Introduction
5.1
The committee received evidence that drought has a number of social and economic impacts on communities in drought-affected areas, including on community resilience, financial wellbeing, mental health, employment and family relationships. For Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities, which share a deep connection to country, drought can also damage traditional culture and exacerbate socioeconomic disadvantage.
5.2
This chapter discusses evidence received in relation to support for wider communities affected by drought, including areas where inquiry participants felt that current drought support could be improved—namely, clear and consistent communication, expanded eligibility and long-term funding. Inquiry participants stressed the need for drought support for communities, with some arguing that current drought policy settings are too focussed on farmers. The committee received further evidence that drought support for communities should aim to build resilience by supporting local employment and investing in community infrastructure, local leadership and mental health.
Drought Communities Program Extension
5.3
Funding is available to eligible councils to support local infrastructure and other drought relief projects under the Drought Communities Program (DCP) Extension. The National Drought and North Queensland Flood Response and Recovery Agency (NDNQFRRA) informed the committee that, since 2018–19, the Australian Government has committed $301 million to 180 Local Government Areas (LGA) in all states and territories, excluding the Australian Capital Territory.
5.4
Inquiry participants recognised the important role of the DCP Extension in providing short-term economic stimulus for drought-affected communities. However, submitters, such as the Australian Local Government Association (ALGA), raised concern in relation to eligibility criteria, timeframes and 'the bureaucratic nature of the process and the lack of responsiveness and agility'. This evidence is discussed below.
Eligibility
5.5
The DCP Extension was made available to councils declared eligible by the Minister for Drought. The Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Communications draws upon a number of factors to determine eligibility, including rainfall deficiency data from the Bureau of Meteorology and economic and industry data, such as the workforce employed in agriculture, forestry and fisheries.
5.6
Some submitters questioned the reliability and suitability of the criteria used to determine the eligibility of councils.
5.7
The committee notes that the DCP Extension was subject to criticism in 2019 when it was revealed that:
An eligible council reported that, even though it had rainfall deficiency, rain occurred at the right times and hence the LGA was not experiencing the effects of drought.
A council was made eligible for funding despite recent rainfall in the area.
A council was not determined as eligible due to the proportion of agricultural workforce requirements in the eligibility criteria. However, the area was approximately 0.1 per cent below the threshold and was experiencing significant rainfall deficiencies.
5.8
In November 2019, the Australian Government commissioned an independent review of the DCP Extension which found, among other things, that the DCP Extension program design has 'limited ability to target areas being economically affected because of drought'.
5.9
The last funding announcement in January 2020 took into account a range of factors, including stricter 24-month consecutive rainfall deficiency data, economic exposure to drought in both agriculture and related downstream manufacturing, and population size with funding tiered at up to $500 000 for councils of less than 1000 people and up to $1 million for councils with larger populations. However, the ALGA argued that this tiered approach was 'very blunt'. Instead, it recommended that a portion of the funding allocation be distributed on a per capita basis, with the remainder disbursed on as-needed or fixed-share basis.
5.10
Alternatively, the ALGA recommended that the Australian Government establish a non-competitive, direct allocation process similar to the funding methodology used for the Regional and Local Community Infrastructure Program that set a proportion of funds available to all drought-affected councils based on a formula agreed with state grants commissions.
Administrative burden
5.11
The committee heard that eligible councils are able to apply through the Business Grants Hub to have project proposals assessed against what one submitter characterised as 'broad' program guidelines. For a number of councils, this ambiguity led them to submit projects that appeared eligible and had the support of their local communities but were subsequently deemed ineligible.
5.12
The ALGA also expressed concern regarding 'the bureaucratic nature of the process and the lack of responsiveness and agility'. To improve the DCP Extension program, the ALGA suggested that any further 'funds are distributed to eligible local governments with minimal application requirements and robust reconciliation requirements'.
5.13
Speaking more broadly, the East Gippsland Shire Council argued that drought support programs need to provide an appropriate balance between ensuring effective use of public funds and conditions of access. It submitted that this is critical 'because the effectiveness of the support arrangements in the community will be determined by the ability of those affected to access the programs available'.
