Over 13% of Australian households experienced food insecurity in 2023 (1). Food insecurity is increasingly recognised by governments, international organisations, researchers, and civil society actors as a complex policy and governance challenge, shaped by evolving social, economic, and food system pressures, and influenced by global events (2,3). A policy approach that responds to this complexity is an optimal way forward. However, there is little understanding of how structural factors and potential policy responses are conceptualised by key actors, where they locate its causes, to whom they attribute responsibility, and which policy responses they regard as legitimate or feasible in the current and dynamic context. This study adopts a qualitative, exploratory, and interpretive research design informed by a social constructionist perspective to explore how actors in Australia conceive of the problem of food insecurity and its implications for policy and practical action. We conducted semi-structured interviews between February-March 2026 with 23 people involved in food insecurity governance in Australia. Participants included representatives from academia, food production, government, non-governmental organisations, professional and industry associations recruited through purposive followed by snowball sampling. The interviews were analysed using reflexive thematic analysis (4) with an inductive approach. Through the preliminary analysis, five themes were developed: 1) an unsolved, under recognised and unattended problem; participants framed food insecurity as a latent, growing, complex and multifaceted issue shaped by structural, economic, policy, and governance factors; 2) contested knowledge and legitimacy: participants contrasted perspectives and tended to position one as more informed or legitimate than another, along five axes: urban/rural, population with and without food security, producers/consumers, environmental priorities/social justice, and local/federal governance; 3) influential actors: decision-making power was attributed to a select group of government, agribusiness corporations, large supermarket chains, and agricultural sector leaders; 4) erosion of trust in government response: trust in the government response was diminished and, with the perception that decisions are driven by the pursuit and preservation of power rather than the well-being of the population; and 5) necessity of change: participants suggested changes to the current response and propose solutions at the individual, community, food system, and public policy levels, including raising income support and social benefits, expanding school lunch programs, improving federal and state policy alignment, and supporting farming communities. Overall, participants agreed on a structural diagnosis of food insecurity but disagreed on responsibility, legitimacy, and appropriate solutions. These disagreements were less about what should be done than about whose account of the problem should count, hindering the translation of solutions into coordinated action. The findings therefore point to a governance gap rather than a knowledge gap: Australia does not lack solutions to food insecurity, but it does lack the political will and rights-based governance required to implement them.