Bills

Drought Response and Recovery Coordinator Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading (resumed on motion).

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS (15:53): I rise to speak on the Drought Response and Recovery Coordinator Bill. I recognise that this legislation is being advanced by the opposition on the basis that they consider it necessary in terms of being a step towards ensuring that South Australia is better prepared for the increasing threat of drought, an issue that is no longer seasonal or cyclical but increasingly chronic, and driven by the exhilarating impacts of climate change.

The bill establishes a drought response and recovery coordinator, a role that will be critical in ensuring that drought conditions are recognised early, that responses are swift and effective, and that recovery efforts are coordinated across government, industry and community. It also provides for the development of a drought response and recovery plan and the establishment of a dedicated fund to support those affected.

The Greens support this bill, but we also believe that it should go further. That is why the Greens are moving amendments to ensure the coordinator's work is aligned with South Australia's climate change targets under the Climate Change and Greenhouse Emissions Reduction Act. Our amendments will embed climate change as a core consideration in drought response and recovery planning because the science is clear: droughts are becoming more frequent, more severe and more prolonged due to a warming climate.

According to the Climate Council, South Australia has already warmed by nearly 1º over the past century. The last decade was our hottest on record. By 2030, the number of extremely hot days, those above 35º, is projected to rise significantly, increasing the risk of heat-related illness, crop failure and water stress.

Rainfall patterns are also changing. Southern South Australia has experienced a clear decline in rainfall since the 1970s, and the trend is expected to continue. The Murray-Darling Basin, a lifeline for our state's agriculture and communities, is drying. During the Millennium Drought river flows dropped to less than half the long-term average. These are not just anomalies, they are previews of a new normal.

Let's be clear: drought is not just a rural issue, it affects food security, water supply, mental health and economic resilience across the state. It impacts First Nations communities, small businesses and urban households. It places enormous pressure on our emergency services, our health systems and our environment.

That is why our amendments are so important. They ensure the coordinator's plans and actions are not just reactive but proactive, guided by climate science, aligned with emissions reduction goals and focused on building long-term resilience. We must not treat drought as an isolated emergency; it is a symptom of a broader climate crisis, and our response must reflect that reality.

This bill provides a strong foundation, it establishes a clear framework for declaring drought emergencies, coordinating responses and supporting recovery. It ensures transparency and accountability through reporting requirements and oversight mechanisms, but without a clear mandate to consider climate change we risk missing the mark by treating the symptoms without addressing the causes.

Our amendments would ensure the coordinator's work is future focused, that drought response plans are informed by climate projections and that recovery efforts support not just rebuilding but adaptation. I understand the sector has expressed some concerns regarding some elements of the bill, and I also note the views the government has expressed. I am still inclined to support the bill on the basis that it sends a clear message around the importance of managing drought, but I will, of course, closely monitor the committee stage.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS (15:57): I rise very briefly to support this bill, noting that I might start coughing if I speak for too long. This is a welcome demonstration of leadership from the Hon. Nicola Centofanti. I certainly understand the principle of what she has brought here to be debated as one that is really important to those communities currently doing it pretty damn tough, and the recognition of those circumstances is incredibly important.

I note that it has been described as an outdated policy by the government in terms of a drought declaration and that references have been made to the national agreement, but I note that parts of New South Wales have been declared in drought, and as someone whose family lives in those parts of New South Wales I know that that means quite a lot to them. Regardless of the bureaucracy of who can apply for funding and when and where, that is actually something that is more of a communications issue rather than an issue that should be created by this bill in and of itself.

I also welcome the government's announcement last week of a drought commissioner. I hope Commissioner Zimmerman will have the tools he needs to do a really important job. The fact that we would have had, under this bill, a coordinator goes some way to show that this bill did identify an issue that needed to be addressed, and it is now within the government's hands, hopefully, to listen to this parliament, to listen to the people who are affected by the drought, and to ensure that there are no wrong doors when they ask for help.

That, to me, is the most important thing that we are addressing here today. I note that I have written to the government with regard to the impact on communities under this drought—watching animals starving, seeking assistance and to receive correspondence that refers them to their local GP is not what I would hope to see.

I hope the commissioner will be that 'no wrong door' approach and will identify issues on the ground, regardless of whether or not they are funding streams, and we will see a real effort made to support those who are doing it so tough. I also indicate that I will be supporting the Greens' climate change amendments, unsurprisingly, and look forward to those being debated as well.

I understand from the government that this is not a perfect bill in their estimation, and it is not a bill that they would have brought forward, but it is the first time this council is properly debating this issue in regard to the role of a coordinator, a 'no wrong doors' approach, and with the announcement of the commissioner I would hope that the government will see fit to take this debate and craft it in its own liking. Should they have amendments they wish to make, should it pass this council, certainly I will be open to listening to those as well.

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI (Leader of the Opposition) (16:00): I thank members for their contribution. I thank the minister, the Hon. Robert Simms, the Hon. Jing Lee and the Hon. Tammy Franks. I would also like to acknowledge the contribution of the Hon. Robert Simms and thank him for his ongoing engagement with the Drought Response and Recovery Coordinator Bill 2025. I think his amendments reflect a genuine commitment to long-term sustainability and climate resilience, which is an important policy conversation in its own right.

It is important to note, however, that the Future Drought Fund, which is a billion dollar federal and state fund, is designed predominantly for that purpose. It is designed for preparedness, it is designed for resilience and it is designed for sustainability. The one thing in recent times that has shown it does not account for as well as it should is exceptional circumstances like we are currently facing in South Australia, and that is being able to ensure acute response to support delivery for our farmers and farming communities during this period of time.

I would encourage the government to reassess its position on this bill for the sake of our farmers and farming communities, because if this bill does pass this chamber today, the only thing that is standing between practical support is the government's political will. The minister spoke about assistance being based on need and the importance of farmers not needing to wait for support. The irony is that we are here today debating this bill because our farmers have not been supported. They are still waiting for support and they are on their knees.

The reality is that the National Drought Agreement is not working, but farmers and farming communities do not have time for bureaucracy to review this agreement. They need support now; in fact, they needed support months ago. We are here because we need this government to show the same political will that they rightfully showed with Whyalla. We need them to show the same political will as they did for Whyalla for our primary producers in South Australia.

This legislation acknowledges the reality and responds with structure, coordination and urgency, and it ensures that drought is no longer treated as an administrative afterthought but as a disaster worthy of a clear and coordinated response. With that, I commend the bill to the council.

Bill read a second time.

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clause 1.

The CHAIR: Before I ask for contributions to clause 1, I will call the Hon. Ms Bonaros.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: Thank you, Chair, and I apologise once again. It has been a big juggling act this week. I rise to indicate my in-principle support for this bill. At the outset, can I thank the mover and the Leader of the Opposition for introducing this bill. I get that this is a difficult issue. Regardless of which side of the benches you are sitting on, it is a difficult issue for government, for the opposition and for the rest of us as well.