Funding timeframes
5.14
Further concerns were raised in relation to the narrow window (less than 12 months on average) in which councils must determine projects, apply for funding under the DCP Extension, have the contract executed and then deliver the project. The committee heard that allowing more time to deliver projects would have allowed councils to focus more on projects relevant to long-term community resilience and solutions for drought mitigation.
5.15
The ALGA observed that '[f]unding programs that have an effective implementation time of twelve months or less do not necessarily result in the optimal suite of projects being funded'. As a result, councils would use the funding for repairs and maintenance and minor upgrades rather than the development of strategic, impactful infrastructure that would deliver lasting and tangible economic benefits.
5.16
The ALGA also reported that often there was a 'considerable lag' between the time of the announcement of councils being eligible for funding and the grant opportunity guidelines and online portal being available for councils to submit applications. This was highlighted as being particularly problematic where funds were used for local infrastructure projects, which typically involve development timeframes in excess of twelve months.
5.17
Additionally, the committee heard that short timeframes for project completion had placed extreme pressure on staff, contractors and community groups assisting to deliver the projects.
Lack of continuity in funding
5.18
As noted in the previous chapter, the need for long-term funding has been a recurrent theme throughout this inquiry. The committee heard that a 'long‑term issue such as drought needs a long-term program'. The ALGA argued that continuity of funding is essential in order to realise the economic and other benefits of the DCP Extension, as short-term funding arrangements do 'not provide stimulus funding to sustain communities through the early stages of drought recovery'. In particular, it highlighted that skilled workers were leaving regional communities 'due to the time lag between drought impacting and stimulus funds being made available'. To combat this, it argued that funding should be committed for two to three years.
Mental health
Impact of drought on mental health
5.19
The committee heard evidence that residents of farming communities experience substantial distress and trauma as a result of drought. For example, Mr Benjamin Cronshaw submitted that '[f]inancial pressure combined with extreme weather events (such as drought), putting some people in a seemingly hopeless position, can have a serious, debilitating impact on mental health'.
5.20
Unlike other natural disasters, that often pose a contained acute stress and crisis period, the nature of drought is such that it continues long term resulting in sustained chronic stress and a prolonged impact on communities.
5.21
The National Mental Health Commission (NMHC) pointed out that the agriculture industry has been particularly exposed to the impacts of climate change, with some research indicating that higher average temperatures correlate with higher suicide rates. This is particularly concerning given that Australians living in rural and regional areas are already at higher risk of suicide than their urban counterparts.
5.22
The NMHC drew the committee's attention to certain at-risk groups, such as men and young people. Similarly, the TFGA submitted that '[y]ounger producers living and working on the farm under financial hardship or isolation can be more prone to drought related stress'. It added that those with a lower income were also at greater risk of mental illness.
5.23
Of particular concern to submitters was the significant impact of drought on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples and poor health outcomes in this population group. For example, the NMHC informed the committee that, in 2016, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples were 2.1 times more likely to have died as a result of suicide.
5.24
The committee heard that connectedness to land and rivers has particular significance for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. The NMHC explained that prolonged drought compounds existing underlying disadvantage, while drought-induced degradation of land and loss of income can lead to migration of adults from traditional land to regional centres, leaving communities of young children and grandparents.
5.25
In addition to the impacts outlined above, the NMHC advised that the stressful effects of drought and subsequent loss of income can have far‑reaching implications for extended families.
Areas for improvement
5.26
As at 30 June 2020, the Australian Government had committed $29.8 million since 2018 for drought mental health initiatives. Submitters, such as the TFGA, welcomed the Australian Government's investment in mental health services. Mr Cronshaw highlighted the importance of mental health programs and support. He submitted that '[a]ssistance from government to adapt and manage to drought conditions can help relieve financial and psychological pressures on farmers'.
5.27
However, several inquiry participants called for better access to mental health services to address local need, with some submitters highlighting a shortage of mental health professionals. This evidence, as well as other opportunities for improvement, is discussed below.
Better access to mental health services
5.28
Submitters raised concern that residents of rural and remote communities face difficulty accessing health services due to isolation and the limited number of practitioners in regional areas.
5.29
Following its 2018 inquiry into the accessibility and quality of mental health services in rural and remote Australia, the Senate Community Affairs References Committee concluded that '[o]ne of the biggest barriers to accessing services in rural and remote Australia is the tyranny of distance'. This distance impacts not only the availability of mental health services, but also the ability of people to travel to those services.
