 per cent.
Eggs could face a gap of approximately 21 per cent.
Apples could be around 16 per cent below domestic requirements.
Other everyday products including milk, sugar, rice, corn, tomatoes and oranges have also been identified as commodities where domestic demand could increasingly exceed local production under the scenario.
These are projections based on trends, not predictions that those shortages are certain to occur.
Imports cannot necessarily solve every shortage easily
Australia already imports food, and international trade is a normal part of a modern food system.
There is nothing inherently alarming about importing products that other countries can produce efficiently.
But relying on imports for staple foods carries different strategic implications from importing discretionary products.
Biosecurity rules can also prevent some commodities from simply being sourced overseas whenever domestic production falls.
And international supply chains can become fragile during wars, pandemics, droughts and major geopolitical disruptions.
The Murray–Darling Basin sits at the centre of the argument
Much of the political anger is concentrated in the Murray–Darling Basin.
The basin is one of Australia’s most important agricultural regions, supporting irrigated farming and communities across Queensland, New South Wales, Victoria and South Australia.
It produces fruit, vegetables, rice, cotton, dairy and other commodities while supporting regional processing industries.
It is also at the centre of one of Australia’s longest-running environmental and political conflicts: how much water should remain available for farms and communities, and how much should be recovered for environmental flows.
For many irrigators, that debate is no longer simply about water management. It has become a question about whether governments still want intensive agriculture to survive in the basin.
Water buybacks remain deeply divisive
The Murray–Darling Basin Plan was designed to restore environmental health to a river system subjected to extensive extraction and severe drought.
Supporters argue recovering water for the environment is essential to protect river ecosystems and ensure the basin remains sustainable over the long term.
Many farmers and regional communities accept that the river requires environmental water.
The conflict is over how much should be recovered, by what mechanism and at what economic cost.
Critics argue government water buybacks remove productive capacity from agricultural communities and can undermine the industries, jobs and services built around irrigated farming.
SunRice job losses have intensified the debate
The issue has gained fresh political urgency following job losses associated with SunRice operations at Deniliquin.
Critics of current water policy have linked shrinking rice production and reduced water availability with declining processing activity.
One Nation MP David Farley has used the development to attack the Murray–Darling framework and argue that communities are carrying the economic consequences of decisions made far from the regions affected.
Canavan has similarly pointed to the losses while demanding a change in agricultural and water policy.
The dispute illustrates an important reality: when agricultural production falls, the consequences extend far beyond individual farmers.
A farm supports far more than the farmer
Regional agricultural economies depend on networks of businesses.
Processors need sufficient volumes of produce.
Truck drivers transport it.
Machinery dealerships service equipment.
Stock agents, veterinarians, agronomists and contractors depend on viable farms.
Local shops depend on the families employed by those businesses.
Schools depend on those families remaining in town.
Once agricultural production falls below the level required to sustain the surrounding infrastructure, regional decline can accelerate rapidly.
That helps explain the political revolt
Rural voters have traditionally formed one of the most dependable electoral constituencies for the Nationals.
That relationship can no longer be taken for granted.
One Nation has increasingly targeted voters who believe the Nationals have failed to protect farming communities from decisions on water, renewable energy infrastructure, environmental regulation and land use.
In parts of rural Australia, Pauline Hanson’s party is no longer merely taking protest votes — it is taking seats.
Farrer became a warning to the Nationals
The federal seat of Farrer provides one of the clearest examples of that political change.
The sprawling electorate takes in communities deeply connected to irrigation and agriculture in southern New South Wales.
It was previously held by former Liberal leader Sussan Ley.
Following Ley’s departure from Parliament, One Nation’s David Farley campaigned heavily on water and regional issues.
His subsequent victory turned Farrer into One Nation’s first House of Representatives seat won at an election and sent an unmistakable message through rural conservative politics.
Farley has made water central to his parliamentary message
Farley has launched a direct attack on the Water Act 2007 and the Murray–Darling Basin Plan.
He argues the system has failed to achieve an acceptable balance between environmental objectives and the economic survival of communities dependent on productive water.
That position resonates strongly with farmers who believe their towns have sacrificed water and jobs without seeing environmental improvements sufficient to justify the cost.
Whether that assessment of the basin plan is accepted or rejected, its political effect is becoming increasingly difficult for the major parties to ignore.
The Nationals are responding
Matt Canavan has made rebuilding the Nationals’ relationship with farmers a central part of his leadership.
Food security has become one of his principal arguments.
He says Australia needs to resume building dams, expand productive agricultural capacity and reverse policies he believes are pushing land and water out of food production.
The Nationals are also attacking what they describe as excessive environmental regulation and the loss of productive farmland.
It is a political repositioning aimed squarely at rural voters who have migrated towards One Nation.
Canavan warns population is outrunning production
At the heart of the Nationals leader’s argument is a straightforward calculation.
Australia’s population is continuing to expand.
More people require more food.
If the physical volume of agricultural production fails to grow at a comparable rate, the proportion of domestic demand met by Australian farmers eventually falls.
That does not automatically produce famine or empty supermarkets because imports can fill many gaps.