It is my belief that the mover's intentions here are not politically motivated and that this bill comes from a very good place. I am trying to think who it was that I just had a conversation with before the lunchbreak, somebody who actually said to me, 'My son lives in the regions and we see Nicola all the time. Good on her for going out and doing the things that she's doing.' That is not to say that others are not doing it, but there were conversations—and I think I have just worked out who it was.

The Hon. T.A. Franks interjecting:

The Hon. C. BONAROS: Yes. I could not remember, but there you go. It was not one of my family members. I do not say that flippantly: we have seen what you are doing. I think that this is genuine care that we all have about the drought and frustration we have at the processes. They are frustrations that, when you hear about them day in and day out, you feel these people are hitting their heads against a wall and not getting much outcome. Of course, we know that the worst outcome of all of that is when people take their lives. That is the sad reality for people who find themselves confronted with these sorts of situations. It is out of sight and out of mind for all of us here in the city who just cannot wrap our heads around the impact that the drought is having on our communities in our regions in particular.

I acknowledge also the points that the minister has made. This is measured. I acknowledge also the points that the minister has made. I think it is fair. I know that there are things that are happening, and the announcement that the minister referred to earlier today, about the most recent appointment, is a good thing. It is not something about which any of us should say that it is not warranted and it is not necessary. It is necessary, but I guess the question is: is it enough? Do we have this ongoing frustration about the way we deal with this at a state and at a federal level? Has there been buck-passing and all the rest of it? All those points are worthy of discussion.

I do not know whether this model can actually achieve what the mover would like, and I take on board the concerns that the minister has raised about its interactions with the National Drought Agreement and potentially leaving things in limbo. The reason I am supporting this is that I think we need to show that we are standing with the mover in terms of saying that something has to give and something has to change. There are people doing it really tough, and that is not okay. If more needs to be done, then tell us what that is. If this structure needs to change, then show us what that looks like. We might not have that intel or that knowledge, but somebody must. If there is a way to make these things live together, side-by-side, with any national agreements, then make that happen.

Since the weekend, I have received a number of calls about this bill—and the Biodiversity Bill—and they have all touched on similar issues in terms of what we could be doing. I have seen the letter from Primary Producers SA and I acknowledge the frustration on both parts. There are lots of ideas about the things that we can be doing or should be doing. Someone called me and said that we should establish a fund where we tuck away supply for times of need—and we were talking about this specifically—so there is something to access. Whether it is a levy that is paid in like other industries or whatever it is, we need to be looking at all of these different options.

The truth is that we do need to be looking at all of these different options and I know that everyone is going to have a different opinion on what the best outcome is. I think the bottom line is that, from where I sit, I agree with the mover and echo the sentiments of other speakers who have spoken in support of this bill that we owe it to those communities who are actually doing it really tough to put this on the agenda, pass this bill today and show that we stand with them, not against them, in terms of trying to find some sort of outcome.

And I say again that I think we can move beyond the political pointscoring. I do not think that that is the issue that has driven this. The mover said that this is about ensuring our farmers and our regions are not left to shoulder the burden alone. They are not asking for a handout—we always hear that. They are asking for fair, timely and practical support to help them weather the storm and to rebuild and that is what we all want to see. If we need to do something else or make changes to make that happen, I am signalling my support for this bill to say let's get on with the job of making that happen.

So, whilst I take on board the concerns that have been raised by government—and they are genuine concerns, I get it, and we have this National Drought Agreement that we cannot ignore that we are part of—we need to look practically at the things we can do. The mover is quite right: it does not solve every challenge. There are going to continue to be challenges, but I think she is also quite right when she says that it sets the foundation for a response that is coordinated, credible and, most importantly, compassionate and I think that is what people expect of us.

It is on that basis that I am indicating my support for this bill, in the hope that it will deliver something that is much needed by our communities who are really feeling the brunt of the drought and I think are feeling really alone. At a time when you are feeling that alone, I guess that is when we are supposed to step up and that is, I hope, what we are doing—stepping up and showing them they are not alone and we are willing to do all we can to address that.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I have some questions for the mover of the bill. Could the mover advise what immediate, tangible assistance would be provided through this bill that is not currently available?

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: Specifically, I think, it is going to the provision in regard to clause 17, State Drought Response and Recovery Fund, noting in there specifically that that clause refers to payments from a fund considered appropriate for the purposes of drought relief and recovery establishing the granting of concessional loans.

I understand that the minister, when she is repeatedly asked about concessional loans, talks about the current federal government RIC loans. The feedback I hear time and time again from farmers who have looked to access those RIC loans is that the interest rate being 5.18 per cent and variable is not in their eyes an interest rate they are willing to risk stepping into.

I note that in other states, such as in Queensland under their authority, QRIDA, they produce no and low concessional loans, as do NSW through their authority, the RAA. So I think that there is an ability. Certainly, I know that there is a desire from many farmers and farming communities out there for there to be a similar fund, a similar concessional loan program, in South Australia. I think that is absolutely one thing that is missing here and one thing that the government can do.

If they do not require this piece of legislation to do that, then I would say absolutely go and do it, but at the moment, when we are asking for no and low concessional loans, and indeed when the farming community is asking for no and low concessional loans, we are repeatedly hearing from this state government that they need to refer themselves to a federal government loans program.

That is one thing that this bill certainly, I think, would absolutely fast-track, but again, passing this bill actually also needs political will. It takes the government to want to stand up and help our farmers. What I hope comes out of this bill is that there is some recognition that there are things that can be done. No and low concessional loans to provide much-needed cashflow for our farmers, who are doing it incredibly tough, to access food and fodder and water carting and the like, is one of the support services or support packages that could be rolled out through this bill.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: How would this fund be appropriated, and how is it different to the cabinet approval of funding for programs and measures, such as the $73 million that has already been announced?

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: Mr Chairman, I might just ask you to clarify whether or not we are allowed questions. I have been given some advice as to whether or not this is a money clause. I am happy to answer.

The CHAIR: Questions can certainly be asked about that particular clause. However, it will only be a suggestion that goes to the House of Assembly, and I will be telling the committee when the time comes that this clause, being a money clause, will be printed in erased type in a numbered bill to be transferred to the House of Assembly.

Standing Order 298 provides that no question shall be put in committee upon such clause. That means that we will not be putting the question when it comes to that clause. The message transmitting the bill to the House Assembly is required to indicate that this clause is deemed necessary to the bill. But you can certainly ask questions, and you can certainly answer questions.

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: Thank you for that guidance, Mr Chairman. It is outlined in the bill that the fund will consist of any moneys received by the state and any money appropriated by the parliament for such purposes. Ultimately, I would have thought that that is up to the government of the day. I am certainly not suggesting that I need to be dictating that, but certainly I would have thought there would be some sensible conversations with the commonwealth.

Also noting, obviously, that we have just been through a budget process. Perhaps some of the funds of the $73-odd million package that the government has announced—we are yet to actually get an answer in this chamber as to how much of the funds in that package have actually hit the ground. If the minister is looking at how funds can be appropriated, one of my suggestions would be perhaps looking into some of those funds that are yet to hit the ground.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I reiterate the question: how is this different to funding being approved by cabinet, as has already occurred?

