Introduction
6.1
While the committee has received considerable evidence on specific drought support measures, it has also received evidence on other related issues. In this section of the report, the committee summarises the views of inquiry participants regarding related policies and coordination as well as arguments in favour of a new National Drought Policy (NDP) and the evaluation and review of drought support.
Related policies
6.2
A number of inquiry participants raised concern about the impacts flowing from uncoordinated government interventions in related policy fields. Submitters, including the National Farmers' Federation (NFF) argued that it is important that drought not be addressed in isolation but considered in conjunction with related fields—such as water management, taxation, animal welfare, regional development, healthcare and climate change.
6.3
In addition, the Tasmanian Farmers and Graziers Association (TFGA) remarked that '[d]rought impacts are felt across commodities and therefore investment into water management, drought mitigation, industry preparedness, suitability and efficiencies are vital across all of agriculture'.
6.4
The Productivity Commission has previously identified several policy areas that interact with drought policy:
water reform—for example, rules governing water allocation and trading, or investment in infrastructure improvement;
climate change—for example, adaptation and mitigation (such as the proposed carbon pollution reduction scheme);
natural resource management—for example, land clearing, soil erosion, salinity, native vegetation and feral pest control;
taxation—for example, fuel excise, income averaging and managed investment schemes;
innovation—for example, the provision of public funding for research and development and extension services;
animal welfare—for example, the condition of livestock when water and feed are scarce and during transport; and
regional development—for example, population distribution, horizontal fiscal equalisation and the provision of services in regional areas.
6.5
Irrigators, in particular, stressed the need to be cognisant of the interactions and potential tensions between water policy and drought policy. Water management is discussed further in the following chapter.
Drought coordination
6.6
As noted in Chapter 2, roles and responsibilities for drought policy are shared across Australian, state and territory governments, industry and farm businesses. However, complexity of drought governance and poor coordination was a clear theme arising from submitters. This evidence is discussed below in relation to governmental coordination and the roles of other stakeholders.
Governmental coordination
6.7
Evidence received by the committee highlighted the need for the Australian Government to work with state and territory governments to ensure consistency for drought support—particularly in relation to messaging, definitions and eligibility—and to avoid duplication.
6.8
A number of submitters noted that without effective coordination there is the potential for overlap between Australian Government, state and territory drought measures, confusion and inconsistent delivery. A number of these, including the NFF and the National Mental Health Commission, emphasised the importance of governments coordinating their responses 'to ensure a consistent approach that aligns initiatives without duplication of effort'.
6.9
Mr Tony Mahar, Chief Executive Officer, NFF, remarked that '[t]here are measures at each of those levels, but our view is that we can do better in terms of coordinating, collaborating and getting a more consistent approach'.
6.10
The TFGA called for alignment of agricultural definitions, such as primary producer status, and requirements for assistance during drought across Australian, state and territory governments. It argued that this would reduce confusion and ensure producers in drought in any area of the country receive the support they need.
Australian Government agencies
6.11
In addition, the committee heard that there would be benefit in improving the coordination across the 11 Australian Government agencies which deliver drought measures. In its 2020 review of the Australian Government drought response, the National Drought and North Queensland Flood Response and Recovery Agency (NDNQFRRA) reported that current arrangements present a risk for duplication and unclear messaging about available support.
6.12
The committee notes that the Australian Government facilitates drought coordination through the National Recovery and Resilience Agency. In addition, the Department of Agriculture, Water and the Environment facilitates ongoing drought coordination through the following groups:
National Drought Coordination Group (Australian, state and territory governments, drought coordinators and the Australian Local Government Association (ALGA));
Agricultural Ministers' Forum and Working Group, chaired by the Hon Shane Stone AC QC and comprising Australian, state and territory governments and the NFF;
Inter-Agency Drought Communication Network; and
Deputy Secretaries' Standing Group on Drought.
6.13
Earlier coordination included the appointment of Coordinator-General for Drought, Major General Stephen Day DSC AM, on 19 August 2018 who provided advice to the Australian Government to inform development of a strategy for drought preparedness and resilience. The Joint Agency Drought Taskforce, led by the Coordinator-General for Drought, was established to support this work. Both the role of Coordinator-General for Drought and the Joint Agency Drought Taskforce concluded in July 2019.
Other stakeholders
6.14
The committee heard that industry, farm businesses, local government and communities also play an important role in drought management. Inquiry participants generally agreed that coordination across these groups, and in some cases an enhanced role, is essential for an effective drought response.