5.30
While telehealth is becoming an increasingly popular method of service delivery in rural and remote areas to combat the lack of available local services, the committee heard that a lack of telecommunications infrastructure is limiting telehealth as a viable option. For example, the NMHC submitted that 'reliance on internet for telehealth and online mental health services is not sufficient given some Australians may not have internet connections of the required quality to sustain this'.
5.31
The committee also heard evidence that there is a need for more mental health practitioners in drought-affected communities. For example, the NMHC explained that 'access to psychiatrists is currently very limited for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples and those living in remote and rural locations due to the maldistribution of the workforce'.
5.32
To address this need, the National Aboriginal Community Controlled Health Organisation (NACCHO) argued that additional funding should be allocated to employ environment health workers. In addition, the NMHC proposed greater utilisation of local community responses, 'such as involving peer workers, community wellbeing centres and outreach services independent of availability of clinical staff'.
Lack of help-seeking
5.33
The committee heard that communities in need of mental health support are often affected by 'a lack of help-seeking via clinical services'. As noted by the Coordinator-General for Drought in 2019, farmers are more likely to try and manage stress and mental issues themselves rather than seek help from the health system. The NMHC added that 'for men in particular, lack of help‑seeking can be attributed to barriers such as perceptions around vulnerability, denial or fear and low mental health literacy'.
5.34
Similarly, the TFGA observed that:
Producers are renowned for the stoicism and resilience as they cope with the extreme weather events Australia is known for. This stoicism can also be a potential downfall, however, as producers continue to 'wait out' periods of drought. Producers are less likely to visit a GP or report mental health issues than those not working on a farm and in terms of extreme and enduring drought, this is a serious risk to their health and wellbeing.
5.35
For this reason, the TFGA recommended continued investment 'into encouragement of producers to seek help for mental health issues'.
Education
5.36
The NSW Irrigators' Council submitted that mental health support 'must include public education, due to the abuse, bullying and threats made towards farmers and the farming industry, particularly through social media, at times of critical water insecurity'.
5.37
Ms Claire Miller, Chief Executive Officer, NSW Irrigators' Council, expanded on this:
During the most recent drought, this targeted and very public bullying did affect the mental health and wellbeing of regional communities and particularly the irrigation farmers whose livelihoods were being called into question'.
5.38
As a result, Ms Miller argued that there is a need to improve the water literacy of the broader public so that people can better understand how water is shared and allocated and how that hierarchy works.
A national mental health program
5.39
The committee heard repeatedly that mental health support should form a strong focus of drought policy. To this end, inquiry participants, such as the National Farmers' Federation (NFF) and NMHC, called on the Australian Government to develop effective mental health strategies and programs.
5.40
The NMHC recommended the development of a long-term national mental health program which aims to improve service access and coordination, links farming communities to more effective local responses to emerging mental health needs and incorporates mental health outreach and care coordination. It argued that such an approach would be consistent with the Australian Government's shift toward a focus on preparedness, rather than responding in crisis, by preventing rural mental health risks from drought rather than managing the consequences.
5.41
The committee notes that a similar recommendation was made by the Senate Community Affairs References Committee. In its response, the Australian Government committed to consider the potential for a rural and remote mental health strategy in collaboration with the NMHC and raise the issue with the Council of Australian Governments Health Council. No update has been provided to the committee on this work.
Limited review and evaluation
5.42
The NMHC highlighted the limited evidence available regarding the effectiveness of drought-related mental health initiatives. It also noted a further shortcoming—namely, that evaluation studies tend to focus on reach, acceptability, implementation and sustainability without reference to outcomes such as cultural and attitudinal change or improved mental health wellbeing. As a result, the NMHC recommended the Australian Government fund further research in these areas.
Targeted support
5.43
Various submitters argued that policy settings need to be amended to provide vital mental health services to people in need. For example, the TFGA argued that due to the wide-ranging impacts of drought, mental health services should not only be available to producers but also their households and communities.
5.44
A number of submitters expressed the view that specific responses are required for groups at high risk of needing mental health services as well as for suicide prevention in drought-affected communities, including men, young people and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples.
5.45
The NACCHO recommended that the Australian Government provide additional funding to extend social and emotional health and wellbeing programs focused on building resilience against the impacts of climate change.