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: I think this fund potentially can be utilised as a longer term fund so that, something like what we are seeing in Queensland with the QRIDA, their authority, or in NSW with the RAA, there is money kept in this fund for times when a drought is declared and therefore those funds can then be utilised for support for our primary producers.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I appreciate that could be a potential for the future, but given my questions were about what immediate, practical, on-the-ground support this bill will provide, that would appear to imply that there would be none. Is that the member's understanding?

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: No, that is not my understanding, and I think I have already answered the minister's question previously.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: The honourable member has said that there would be the existing fund—the $73 million that has already been supplied by the government—and then referred to the future, so it really does seem to suggest that there would be no immediate tangible benefit to people on the ground who are experiencing this drought. My next question to the member is: which peak bodies did you consult with in developing this bill?

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: In terms of consultation, obviously the minister is aware of the consultation that I have had with peak industry bodies: PPSA and various other industry bodies such as GPSA, Livestock SA, SA Dairyfarmers' Association and the like. The minister during her second reading contribution outlined some comments from a letter from PPSA, and I too would like to read from that correspondence. In that letter to myself as the mover of this bill, PPSA state:

For the avoidance of doubt, PPSA appreciates both the policy intent behind the objectives of this Bill, informed by your engagement with individual primary producers, and personal desire to improve access to the support package currently on offer to drought affected farms and regional communities.

We sincerely welcome your ongoing engagement with our sector to improve the current drought response across the South Australian government, noting your commitment to foster a multipartisan approach in responding to the current event.

Can I just state for the record that it is absolutely my desire for this to be a multipartisan approach. In fact, I wrote to both the Premier and the minister herself seeking a multipartisan approach when I tabled this bill. Unfortunately, I have not had a response from either the minister or the Premier, which is incredibly disappointing.

In terms of consultation, aside from those peak industry bodies, I have also liaised with the Local Government Association of South Australia and they have certainly provided me with some very positive feedback. Their position is supportive of this bill and in fact they state that:

LGA welcomes the introduction of the Drought Response and Recovery Coordinator Bill 2025 as a constructive step toward establishing a mechanism for a timely, effective and coordinated whole-of-government response and recovery to drought…

It is acknowledged that the Drought Response and Recovery Coordinator Bill introduced by the Hon Nicola Centofanti MLC, calls for drought to be declared an emergency in parts of the state, ensuring a timely and effective response.

They go on to say:

Acknowledging the urgency of the drought, it is critical to ensure that appropriate responses are implemented in a timely and effective manner…As an example, this year freight subsidies were activated too late, after hay and grain had become scarce and unaffordable, despite early warnings from local councils and farmers.

The LGA have also suggested some minor amendments to the bill which, due to the immediate nature of this bill and the fact that our farmers and our farming communities really cannot wait, we are still working through. I note again that, with multipartisan support, it could easily be worked through between the chambers.

I also want to place on the record that the District Council of Mount Remarkable wrote to me just this morning to say that they were absolutely supportive of this bill and that the council unanimously endorsed a motion supporting Dr Centofanti's work around the drought and the proposed bill. That motion went through, obviously, yesterday, 17 June.

I would also like to place on the record that the Coorong District Council declared a drought in their council area at their council meeting this week. In declaring a drought within their specific council area, because of course the state government are not doing it, that has enabled affected residents to defer council rates for 12 months without penalty. That also has enabled authorised roadside grazing and free access to council standpipes for water until the end of September. Their actions demonstrate, I think, alignment with this bill and they certainly understand the need for a declaration and for some immediate support on the ground.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: First of all, I would like to correct what the honourable member has said, in that our government clearly declared there was a drought when we announced the first drought package back in November, and we have continued to say that there is a drought in the second package. I want to clarify what the honourable member has just said. Is she saying that Grain Producers SA was involved in the development of this bill?

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: What I am saying is Grain Producers SA was consulted on this bill.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: Was Grain Producers SA consulted on this bill before it was introduced into parliament and, if so, how much before?

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: I think I have answered the question. Grain Producers SA, as were all industry bodies, was consulted on this bill.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: So why will the honourable member not say whether that was before the bill was introduced or within a day or two of the bill being introduced, or were they involved in the development of the bill?

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: I think the minister can appreciate that time is of the essence here.

The Hon. C.M. Scriven: So is that no? Is the answer no?

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: Again, if the minister can stop interrupting. I think the minister can appreciate that time is of the essence and that all of the peak industries have been consulted on this bill.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: Is the honourable member saying that she consulted, prior to the introduction of this bill, with Livestock SA? Was Livestock SA involved in the development of this bill?

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: I have already answered the question.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: Is the honourable member saying that she consulted with the Dairyfarmers' Association in the development of this bill and, if so, when?

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: I have already answered the question.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: I am just going to ask the mover—and the minister can confirm this as well—the policy council from PPSA has just said they have not reached a consensus on this particular bill. Obviously, they have raised a lot of the same concerns that have been addressed today, but they have said that they have not reached a consensus.

However, if I go back to one of the points that was made earlier about the $73 million or $74 million in the fund, is not one of the other points that has been raised and one of the uses that could be used today, if a fund like that existed—we have heard things like, and I mentioned one, for instance, during my speech. There is a fund that you could use to fund things that would help alleviate strain. It might not be a loan and it might not be one of those things, but it could be things like what PPSA has suggested in terms of fodder transport. It could be things like helping with feed and water sources, which are becoming increasingly scarce. It could be other assistance programs that do not necessarily fit neatly in anything now.

So rather than saying we cannot use that, the fund is sitting there and it can be used. It is really about broadening the scope and allowing for those things that potentially do not sit within the current frameworks of what can and cannot happen or that people are putting their hands up and saying, 'Actually, this is something we need,' and indeed the transport support for fodder, livestock and water is something that PPSA has pointed to as something that needs addressing at a state level. That could come from the fund.

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: The honourable member is absolutely right: that is what this fund is for and some of those things are actually stipulated within the bill—establishing the freight subsidies, the granting of those no and low concessional loans, and also things like reimbursement of fees and charges that would otherwise be payable by a person. Those could be fees and charges associated with land use, associated with stock movement or water licensing and indeed any other direct assistance measures that the coordinator would think appropriate.

So the Hon. Ms Bonaros is absolutely correct, and, yes, I do want to again place on the record, in regard to Primary Producers South Australia, they have stated—and I think the minister may have even touched on it in her second reading speech—that they note the sense of urgency. I think they appreciate the sense of urgency in this policy to bring forward the bill to a vote in the Legislative Council today and that regrettably the policy council has not reached consensus.

That is not to say that everyone is against it or everyone is for it; they just have not reached consensus to support the bill in its current form and within the timeframe obviously required, which is bringing it to a vote in this chamber today.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: I am noting that we are fast approaching the winter break. We are talking about alleviating financial burdens and so forth, but are the sorts of things that are canvassed in this bill something that the mover is willing to have discussions with the government on over the winter break in the hope that, perhaps when we come back, those issues that we say are in limbo or need to be ironed out or further addressed or we can deal with elsewhere, can indeed happen? If there is somewhere that we can all land on this issue, then is the idea that you debate it now and have that window to actually do the hard yards if you like, something the mover is open to?