Local government
6.15
Submitters highlighted the role of local government in responding to, and preparing for, drought. The ALGA highlighted that, as well as playing 'a critical role in building local identity, community wellbeing and social cohesion and contributing to national productivity' during times of drought, rural and regional councils deliver services and infrastructure to their communities to support resilience.
6.16
In addition, councils possess a wealth of local knowledge which is essential for planning for events like drought. Cr Reeves explained that a 'sound grassroots understanding of individual communities is critical to understanding how best to plan for and respond to the challenges they will face'.
6.17
The ALGA argued that councils must play a leadership role in drought preparedness and regional planning more broadly:
Regional planning, including planning for the drought must be undertaken in an integrated and collaborative way involving the three levels of government, business and community groups in development and implementation of the plan. We need to move away from the current siloed approach where we see economic development plans, community strategic plans at the local level, infrastructure plans at the state and national levels and separate disaster resilience, climate change adaptation and drought plans at the national level for example.
6.18
Evidence from the East Gippsland Shire Council echoed this view. According to Cr Reeves, 'increased input from the local government sector into the design of any future operational drought relief funding streams will significantly improve outcomes'.
6.19
Given the important role of local government in drought management, and the 'considerable strain' that drought imposes on these councils and the communities that they support, it is unsurprising that both the ALGA and East Gippsland Shire Council recommended that increased funding be made available to local government.
6.20
The ALGA called for an increase in funding of at least 1 per cent of taxation revenue to 'ensure that rural and regional councils can deliver services and infrastructure to their communities that support community resilience in times of drought and other disasters'.
6.21
Cr Reeves recommended that future funding for drought infrastructure initiatives be modelled on the Australian Government's Roads to Recovery Program—funding is provided to local councils who then choose road projects on which to spend their Roads to Recovery funding based on local priorities. He argued that:
All that is needed is a funding model that provides flexibility to identify and deliver those projects based on the local understanding and community needs within the broad program guidelines.
6.22
Cr Reeves explained that this would enable local government areas with small rates base and large areas to build resilience before crisis hits and not to be so reactive to the drought aspects of natural disaster.
Communities
6.23
Submitters also highlighted the importance of community engagement as an opportunity to share local, practical and operational knowledge and expertise. The NSW Irrigators' Council explained that '[t]o best utilise this knowledge requires participatory decision making and extensive consultation to ensure this knowledge can be incorporated into best-practice, evidence-based policy'.
6.24
The East Gippsland Shire Council noted the need for local communities to develop local capacity and leadership skills to 'think long term and to plan for the challenges and opportunities that may be encountered'. To this end, it argued that funding to undertake capacity-building work through individually funded and focussed projects should be provided to councils to enhance existing efforts.
6.25
The committee notes that these concerns are addressed to some extent through measures such as the Drought Resilience Leaders program, which provides funding to community members to undertake training in leadership.
6.26
In addition, the National Aboriginal Community Controlled Health Organisation argued that '[e]xisting and future measures intended to address the current drought crisis would benefit from the traditional expertise of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in land and water management'.
6.27
The NFF proposed the creation of a new National Drought Policy (NDP) which, among other things, denotes responsibilities for industry, farm businesses, local government and community groups. The proposed NDP is discussed below.
A new National Drought Policy
6.28
A number of submitters across industry and local government argued in favour of a new NDP to ensure the long-term viability of Australian agriculture. Reasons given in support of the NDP included a lack of coordination and continued hardship as a result of drought and inconsistency across drought support measures. In addition, the NFF submitted that an NDP is needed due to:
the continued introduction of ad hoc drought assistance measures during drought which undermine drought preparation and resilience measures;
significant variation between drought measures introduced in different jurisdictions;
a lack of information about program criteria and application processes;
uncertainty regarding the measures available to farmers and rural communities to help them successfully manage drought; and
the absence of a coordinated approach to drought preparation and management which includes representatives of impacted stakeholders.
6.29
The NFF put forward a draft NDP which combined several elements of the current National Drought Agreement with its own drought policy objectives. A particular focus was the role of industry, community groups and research organisations. For example, it suggested that farming businesses, industry services providers, agribusiness financial institutions, community organisations and local government should partner with Australian, state and territory governments to support rural communities to prepare for, respond to and recover from drought.