But it changes Australia from a country with exceptional food self-sufficiency into one increasingly dependent on overseas production for basic commodities.
Farmers face more than water restrictions
Water is only one element of the rural backlash.
Farmers are dealing with high fuel and fertiliser costs.
Energy costs affect irrigation, refrigeration, processing and transport.
Labour shortages remain difficult for some agricultural industries.
Environmental and planning regulations can increase compliance costs.
Biosecurity threats impose additional expenses.
Weather remains the largest uncontrollable variable of all.
The argument from rural Australia is that each individual burden may appear manageable in Canberra, but their cumulative effect is steadily eroding farm viability.
ABARES confirms input costs are under pressure
Official government forecasts provide support for some of those concerns, although not for claims that Australian agriculture is presently collapsing.
ABARES expects the value of agricultural production to fall by about five per cent in 2026–27 to $98.3 billion.
Agricultural exports are forecast to fall by about nine per cent to $74.8 billion.
High fuel and fertiliser costs are expected to continue weighing on growers’ returns.
Average broadacre farm business profit is forecast to fall sharply as lower revenue combines with higher input prices.
Weather remains the immediate threat
ABARES says seasonal conditions are likely to dominate production decisions in 2026–27.
Variable summer and autumn rainfall has already limited crop and pasture prospects across parts of eastern Australia.
Drier conditions are expected to reduce production volumes.
Domestic grain prices are forecast to increase as supply tightens.
That is an important qualification to the political debate: not every decline in agricultural production can reasonably be attributed to government policy.
Australia’s climate has always made farming volatile
Australian agriculture has survived droughts, floods, fires and enormous commodity-price cycles.
Production can rise dramatically in favourable seasons and fall sharply when rainfall disappears.
A single year’s decline therefore tells little about long-term food security.
What matters is whether productive capacity — land, water, infrastructure, processing and farm businesses — remains available when conditions improve.
That is the deeper concern being expressed by farmers: seasonal losses can recover, but permanently lost agricultural capacity may not.
Farmland itself has become a battleground
Renewable energy development has introduced another source of rural conflict.
Australia’s energy transition requires enormous amounts of infrastructure.
Solar farms, wind projects, transmission corridors, batteries and associated infrastructure all require land.
Much of the most suitable land is located in regional Australia.
Some farmers welcome renewable developments because lease payments provide substantial and reliable income.
Others argue productive agricultural land should not be sacrificed for energy infrastructure when less valuable land could potentially be used instead.
The cumulative effect is increasingly becoming a food-security issue rather than simply a planning dispute.
Victoria is already moving to protect agricultural land
The Victorian Coalition has proposed legislation requiring planning decisions to give greater weight to the protection of strategic agricultural land.
The proposal would introduce Agricultural Land Impact Assessments for developments including renewable energy projects, transmission infrastructure and mining.
Assessments would consider soil quality, water, biosecurity and rehabilitation.
The Victorian Farmers Federation has supported stronger recognition of the cumulative impact of development on farming land.
The policy illustrates how food security is moving from an agricultural portfolio issue into mainstream state politics.
Queensland farmers are fighting land acquisition powers
Similar tensions are emerging in Queensland.
Landholders and advocacy groups have criticised proposed state development powers they fear could make it easier for government to acquire private land for major projects.
One Nation has seized on the dispute.
Candidate Katy McCallum has attacked the proposal as a threat to property rights, while landholder groups argue rural communities are being asked to carry disproportionate costs for projects designed elsewhere.
The political pattern is becoming familiar: land, energy, property rights and food production are increasingly merging into a single rural grievance.
Net zero has become part of the agricultural argument
Climate policy is another major dividing line.
Canavan and One Nation argue that Australia’s emissions policies are increasing costs for farmers while encouraging changes in land use that reduce productive agricultural capacity.
Carbon offsets and vegetation projects can create financial incentives for land to move away from conventional farming.
Critics describe this as a loss of productive land.
Supporters of emissions reduction argue agriculture itself depends on addressing climate change because farmers are among those most exposed to worsening drought, heat and extreme weather.
Both arguments ultimately invoke the future of farming, but they prescribe radically different solutions.
The fertiliser problem illustrates Australia’s vulnerability
Modern farming relies heavily on fertiliser, fuel, machinery and chemicals.
Many of those inputs are connected to international energy markets.
Geopolitical disruption can therefore raise Australian production costs even when the disruption occurs thousands of kilometres away.
The current Middle East conflict has contributed to uncertainty around energy and fertiliser markets.
ABARES identifies elevated fuel and fertiliser costs as a continuing pressure on Australian growers.
A country can possess abundant farmland and still become vulnerable if producing food on that land becomes prohibitively expensive.
Meat processors are also warning about costs
The pressure does not stop at the farm gate.
Australia’s meat processing sector is warning about sharply higher labour, energy, compliance and export costs.
The Australian Meat Industry Council says processing costs for beef and sheep have increased dramatically over the past decade.
Industry representatives have warned that further pressure could lead to additional abattoir closures.
That matters for food security because livestock cannot reach consumers or export markets without viable processing capacity.
Processing jobs anchor regional communities
Abattoirs, dairies, mills and packing facilities often employ hundreds of people in regional towns.