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: The honourable member is absolutely right: the reason why I have brought this bill to a vote in this chamber today is that I am hoping that there is going to be multipartisan support for this bill. Bringing this bill to a vote in this chamber today allows us, with, again, the multipartisan political will, to be able to get this bill through both chambers before the winter break so that we can sit down and work out what it is that is required, what is it that is going to best deliver for these communities.

In fact, again, I have written to both the Premier and the minister about a multipartisan approach to this bill, but on top of that as well, I have reached out to the minister's office seeking a meeting with the newly appointed drought commissioner because I think it is absolutely critical that we are communicating. If I can be of assistance in any way in terms of delivering real and tangible support for these farmers and these farming communities, that is what needs to happen today. So we are very, very open to working together. As I have said publicly, and I will say today and I will continue to say: this needs to be above politics.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I ask the mover: why did she not consult with peak bodies that are representatives of our livestock industry, our dairy industry, our grains industry and so on? Why did she not consult with them in developing this bill?

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: I thank the honourable member for her question. She keeps asking the same question. I think even PPSA note in their submission that, actually, this policy is urgent, so I think that they can appreciate that that is why I have not gone and done a whole eight-week consultation process because, quite frankly, our farmers and our farming communities do not have eight weeks. That is where we are at the moment.

I appreciate that this probably is not the ideal way of bringing this bill to this chamber, but what I can say is that those peak bodies have been consulted with. They have stated not that they do not support the bill, but that they have been unable to reach a consensus around their table. Again, I am very open to the government and to industry. In fact, the LGA have provided some suggested amendments. I am very, very happy to work with the government between this house and the next house to draft any amendments that need to be put forward for the government to be able to support this bill, so long as it does not gut what is the intent of this bill.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: To the mover's knowledge, is she confident that those interest groups and peak bodies that she has referred to would be willing to sit at that same table to have those discussions around what this could look like going forward so that it is truly a multipartisan, multirepresentative approach to this issue bearing in mind that there may be differences, but in the hope of landing on some sort of middle ground?

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: I think, ultimately, that is a question for those peak bodies but, given the relationship that I have with those peak bodies and given the letter that is before us from Primary Producers SA, what I know is that that these peak bodies are doing everything they can in terms of advocacy for their communities—for their farming communities and for their farmers—and I have no doubt that they will continue to do that into the future.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: Given that the honourable member has referred to her relationship with the peak bodies, why would it have taken eight weeks to consult? Surely, when you are putting together drafting instructions, discussing with parliamentary counsel, it would make sense to consult on the development of a bill through a few phone calls or a meeting, through the peak bodies who represent so many of our regional communities? Were they not important enough to the opposition to actually give them the respect to do that?

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: This is probably the last time I am going to stand up, because I feel like I am repeatedly getting the same question. I absolutely respect our peak bodies. They have done a sensational job in advocating, and they always do an excellent job in advocating for their industries, so I will not have the minister stand up and accuse me of not appreciating them enough to consult with them on the drafting of the bill when, as I have outlined in this chamber, this bill needed to be brought with urgency.

It became clear that time and time again announcements were made by those opposite that sounded good. Farmers are talking to me. They are calling my office, they are writing to my office and they are writing to my colleagues. It is not just my office, my colleagues; they are actually also speaking to the media, because it is that bad at the moment. The packages are not hitting the ground. They are not getting the support that they need. They are not getting the practical support on the ground. That is the reason why we are here today. As I outlined in my summing-up speech, that is the reason why we are debating that bill. I make no apology for that. As I have outlined previously, these peak bodies, and the LGA, have been consulted with about this bill.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: Given that the member has suggested that there are programs within the $73 million state government drought support package that should be redirected into a fund, and given that those packages were developed with peak bodies, which programs does she propose—those in the current $73 million drought support package which has over 20 different programs within it—should be scrapped?

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: That is not my suggestion of the only way this fund is able to get appropriations. That is ultimately up to the government of the day, as to what money they want to put into this fund, and how they do so. I will say, though, given the fact that I have repeatedly asked the minister, and a number of my colleagues have repeatedly asked the minister, in terms of what actual funding has hit the ground with a number of these programs—and I note recently with the mental health program, the $2.5 million announced for mental health in our regional communities and for our farming communities, and the other day the minister had to take that on notice, and has yet to bring back a reply to the chamber, as to how much of that funding has actually been utilised, has actually hit the ground in those farming communities.

I think it is a strange question coming from the minister given the fact that she is actually the one with all the information as to where the funds are and where they have not gone to. For that purpose all I would suggest to the minister is that ultimately she is the minister and it is up to her at the end of the day, but all I would ask is that there be some political will in terms of ensuring that things like no and low concessional loans, things like reimbursement of fees and charges for things like land use, stock movement and water licences, are part of this funding and part of these programs that can really provide tangible support and cash flow to our farmers and our farming communities.

That is what they are crying out for. They do not want a handout, they just need time to breathe. They need cash flow to enable them to be able to pay those interest bills and to be able to pay the taxation office, and also to be able to not only do that but be able to buy food, to be able to buy water, to be able to buy fodder, to be able to pay those bills that are mounting up without any relief.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I asked the question because the honourable member specifically referred to redirecting funds from the $73 million into the fund that she was proposing. What consultation has occurred with financial institutions?

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: I have already outlined the stakeholders that I have consulted with on this bill. If this bill passes, I would again really invite a multipartisan approach on this for us to then do consultation with the wider industry, including the banking institutions. I do note that I am not necessarily sure specifically how this bill would affect what the banking institutions are or are not doing, except that it allows them the trigger to be able to provide exceptional circumstances when it comes to interest, loans and the like.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: From where has the information come that it allows some trigger, given that the banking institutions themselves have said that no drought declaration is needed to trigger hardship assistance? I refer, for example, to comments made by Gillian Fennell, the chair of Livestock SA, in regard to this bill, where she said:

There's been a lot of producers who are asking for drought declarations to be reintroduced because they believe it will treat certain elements of things, especially dealing with the likes of ATO and banks. I'd just like to advise producers, if your banks tell you they are waiting for an official drought declaration that they are actually very incorrect.

Clearly, no trigger is required. I would note the survey from Grain Producers SA, which has said that a number of farmers are still hearing—I think it was 5 per cent of the respondents said—that their banks wanted a drought declaration, which is clearly incorrect. I suppose one could look at it that that means 95 per cent of the institutions are aware (or the staff within those institutions are aware) that a drought declaration is not needed. I am wanting to know from where the information has come that the banks require such a trigger.

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: I thank the minister for her question. The information has come from farmers and farming communities. Farmers are saying to me, 'This is what my bank is saying to me.' Within the GPSA survey, a grain producer said that their bank advised that, if a drought declaration is made, that gives them more scope for hardship lending. I appreciate that that is incorrect under the National Drought Agreement, but the problem is that is the reality on the ground, whether we like it or not. That is the reality on the ground, and that is what farmers are telling me. I ask the question of the minister: what is the risk in declaring it?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: Is the mover proposing that South Australia withdrawals from the National Drought Agreement?