6.30
The NFF proposed a number of mechanisms to ensure the participation of these groups in the implementation, monitoring, review and amendment of the NDP. This included creation of an oversight committee, comprised of representatives across industry, government and community, and a biennial drought forum.
6.31
The Red Meat Advisory Council reiterated the NFF's concerns that current response measures are largely crisis driven. It argued that Australia requires an NDP that is cross-jurisdictional, cross-disciplinary and 'takes a future perspective when dealing with drought'.
6.32
Similarly, GrainGrowers submitted that there is 'a need for an enduring, coordinated and effective national drought policy in Australia'.
6.33
The ALGA also argued that an NDP would ensure better responsiveness. It explained:
Councils also noted that we need a national drought policy that ensures that Governments do not take three to five years to respond to the onset of drought. It was felt that there could be different 'triggers levels' for the types of assistance provided to farmers, businesses and communities.
Review and evaluation
6.34
A further concern raised by submitters was that evaluation and review has been inconsistent across drought programs. This evidence was discussed earlier in relation to support for farmers, communities and mental health.
6.35
In their proposed NDP, the NFF identified the need for an 'effective and mandated process for reviewing the National Drought Policy that includes monitoring and evaluation of specific drought programs and measures'. Specifically, the NDP recommends that overall policy effectiveness of each specific measure and program be reviewed every four years in order to inform program amendments.
6.36
The committee notes that a similar concern was raised by the NDNQFRRA as part of its review of the Australian Government drought response:
The lack of meaningful data and evaluation makes continuous improvement and evidence-based assessment challenging. For example, it is very difficult to understand if the government’s investment in preparedness and resilience has resulted in better outcomes.
Committee view
6.37
The nature of drought in Australia will always require and necessitate the need to coordinate efforts across Australian, state and territory governments, as well as various stakeholders.
6.38
It is clear that a self-reliant and prepared farming sector that is well placed to manage risks will benefit farmers, businesses and communities. However, achieving this outcome will require a degree of policy coordination which, as of yet, is not evident. The committee accepts that drought policy is a complex area, with many interconnected issues. However, the committee has formed the view that better communication, coordination and, in some cases, integration between policy areas is needed. The committee notes that the establishment of the National Resilience and Recovery Agency goes some way in addressing this concern.
6.39
While there have been strong efforts across the jurisdictions to share information and data about drought programs, there is a need for continued focus. Evidence discussed throughout this report highlights the risk of duplication, administrative inefficiencies and confusion. Therefore it is the committee's view that collaboration should be prioritised, particularly in relation to the following matters:
inter-jurisdictional consistency in the criteria, thresholds and indicators used to define drought and information about government intervention on drought assistance; and
communication about available support to those in need.
6.40
These issues cut across the suite of drought programs and measures and have been addressed in greater detail throughout this report. A comprehensive list of recommendations can be found at the start of this report.
6.41
In addition, meaningful monitoring and evaluation is essential to ensure value for money and to make certain that farmers and communities are better prepared for future droughts. As a result, is it is vital that the Australian Government invest further in monitoring and evaluation practices.
6.42
The committee recommends that the Australian Government invest further in monitoring and evaluation practices to ensure drought measures are appropriate, targeted and effective.
6.43
Local government is crucial to the delivery of services in the community during times of drought, including local infrastructure projects and drought relief activities. Submitters identified the need for local government—by virtue of its wealth of local knowledge—to play a greater leadership role in drought preparedness. In addition, a number of submitters called for increased financial assistance and improved funding arrangements which provide greater discretion to local government to invest in projects that will have the biggest impact in their community.
6.44
The committee recommends that the Australian Government focus on the long-term financial sustainability of Local Government through increases to grant allocations, including fair increases to Financial Assistance Grants.
6.45
The committee recommends that the Australian Government utilise local government expertise to inform which future drought infrastructure initiatives are implemented based on local understanding and community needs.
6.46
The committee recommends that the Australian Government work with state, territory and local governments, industry and communities to develop a new National Drought Policy which ensures all drought-impacted farmers, irrespective of the commodity they produce, are able to access drought support. The policy should incorporate:
a nationally consistent approach to drought policy, underpinned by an intergovernmental agreement that specifies roles and responsibilities for each level of government;
a framework for jurisdictions to monitor, review and adapt drought programs with industry and local community involvement; and
relevant complementary education and personal support services, and provides farmers and rural and regional communities with a full suite of risk management tools.