Once a major processor closes, farmers may need to transport livestock or produce hundreds of kilometres farther.
That increases costs and reduces competition.
It can make marginal farms less viable.
The closure also removes wages from the local economy.
Agricultural capacity therefore depends on an entire supply chain, not simply the number of hectares classified as farmland.
Food security is different from agricultural export success
This distinction is essential.
A country can be a major agricultural exporter while importing particular foods.
Australia may export enormous quantities of wheat and beef while relying increasingly on imports for specific processed foods, fruit or other commodities.
High export earnings therefore do not automatically guarantee complete domestic self-sufficiency.
Nor does importing food automatically indicate a crisis.
The strategic question is whether Australia retains the capacity to produce enough essential food when international supply chains are disrupted.
The pandemic demonstrated why domestic capacity matters
COVID-19 exposed vulnerabilities in global supply chains that had previously been treated as largely theoretical.
Countries competed for medical equipment.
Shipping networks were disrupted.
Factories closed.
Transport costs surged.
Food supply in Australia remained remarkably resilient, but the experience reinforced the value of domestic production capacity in essential industries.
Food is the most essential industry of all.
Geopolitical instability adds another dimension
The global food system is also being tested by war, trade restrictions and extreme weather.
Australia currently benefits from being a substantial net agricultural exporter.
That provides both economic strength and strategic resilience.
Losing too much domestic productive capacity would reduce that advantage.
The food-security argument is therefore increasingly being framed not simply as farm policy but as national security policy.
There is also a danger in overstating the crisis
Claims of an imminent agricultural “Armageddon” make powerful political rhetoric.
The official evidence does not show Australia is about to become incapable of feeding its population.
ABARES describes the sector as resilient.
Australian farms continue to produce tens of billions of dollars in exports.
Beef, sheep meat, grain and numerous other industries remain internationally competitive.
Predictions of shortages in 2040 depend on trends continuing and policy, investment, technology and production failing to adjust.
Agricultural productivity can change the equation
Australian farmers have repeatedly produced more with fewer inputs through improved genetics, machinery, irrigation efficiency, data and agronomy.
Technology will continue changing production.
Drought-resistant crops can reduce climate vulnerability.
Precision agriculture can use fertiliser and water more efficiently.
Automation can alleviate some labour constraints.
Food-security projections that simply extend today’s trends decades into the future cannot fully anticipate those productivity gains.
But technology cannot replace land and water entirely
Productivity improvements have limits.
Crops still require land.
Irrigated agriculture still requires water.
Livestock still requires pasture, feed and processing infrastructure.
Farm businesses still need sufficient returns to justify continued investment.
And younger Australians still need reasons to choose agriculture as a viable career.
The warning from the bush is that technology should increase productive capacity rather than become an excuse to permanently surrender it.
The political tide has clearly shifted
Whatever the ultimate scale of Australia’s food-security risk, its political consequences are already visible.
Farmers who once treated the Nationals as their natural political home are increasingly willing to look elsewhere.
One Nation has recognised the opportunity.
Water, farmland, energy, fuel, regulation and regional decline now feature heavily in its campaigns.
The Nationals, under Canavan, are responding by returning aggressively to traditional agricultural and regional-development themes.
Rural Australia is becoming politically competitive again.
That competition could ultimately benefit farmers
For decades, safe rural electorates could be taken for granted.
Electoral competition changes political incentives.
If the Nationals believe they can lose farming communities to One Nation, they have stronger reasons to fight for those voters.
If Labor wants to improve its regional position, it must demonstrate that environmental and energy policies can coexist with productive agriculture.
If One Nation wants to retain its gains, it will need to turn rural anger into workable policy.
For farmers, being electorally contested may prove more valuable than being politically loyal.
City voters may eventually feel the consequences
Agricultural policy can appear remote to Australians living in capital cities.
Water allocations, fertiliser prices, irrigation infrastructure and agricultural land assessments rarely dominate metropolitan political discussion.
But the products of those decisions eventually arrive in every supermarket.
If domestic production becomes more expensive, consumers pay more.
If processing capacity disappears, supply chains become less competitive.
If Australia becomes more dependent on imports, global disruptions have greater domestic consequences.
Food security is rural policy until the moment it becomes an urban cost-of-living problem.
Australia has time to decide which future it wants
The country’s agricultural position remains enviable.
Australia possesses enormous farming expertise, substantial productive land, sophisticated supply chains and access to some of the world’s most valuable export markets.
There is no evidence Australians are about to go hungry.
But that should not make long-term warnings irrelevant.
The appropriate question is not whether Australia is facing famine tomorrow. It is whether today’s policies are preserving enough productive capacity for a much larger population decades from now.
That is the debate now transforming rural politics.
For farmers in the Murray–Darling Basin and other agricultural regions, it is a debate they believe Canberra has postponed for too long.
For the Nationals, it has become an electoral survival issue.
For One Nation, it has become an opportunity to break traditional political loyalties in the bush.
And for millions of Australians who have always assumed a country that feeds much of the world will inevitably be able to feed itself, it may become one of the most consequential questions of the next decade.