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: I thank the minister for her question. That is absolutely not what I am suggesting we do. The Hon. Tammy Franks spoke to New South Wales declaring a drought. Just because you declare a drought I do not believe means that you are going against the National Drought Agreement. There needs to be some conversation going into the future around drought declarations, and I hope that the federal government, along with the state ministers, does reassess the National Drought Agreement.

The problem we have at the moment is that we do not have the time. As I outlined in my summing-up speech, our farmers and our farming communities do not have the time to wait for bureaucrats to take the next two years to look into the National Drought Agreement. I am suggesting to the minister that we in South Australia can lead this discussion and this debate and we can lead the support for our farming communities which are doing it so incredibly tough in South Australia at the moment.

I am not suggesting that we are pulling out of the National Drought Agreement. I just note as well that the National Drought Agreement is an agreement, it is a policy agreement—it is not legislation, we are not going to be breaking the law by doing this. It is an agreement, it is policy, but governments of all persuasions change policy from time to time, particularly if it is not working. I again put to the minister that, if this is done in a multipartisan fashion, how about we lead the nation and we enact change where change is needed?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: How can we remain in the National Drought Agreement if South Australia enacts legislation that directly contravenes it?

The Hon. C. BONAROS: Can I ask a question of the minister on this particular question?

The CHAIR: Well, we are having a conversation.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: The minister has raised the issue of the National Drought Agreement. How confident are we that these two cannot coexist? What advice have we had that says that this bill cannot coexist with the National Drought Agreement? What formal advice around that limbo have we had that says that these two cannot coexist?

The CHAIR: Just to be clear: minister, when you ask a question, other members can seek clarification on the question that you ask. So it is in order and you can answer it if you wish.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: But I have already asked the mover a question, specifically.

The CHAIR: Yes, and that is fine; however, somebody else has asked you a question about the question you asked. I am told that this is in order.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: For clarity, there are a number of items in this bill that directly contravene the National Drought Agreement. One example is drought declarations—that is one of the most obvious examples—and there are several others. So my question to the mover is: how can South Australia remain part of the National Drought Agreement if we have legislation that directly contravenes it?

The Hon. C. BONAROS: Chair, I apologise, but before the mover comes in—

The Hon. J.E. Hanson interjecting:

The Hon. C. BONAROS: —I think this is important if we are going to dig out who was in, Mr Hanson. My question was: what formal advice has the minister had, if any, that indicates that this is indeed a direct contravention and that these two things cannot coexist? That is the question: what formal advice have we had that they cannot coexist?

The CHAIR: Minister, you have attempted to provide an answer to that question.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: If one reads the National Drought Agreement, one can see that various things within this legislation directly contravene the National Drought Agreement. So I reiterate my question to the mover.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: This will be my final one: has the minister sought any formal advice about whether these two things can coexist?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: Is the member asking whether I have read the National Drought Agreement—I mean, honestly. Yes, I have had discussions with my department—

An honourable member interjecting:

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: —I have had discussions with my department, of course I have, about the interaction between the National Drought Agreement and the bill that is before us. So I ask again: how can we remain in the National Drought Agreement if we have legislation that directly contravenes it?

The Hon. C. BONAROS: I would like to know if there is evidence that we should all know about, and advice that we should know about, which says that our supporting this puts us out of step with the National Drought Agreement because it cannot coexist with the bill. Will that be provided to us so that we can make an informed decision when we are voting on this bill? Is there something that can be provided to us that shows that these two things cannot coexist? If that is the advice that has been given, will that be shared with us so that we can make an informed decision when voting on this bill?

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: I thank the honourable member for her question. I would argue that the Drought Response and Recovery Coordinator Bill is not inconsistent with the National Drought Agreement but rather reinforces its key priorities. The National Drought Agreement establishes a collaborative whole-of-government approach, including the states, to drought across preparation, response and recovery. It does so by clarifying roles and promoting needs-based support.

I would argue that, in doing so and in promoting needs-based support, this bill is absolutely consistent with that priority. Again, by creating a dedicated coordinator role this bill enhances those principles by improving coordination, timely delivery and clearer accountability. So, far from introducing conflicting objectives, I would argue that it builds on the commitment to shared monitoring and reporting and to improved sustained coordination, as per what is written under the National Drought Agreement.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: In the event that there are provisions in this bill which are found to be inconsistent, is the mover open to changes around those to ensure that, in the event—because there is no advice before us that suggests we are—there are inconsistencies, she is willing to address those to ensure consistency?

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: I thank the honourable member for her question. In the event that we have—and I would particularly like to see some independent—some independent legal advice that says that absolutely these cannot coexist, I would absolutely be open to amending this piece of legislation.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I am quoting here from the National Drought Agreement:

Support provided should avoid market distortions and eligibility should be based on need, not activated by drought declarations.

How could this bill not be in contradiction with the NDA in that respect?

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: I thank the honourable member for her question because this piece of legislation is all about being needs based.

The Hon. C.M. Scriven interjecting:

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: The minister's claims that declaring a drought—and she said this in her second reading speech on this bill—would result in lines being drawn on the map and farmers missing out on support I think is really a poor excuse for inaction, to be honest.

The reality is that often, without a formal drought declaration, it is difficult to coordinate those frameworks for assistance. It is difficult to coordinate the communication, as we have seen in the GPSA survey recently, where one in two grain producers are struggling to access finance or credit. So I do not accept the minister's preface that a drought declaration is not on a needs basis and is not about exclusion.

It is about recognition and I note the Hon. Tammy Franks' comment on that in her second reading speech. It is about recognition of the scale and severity of the crisis that is currently facing our regional communities and our farmers, and it enables a structured response and sends a clear signal to all levels of government, to industry, to the banking sector and to the Australian Taxation Office that those who need help most receive it—not fewer, but more. It sends a clear signal that help is needed and exceptional circumstances are needed. Again, I do not believe that by us having a piece of legislation that declares the drought within this state it cannot fit alongside the National Drought Agreement.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I think, first of all, it is important for us to recognise where we do agree and that is the strong desire to assist farmers, to assist primary producers, across our state who are dealing with one of the worst droughts that many of them have ever seen. We know that there are farmers who are seeing the lowest rainfalls on record. I think it is fair to say that we are all united in wanting to see them supported.

But this is a piece of legislation. This is a piece of law, if it passes. We can all agree on the desire to assist and our government has put in place what I believe is the biggest state-based drought support package in history. We are obviously still open to talking and engaging, as we have done now for at least a year, on the matter of drought, which resulted in the package announced in November and then the further package announced in April.

But we are here as legislators. We need to understand the legislation that we are passing. I have already alluded to the National Drought Agreement and that it specifically refers to not having drought declarations as a trigger. The bill talks about establishing freight subsidies, and yet that is also referred to in terms of market distortions in the National Drought Agreement. I ask the question again: how can specific provisions in this bill, if passed, be consistent with South Australia remaining in the National Drought Agreement?