5.46
In addition, the NHMC expressed concern that the above at-risk groups are not referenced in the current Drought Response, Resilience and Preparedness Plan. It urged the Australian Government to consult with local communities to develop appropriate responses that could include 'additional Aboriginal mental health workers, social emotional wellbeing workers and healers to provide mental health services both in Aboriginal Community Controlled Health Services and also in mainstream services'.
Job losses
5.47
For a number of submitters, drought is a major factor contributing to job losses 'on-farm, in regional communities and across the full length of the supply chain'. The committee heard that this is particularly the case for sectors which are heavily reliant on seasonal conditions, such as agriculture.
5.48
For example, Mr John McKillop, Independent Chair, Red Meat Advisory Council, highlighted the cyclical nature of the cotton industry:
In times when there was no water, you laid off staff, because you just couldn't keep them on. Once you let staff go at a place like Bourke, you didn't get them back again. So, when the water flowed again, suddenly you're back there without tractor drivers and people to do the work.
5.49
Mr McKillop also emphasised the difficulty associated with securing workers—'[o]nce people go, they tend to head to the cities and not come back again'.
5.50
Similarly, Mr Zachary Whale, General Manager, Policy and Advocacy, GrainGrowers, remarked that laid off workers are 'not necessarily going to be there with the ready-made skill set when you need them again'.
Public service jobs
5.51
Inquiry participants called on the Australian Government to better support employment in drought-affected communities. Some suggested that this could be achieved by increasing public service jobs in regional communities, while others argued that consistent and targeted funding would enable businesses to retain staff during periods of water scarcity.
5.52
Mr Michael Tull, Assistant National Secretary, Community and Public Sector Union (CPSU), advised that between December 2013 and December 2020 there was a net decline of 1528 (18 per cent) public service jobs in drought-affected areas.
5.53
Some submitters highlighted the flow on effect of job losses for rural and regional communities—such as families relocating, less money being spent in the local economy and the loss of infrastructure and services. Mr Tull estimated the economic impact of these job losses:
The CPSU assesses that the impact of job cuts has a multiplier of about 1.8: every lost dollar in wages has about $1.80 in economic impact. When we round those things up, that's $665 million of lost wages from drought affected communities; the total economic impact of that now tops $1 billion … It's a huge amount of money that's no longer going through the local businesses and local shops of those drought affected regions, particularly at a point where they were doing it tough and every dollar counted.
5.54
The CPSU made the case for more public service jobs in regional communities to make them more resilient to drought. It submitted that public sector jobs in regional communities encourage local consumer spending, provide career opportunities for young people and women, increase government services and support new economic opportunities.
5.55
The CPSU further explained that:
Increasing the number of jobs in regional Australia will not only reverse the impact of job cuts but demonstrates that government has a commitment to both service delivery and strengthening regional economies affected by drought.
5.56
The solution, according to Mr Tull, is simple: 'we need to see those jobs restored to regional areas'. He told the committee that 'a well-targeted job placement, can get the ball rolling and be an anchor and be an attractor point for other investment, to get jobs into those regions that locals can apply for'.
5.57
The CPSU also detailed a number of data gaps which it argued should be publicly available 'to assist with discussions around public sector jobs in regional Australia' and provide a 'more holistic understanding of the entire workforce in the APS [Australian Public Service] and where it is located is required'. In particular, it requested access to headcount datasets by location, agency, classification, job family, employment category and length of service.
Employee assistance program
5.58
As noted earlier, the committee received evidence from a number of submitters that primary producers struggle to retain workers during periods of drought. As a result of being laid-off, these workers often relocate or take up other employment which poses a further challenge to the businesses that are then unable to secure workers when needed. To address this, the NFF proposed that the Australian Government develop a new employee assistance program aimed at maintaining the skilled rural and farm labour workforce during drought.
Infrastructure funding
5.59
As discussed above in relation to the DCP Extension, infrastructure projects also generate local employment. However, the ALGA advised that this outcome is undermined by restrictive timeframes in which to deliver projects and short-term funding. The committee heard that, for infrastructure projects to boost local employment and spending, funding should be committed for two to three years.