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: I have already answered the question. I am not sure how I can answer the question in any more detail.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: Has the member sought any advice on the impacts of withdrawing from the National Drought Agreement?

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: I am not suggesting that we withdraw from the National Drought Agreement, so I am not sure why we need to seek advice on the implications of that.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: Given what I have read out from the National Drought Agreement, I am not sure how the member could arrive at that conclusion. However, we will have to leave that, as no advice has been sought. In terms of the fund that the honourable member has suggested in the bill, is she proposing some sort of levy to provide for that long-term fund?

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: What I am not suggesting is for this to be coming out of the pockets of farmers who already cannot afford to pay for fodder, for water and the like. So no, I am not proposing a levy. Again, the minister is in charge. She is the one in government. The state government—and, I am sure, their colleagues, or their mates, in Canberra with enough political will—as we saw in Whyalla, can actually manage to find some funds themselves.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: On that point, I would really like to credit the various peak bodies that have been joining with the state government in terms of advocating for additional assistance from the federal government. I know that the Prime Minister refers to the $1 billion investment in the Future Drought Fund, and whilst obviously the Future Drought Fund is an important component of drought assistance it certainly is the situation that both the Premier and myself, and potentially others from our government, have been advocating to the federal government.

What is the reason why the honourable member, the mover of this bill, considers that returning to lines on the map is the right approach, given all of the discussions and reviews of the national drought approach over many years came to the opposite conclusion?

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: I think I have answered this in a previous question. In terms of the minister claiming that declaring a drought will result in lines being drawn on the map and farmers missing out on support, I do not accept that premise. As I said, a formal drought declaration is about sending a signal to all levels of government, to industry and to financial institutions that support is necessary and, more importantly, support is urgent.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I refer the member to clause 14, where it specifically states that a declaration would identify the geographical area that the drought emergency declaration applies to, so I ask the question again.

The CHAIR: Minister, when we get to clause 14, we will deal with that.

Clause passed.

Clauses 2 and 3 passed.

Clause 4.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: I move:

Amendment No 1 [Simms–1]—

Page 4, after line 23—After paragraph (c) insert 'and'

(d) to align the State's drought response and recovery with the State's target of zero net greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 pursuant to the Climate Change and Greenhouse Emissions Reduction Act 2007.

This amendment inserts a new object into the act, which is to align the state's drought response and recovery with the state's target of zero net greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 pursuant to the Climate Change and Greenhouse Emissions Reduction Act 2007. As I indicated from the outset I think the honourable member's bill has a lot of merit, but one of the areas that is missing is the acknowledgement of the effects of climate change as a driver of drought, and this really puts that front and centre of this Drought Response and Recovery Coordinator Bill.

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: As I indicated in my summing-up speech, we certainly appreciate where the honourable member is coming from. Suffice to say that the minister has spoken, as indeed I have, about that $1 billion Future Drought Fund, which is basically designed for just that—it is about resilience; it is about preparedness, including climate resilience; and it is about sustainability. So whilst I appreciate the member's amendments to this bill, I think introducing the broader climate and preparedness objectives, whilst well intentioned, risks undermining the bill's purpose, which is really about delivering urgently needed support in a response and recovery. That is not to take away the importance of preparedness and resilience, but that is what the Future Drought Fund is for.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: The government will be supporting the amendment. I guess my question to the mover of the bill would be: how does including this in any way slow down assistance that might be provided to farmers?

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: I did not in any way say that I thought it would slow it down. What I did say was that while the Hon. Mr Simms' amendments are well intentioned, I think that that is not what this bill's purpose is. We have a Future Drought Fund already—that $1 billion from federal and state governments, predominantly federal—looking into preparedness, resilience and sustainability. This bill is purely about response and recovery and delivering urgently needed support for our farmers and farming communities.

Amendment carried; clause as amended passed.

Clause 5 passed.

Clause 6.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: I move:

Amendment No 2 [Simms–1]—

Page 5, line 2 [clause 6(3)(a)]—After 'relevant to' insert 'climate change and'

This amendment deals with the appointment of the drought response and recovery coordinator. The clause notes that the person appointed as the coordinator should have a range of experience. One of the areas where they should also have relevant experience is in relation to climate change. This is in keeping with the previous amendment I moved.

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: As I have previously indicated, in my second reading speech, I indicate that we will not be supporting Hon. Mr Simms' amendments.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: We will be supporting the amendment. I do have a question of the mover of the bill, though, in relation to this clause. Should I ask that now or after the amendment has been considered?

The CHAIR: You can ask the question now.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: Could the member indicate why she thinks that a legislated drought response and recovery coordinator is required when, as has been obviously demonstrated in recent weeks, a commissioner can be appointed without going through this legislative process?

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: When this bill was tabled we did not have a commissioner in place. In fact, the government only just announced the commissioner after the tabling of this bill, which I certainly welcome. Whether you call it a coordinator or a commissioner, I think it is a similar role. If this bill does pass, I do not see any issue with having a coordinator role, unless the minister is suggesting that the newly appointed drought commissioner will be present on a full-time basis going forward, even when we are not in drought or if there are not any parts of South Australia in drought.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: Is the member suggesting that the coordinator role should be there in perpetuity? My reading of the bill is that it would only be after there was a drought declaration.

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: That is correct.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: If this bill were to pass, a coordinator could not be appointed until there had been a formal drought declaration, and there are a number of steps involved in making that declaration. How would that not slow down the delivery of effective assistance to farmers?

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: In the appointment of the drought response and recovery coordinator, clause 6 provides:

(1) The minister must, as soon as practicable after making a declaration…appoint a Drought Response and Recovery Coordinator…

So I am not sure what the minister is alluding to in terms of slowing down. I cannot see that it would be any different to appointing a drought commissioner, as the minister has done recently.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: Because there are a number of steps that are outlined in this bill that must occur before a declaration can occur. That is why it would appear to me that it would slow it down.

The committee divided on the amendment:

Ayes 10

Noes 7

Majority 3

AYES

NOES

PAIRS

Amendment thus carried; clause as amended passed.

Clause 7 passed.

Clause 8.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: I move:

Amendment No 3 [Simms–1]—

Page 6, after line 4 [clause 8(d)]—After subparagraph (iii) insert 'and'

(iv) the effects of climate change on drought conditions;

This amendment relates to the functions of the coordinator that are set out in the bill. It adds an addition to 8(d) under 'to monitor, evaluate and report on'. It includes the words 'and the effects of climate change on drought conditions'.

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: I rise to put on the record, as I have previously, that the opposition will not be supporting the Hon. Rob Simms' amendments. So I put that on the record, but I will not be dividing further, given the fact that the government have indicated their support and the Hon. Tammy Franks has indicated her support. We can all do the math, so I indicate that I will not be dividing.

Amendment carried.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: I move:

Amendment No 4 [Simms–1]—

Page 6, after line 4—After paragraph (d) insert:

(da) to provide advice to the Minister about the effects of climate change on drought conditions, and on potential mitigation or resilience measures relating to climate change; and

This is an addition under the functions. It includes a new paragraph. I have already explained the rationale for this, but really this is just to ensure that this new drought response and recovery coordinator has a focus on climate change, given that is one of the key drivers of drought.

Amendment carried; clause as amended passed.

Clause 9.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: Clause 9(1) refers to the drought coordinator requiring state authority or council to provide certain information. The mover referred to consultation with the LGA. What was their view on this requirement for councils to provide that information?

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: This is one that the LGA have suggested an amendment to. They are concerned, in particular, about excessive bureaucracy in terms of the information to be provided to the coordinator. As I have indicated in previous questions, I am certainly happy to work through those amendments between the houses if and when this bill passes.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: So just to clarify, the LGA did not support this but the member has not proposed an amendment; is that a correct understanding?

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: As I outlined in a previous answer speaking about consultation, they understood the immediate nature of the bill, but I have acknowledged that there are amendments that need to be done in between the houses and this is most likely one of those amendments. I will continue to work with the Local Government Association on these amendments, as I said, between the houses.

Clause passed.

Clauses 10 to 13 passed.

Clause 14.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: Clause 14 refers to a declaration. Could the member outline, in terms of clause 14(1), what kinds of things does she envisage would be the basis on which drought conditions would be assessed? What sort of basis would she be envisaging?

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: This is outlined earlier on in the bill. It absolutely needs to be done in consultation with our peak industry bodies, with primary producers on the ground and also with other bodies, such as local government associations as well. I think that a declaration that is backed by local data and has flexible criteria is best to ensure that those who need help most receive it.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: Could the member clarify what she means by 'flexible criteria'?

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: In terms of flexible criteria, what I mean by that is that if there is communication coming back on the ground in terms of, perhaps, if an area has not been declared that is in need to be declared, that there is constant communication and that there are no arbitrary lines and boundaries, that working with local communities, working with farmers, working with farming communities and with industry peak bodies, who understand where things are at on the ground—as well as working with associations like the Local Government Association—is really key to ensuring that help gets to where it is most needed.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I am going to have to ask for further clarification, because it refers to the minister creating a report not more than three months from the commencement of this section outlining the basis on which drought conditions will be assessed for the purposes of making declarations, and then if the minister is satisfied—based on an assessment undertaken in accordance with the report; that is, the assessment of conditions—then a drought emergency can be declared.

It is not clear to me how that flexibility—and the member is referring to arbitrary conditions—works. Is she thinking that it would be the number of millimetres of rainfall for the year? What sort of things does she envisage would be the criteria for assessment? If there are criteria, what does she mean then by them being flexible? I heard her discussion around communication and that, of course, is important, but the legislation says there will be criteria by which it will be assessed. Can she clarify this uncertainty?

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: I thank the honourable member for her question. In terms of criteria, that really needs to be, I would have thought, done in consultation, again, with the minister's department. Obviously, millimetres of rainfall, I would have thought, would be one criteria that is a pretty commonsense approach in this, but there would be other criteria that the minister would need to work through with her department, in consultation with peak industries and local authorities like the LGA that are on the ground.

I am not going to profess to go through an exhaustive list of criteria. I do not think that is up to me to decide; that is up the minister and her department, in consultation with industry and with farmers and farming communities and local government and the like, as to what criteria there should be in terms of that declaration.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I thank the honourable member for her comments. The criteria needs to be worked on and then be consulted on in conjunction with peak bodies, with the LGA and so on. Then, according to the bill, these drought conditions must be declared—sorry, that is probably the wrong word to use—these drought conditions must be outlined within three months of the commencement of this section. How can this possibly deliver immediate support to farmers, given even the criteria by which a supposed drought declaration would occur is likely to take such a long period of time?

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: I thank the honourable member for her question. The clause says not more than three months. I am not suggesting it needs to take three months. In fact, I would implore the minister to not take three months if we are in a drought as serious as what we are in now. The practical reality is that if the minister is consulting with her department and (probably not more importantly but just as importantly) with farmers and faming communities and industry peak bodies, they will be a great source of information as to the criteria that needs to be spelt out to declare these areas of drought.

I think we can all agree that the reality is that most people can identify when drought conditions are in place, through a range of criteria, to enable the minister to declare the drought and to then provide the conditions on which that has been assessed. By no means does that mean that the assistance needs to wait three months. Nowhere in the bill does it stipulate that, so I do not agree with the minister's premise that this is going to slow anything down in terms of assistance for drought for farmers and farming communities in those drought-affected areas.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I think the answer that we have just heard from the honourable member really speaks to the whole reason that the National Drought Agreement came into place. She says that most people can identify drought conditions and yet cannot actually identify what sort of conditions they might be.

I suggested perhaps it would be the millimetre of rainfall for the year. No doubt someone else would say, 'Hardly, because in the South-East they are used to far more rainfall. If they have an 80 per cent drop that might still be more than the Far North, but they are not going to be unaffected by drought.' That really speaks to the whole reasoning around the National Drought Agreement, that these things are very difficult to specify, and that is why assistance needs to be available all the time without a drought declaration.

I refer to comments by Gillian Fennell, the chair of Livestock SA, on the Country Hour on 5 June, where she says:

Once you start to meddle with or unpick the existing drought policy framework we may end up with something that is actually a lot worse, and this goes to any disaster. The worst time to make a policy about something is while you're in the midst of dealing with it because emotions are high, people are stressed, everyone wants to help as best they possibly can, but I'm not sure that now is the right time to start proposing legislative amendments to something as complex and as critical as drought policy.

That also leads in to clause 14(3)(b)(i)—this comes back to my question at clause 1. It says that a declaration must be accompanied by a statement identifying the geographical area that the drought emergency declaration applies to. So, it is lines on a map. How can the member justify one side of the road being in drought and getting assistance and the opposite side of the road not getting that assistance?

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: I think I have answered this question previously. Again, the minister's claim that declaring a drought would result in farmers missing out on support I think is a bit of a poor excuse for inaction. If the minister is concerned about arbitrary boundaries, then we should be looking to fix that system, and I am open to that, but I do not think we should be abandoning the declaration altogether because, again, this is about signals and about an acknowledgement of how tough it is for our farmers and our farming communities, particularly with the current significant drought that we are in at the moment.

Also, suggesting that lines on a map are the problem ignores the fact that right now many farmers are falling through the cracks precisely because there is no clear eligibility framework and too much bureaucracy in place. Again, we should always be looking at a system and be trying in this place to be as responsive as we can to those situations on the ground.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: In light of that, but also in light of the honourable member's comment a few minutes ago that assistance would not be held up before making a drought declaration, that is simply not reflected in the bill. There is a provision that the drought response plan has no force or effect until approved by the Governor, and the plan is one that allows money from this supposed fund to be released.

This entire bill is actually adding bureaucracy and red tape—it is adding a layer—whereas at the moment if people are eligible because of the types of assistance that have been provided, they are eligible not based on lines of a map. Again, why does the honourable member think that identifying the geographical area that the drought emergency declaration applies to—that is, drawing lines on a map—will work now when over many reviews over many years, nationally, it was determined that was counterproductive and inequitable?