5.60
In addition, the Australian Meat Industry Council argued that infrastructure funding under current programs, such as the Building Better Regions Fund, should be made available to agricultural-dependent businesses as this 'will achieve similar if not better return on investment, through the creation of jobs immediately via infrastructure construction, as well as additional meat processing jobs post-construction'.
Committee view
5.61
The devastating impacts of drought on rural and regional communities dependent on agriculture cannot be understated. Drought has had a number of consequences for these communities, including loss of employment, financial hardship for families and local businesses and increased stress which extends beyond family relationships to impact regional life more broadly.
5.62
The evidence discussed throughout this chapter clearly indicates that drought assistance should focus on wider community preparedness, not just farm businesses.
5.63
The committee acknowledges the evidence received regarding the importance of and significant investment made by the Australian Government in local infrastructure and other drought relief projects under the DCP Extension. Whilst welcoming the drought support offered by the DCP Extension, the committee is deeply concerned that there have been significant issues with the timing and design of the program. In particular, the committee notes the evidence of submitters that the success of this program has been limited by inflexible eligibility and a burdensome application process. Additionally, councils have struggled to deliver strategic, meaningful infrastructure due to short funding timeframes and a lack of continuity in funding.
5.64
The committee notes that these issues cut across the suite of drought programs and measures. In response, the committee has made a number of recommendations to build resilience, streamline application processes, ensure consistency of program design and eligibility criteria and improve information sharing practices. A comprehensive list of recommendations can be found at the start of this report.
5.65
This evidence also demonstrates that there is a need to give local government greater flexibility to choose the projects that will have the biggest impact in their community. The role of local government in responding to and preparing for drought, as well as opportunities for improvement, are discussed further in the following chapter.
Mental health
5.66
Of particular concern to the committee and raised throughout this inquiry is the detrimental impact drought has on mental health: farmers experience stresses from seeing their crops fail, selling breeding stock, increased workloads (which result in social isolation from friends, family and community) and land deterioration. Importantly, the committee notes that stressful effects of drought extend beyond farmers to impact individuals in the wider community. The committee heard that financial hardship is leading to increased stress, anxiety, depression and family breakdown.
5.67
The committee acknowledges the long-standing challenges associated with attracting and retaining appropriately qualified health professionals, such as psychologists, in regional areas. These issues have been compounded by the increased mental health burden on communities affected by drought.
5.68
Ensuring that there is better access to mental health services in regional communities is essential. To this end, the committee has made a series of recommendations with the aim of better supporting the mental health of regional communities.
5.69
The committee recommends that the Australian Government consider opportunities for increased funding for mental health services and service providers in regional, rural and remote areas.
5.70
The committee recommends that the Australian Government fund research into the effectiveness of mental health services, which include a focus on outcomes such as cultural and attitudinal change.
5.71
The committee recommends that the Australian Government, in consultation with rural and regional communities, introduce measures to provide targeted mental health services for at-risk groups, including men, young people and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples.
5.72
In addition, the committee has had regard to a number of related recommendations made by the Senate Community Affairs References Committee as part of its 2018 inquiry into the accessibility and quality of mental health services in rural and remote Australia. Recommendations 1 and 17, reproduced below, are of particular relevance:
Recommendation 1: The committee recommends the development of a national rural and remote mental health strategy which seeks to address the low rates of access to services, workforce shortage, the high rate of suicide, cultural realities, language barriers and the social determinants of mental health in rural and remote communities.
Recommendation 17: The committee recommends that Commonwealth, State and Territory Governments, as well as mental health service providers and local communities, continue to educate rural and remote communities about mental health and advertise local and digitally-available support services, with a view to reducing the associated stigma.
5.73
The committee notes the Australian Government's support of these recommendations and would welcome an update on progress made towards the development of a national rural and remote mental health strategy.
Boosting employment in drought-affected communities
5.74
The committee is deeply concerned that drought has resulted in substantial job losses. This has significant implications for drought-affected communities, with families relocating, less money being spent in the local economy and loss of infrastructure and services. It is abundantly evident that we need to grow employment in the regions. To this end, the committee recommends the Australian Government urgently look to identify opportunities to support regional employment.
5.75
The committee recommends that the Australian Government review existing drought programs to identify further potential opportunities to support regional employment. This should include assessment of the following factors:
the possibility of decentralising public service staff;
the appropriateness of funding timeframes; and
opportunities for local workforce development.