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: I think I have already answered the minister's question. I am not sure how I can answer it in a different manner.

Clause passed.

Clause 15.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: I move:

Amendment No 5 [Simms–1]—

Page 8, after line 31 [Clause 15(1)]—After paragraph (b) insert 'and'

(c) strategies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and build resilience in relation to climate change.

This amendment relates to the drought response and recovery plan and, in particular, the preparation of drought response and recovery plan amendments. The clause requires that the coordinator must, as soon as practicable after being appointed in relation to a drought emergency declaration, prepare a drought response and recovery plan in relation to the declared drought emergency, and sets out a range of things. My amendment includes a new paragraph:

(c) strategies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and build resilience in relation to climate change.

So, on top of us now adding in some new objectives to the bill that would ensure that we move towards net zero, this would also require the coordinator role to really focus on developing strategies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and to improve resilience to climate change. Again, I see that as being critical in terms of being able to get drought under control and to deal with what is going on.

Amendment carried.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: Clause 15 outlines the preparation of the drought response and recovery plan. It indicates that a coordinator will not be appointed until after a declaration of drought, and, as we have already seen, at least in this initial phase, that would take some many weeks, given that there needs to be criteria developed and those then consulted on. So the coordinator is appointed after a declaration.

The coordinator must then prepare a draft. That draft is approved by the Governor. Later in the clause it refers to the draft being on the website and inviting interested persons to make written representations within a specified period. Before adopting the plan, they must consider all representations made in writing.

Could the mover indicate what she anticipates would be the minimum time in which all that could occur, with the best of political will, given that none of the assistance can flow until that has occurred?

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: As I have outlined in a previous answer, I do not accept from the minister that it is going to take weeks. Again, it is about political will. It simply says here that the minister must not take more than three months. The minister can take two days or take one week, if she likes, in terms of that, but this is just simply saying that she certainly needs to do it within three months. Again, we always want to do these things as quickly as possible, so we need to have a deadline as to the very minimum time in which it needs to be done by. But that is certainly not suggesting that it cannot—and more so not suggesting that it should not—be done sooner.

In regard to public consultation on any drought plan, I think public consultation is certainly a vital component of any democratic accountability, in particular in terms of local buy-in, especially when measures will affect land use, water access and the like. I think that, importantly, the bill permits amendments to the plan to be made swiftly, and the requirement for consultation can be both proportional and flexible. It certainly is not supposed to apply during the emergency deployment. I do not think that the consultation needs to be an eight-week set of consultation, etc., but there does need to be a level of local buy-in, as I have already spoken about, in terms of consultation with peak bodies, local government, farmers, farming communities and the like on the ground.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: How can consultation with councils, peak bodies and the LGA on something as important as a drought plan, which also needs to have written representations within a specified period, be done within one day or one week, as the member suggested?

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: I thank the honourable member for her question. I am not suggesting that the consultation take one day or one week. I am talking about the report outlining the basis of the drought conditions, so it is different to the public consultation on a drought plan. I just want to correct that for the record. Other than that, I refer to my previous answer.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: No, the question was about the drought plan, because that is the clause that we are currently on, so my question remains: how can a valid, robust consultation be done in one day or one week, as the member indicated?

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: I refer to my previous answer: that is not what I was referring to in terms of the one day to one week.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: What was the member referring to with the one day or one week?

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: I was referring to the minister's comments on the declaration.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: So how long does the member think is the minimum time, with the political will, that the drought plan could be developed, approved and put into place based on what she has outlined in this legislation?

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: I think that consultation should always be happening on the ground. We should always be engaging in our regional communities, in our local communities, on the ground to know that the support they are getting is actually reaching the ground. So, in terms in terms of consultation, I think it should always be occurring and, if things are not working in a response and recovery plan, there needs to be the flexibility to change and I make no apologies for that. Otherwise, again, I refer the minister to my previous answer in terms of consultation. I am not suggesting there needs to be a YourSAy, if that is what the minister is asking.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I am sorry to have to labour this point but I do have to because what we are discussing is what processes are outlined in this bill that will either enable or be a barrier to farmers accessing assistance. The bill says that the drought response and recovery plan has no force or effect until approved by the Governor. If we are going to consult on the plan, obviously it is going to take some time because there are a number of specific items outlined in this bill that must occur—must occur—for it to be a valid plan. So what I am asking is: based on the processes in this, what is the minimum time that the plan could be approved given that the assistance cannot flow until that plan has been put in place?

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: I thank the honourable member for her question. I would be more than willing to work with the minister in terms of potentially moving an amendment on this if this is a barrier. I certainly do not want any barriers to our farmers and our farming communities so, if the minister would like to work with me on an amendment in between the houses to fix the so-called barrier that the minister thinks could be a problem in terms of it being approved by indeed the Governor, my door is always open.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I am happy to hear that, given that any amendment would need to strike out this added level of bureaucracy. If the member is open to that, that would be a positive thing.

Clause as amended passed.

Clause 16 passed.

Clause 17.

The CHAIR: We are at clause 17, which is a money clause, so I need to read out to the committee that this clause, being a money clause, will be printed in erased type in the numbered bill to be transmitted to the House of Assembly. Standing order 298 provides that no question shall be put in committee upon such clause. The message transmitting the bill to the House of Assembly is required to indicate that this clause is deemed necessary to the bill. You can ask a question about clause 17, of course, but I am not going to put clause 17 in any way.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: Could the mover indicate why drought assistance funds cannot be expended until the plan is in place?

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: I think it is always good to ensure that we have a plan. However, in a situation like we are currently experiencing, where there is significant urgency, I am happy to look at amending this so that the plan does not have to be in place for these funds to go out the door. If the minister is proposing that that might be a good way of getting those funds, those no and low concessional loans, and certainly, potentially, reimbursements of government fees and charges, then I would welcome an amendment between the houses of that nature.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I can indicate that a number of assistance measures, as announced in our $73 million package, are already out the door, which indicates why it is not necessary to have the added level of bureaucracy that is being proposed in this bill.

Clause 18 passed.

Clause 19.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: Clause 19 refers to intergovernmental collaboration and the minister taking all reasonable steps to collaborate, or facilitate collaboration, with the commonwealth government and with commonwealth government agencies for the purposes of ensuring effective drought response and recovery operations throughout the state. How can this sort of collaboration occur if we are having legislation in South Australia which is in direct conflict with the National Drought Agreement?

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: This clause is about ensuring that there is cooperation with the commonwealth. I am sure the minister has quite a number of good relationships with her federal colleagues. I do not agree with the minister's assertions that this is against the National Drought Agreement and so I do not really agree with the premise of the minister's question.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: Has the honourable member read the National Drought Agreement?

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: Yes, I have.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: You did not understand it.

Clause passed.

Remaining clauses (20 and 21) and title passed.

Bill reported with amendment.

Third Reading

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI (Leader of the Opposition) (17:50): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Bill read a third time and passed.