Bills

Drought Response and Recovery Coordinator Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 4 June 2025.)

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN (Minister for Primary Industries and Regional Development, Minister for Forest Industries) (12:33): Drought is devastating our state; there is no area that has not been impacted. Even areas of relatively high rainfall, reliably so in previous years, such as the Limestone Coast, are experiencing drought. The government is keen to do everything it can to support drought-affected farmers and their regional communities on the ground. Unfortunately, this bill does not deliver either of those goals and, therefore, we cannot support it, because the government is interested in real practical support for our primary producers.

Over the last two weeks, since this bill was introduced, the government has reviewed the bill, sought advice from industry and carefully considered the implications of the opposition's proposal. This bill provides no support to farmers and instead increases red tape around accessing drought support. The bill brings back outdated drought policy, which has been rejected nationally through consecutive reviews of the effectiveness of drought policy in historic droughts.

This bill abandons the principles of the National Drought Agreement. That agreement provides a consistent and collaborative policy framework for commonwealth, state and territory governments in managing and responding to drought.

Finally, one of the main stated purposes of the bill—to establish a position that the opposition has termed the 'drought response and recovery coordinator'—is redundant. Last Friday, following many weeks of discussions and advocacy with industry, the government announced the much more senior role of Commissioner for Drought Support and announced the appointment of Mr Alex Zimmerman. Mr Zimmerman has already been important in regional engagement activities in other impactful circumstances around the state. Most recently, he held the role of community recovery coordinator, following the River Murray floods.

Given the severity of the drought and the impacts on farmers and regional communities, the government has recognised the benefit of appointing a Commissioner for Drought Support whose experience and knowledge will prove invaluable in engaging with regional communities and stakeholders. The opposition's legislation is not required to establish this role. It has already been done.

The Commissioner for Drought Support's role will be to advise the government and maintain effective communication processes between government, industry and stakeholders. He will monitor the progress of the drought support initiatives, address barriers for people and businesses affected by drought, work closely with the executive director of drought support in PIRSA, and report to me to inform the delivery of drought support measures.

Critically, this bill proposes to bring back drought declarations, which is inconsistent with national policy directions provided by the National Drought Agreement and inconsistent with actually helping farmers. The national drought policy has been developed over years of review of consecutive government drought policies, culminating in the commonwealth, state and territory governments agreeing to no longer make formal drought declarations—for very good reasons. Support should be provided based on need. It should not need to wait to be delivered through a formal drought declaration. Therefore, the national drought policy provides a simpler, fairer and more proactive approach to providing drought support.

This means that drought no longer needs to be declared in a region for farmers to be eligible for assistance. Farmers can take action early and access support when they need it, without waiting for a declaration. That is important because drought is affecting different areas of the state differently. It is fair to say that the whole state is in drought, apart perhaps from the very Far North where they are experiencing floods. But it means that the impacts are different around the state. The proposal in this bill would have more lines on a map, and I will go into that a little further later in my contribution.

Given the National Drought Agreement establishes the principle of providing for a drought response but operates outside of emergency management frameworks, it enables ongoing support when needed. I am particularly concerned that this bill would walk away from the principles of the National Drought Agreement and leave South Australia as an outlier from the rest of the nation. I do not believe this course of action would benefit our farmers. Abandoning policy that has been carefully developed with reference to years of historic drought policy to revert to outdated policy is inequitable and ineffective and, therefore, in the government's view, unwise.

That is not to say that the National Drought Agreement is perfect. It may well be that it needs to be changed, but that is a discussion that needs to happen among state, territory and federal governments for a coordinated adjustment, if that indeed is the preferred action. Ms Gillian Fennell, the chair of Livestock SA, was in the media in recent weeks, talking about the fact that changing the National Drought Agreement in the middle of a drought is the worst time to do it. I do not have her exact words in front of me, so I hope I am not putting words into her mouth, but certainly that was the message that she was sending: that there needs to be a considered discussion around the National Drought Agreement.

Importantly, the changes that are proposed in this bill that would abandon the National Drought Agreement will provide no extra assistance to farmers—none whatsoever. The idea that some declaration would free up assistance that is sitting there waiting to be accessed is simply untrue. This government, if you like, declared drought when we made our first drought package available back in November. This government, if you like, declared drought in April when we made the second package available. A drought declaration is no longer needed in terms of that formal mechanism, and what is proposed in this bill would have no tangible benefits for South Australian farmers.

Until 2012, the Australian government made exceptional circumstances declarations, or ECs. The decision to close the EC program was based on successive reviews of drought policy that found that such assistance was ineffective and could result in farm businesses being adversely impacted because they were shown to be inequitable. Eligibility was determined by lines on a map. Some farmers who experienced the same drought as their neighbours—the same drought—were located on the other side of a boundary line and therefore could not access support.

These findings were reflected in the 2013 Intergovernmental Agreement on National Drought Program Reform, where the decision was made to abandon those inequitable exceptional circumstances declarations or arrangements. This approach was reflected in the National Drought Agreement in 2018, when the commonwealth, states and territories agreed to the principle that there should no longer be declarations that were based on lines on maps.

Further, the opposition's bill seeks to implement cumbersome and lengthy processes to draft a drought plan to apparently guide the supports available, but it would actually slow it down significantly. The Australian Government Drought Plan was prepared in parallel with the National Drought Agreement and, like the NDA, covers the period, in the most recent signing, from 2024 to 2029. Clear processes are in place to inform drought response and recovery, consistent with national policy. To begin drafting a drought plan, a process which would take weeks or months, while in the middle of the drought would significantly delay drought response.

Furthermore, the fund that the opposition seeks to establish, apparently through this bill, would be a fund with no clear plan on their mechanisms by which funds would be appropriated, and I will have more to say on this in the committee stage if this bill is passed to the next stage.

It is clear that the state government is very conscious of the seriousness of the current drought conditions and the impact on primary producers and the flow-on effects to regional communities. That is why we are implementing our $73 million drought support package, which I am advised is the largest state government drought support package in South Australia's history. The last thing farmers need now is a cumbersome bureaucratic process filled with red tape to access support and yet that is what is proposed in this bill.

Assistance is available now through the government's $73 million drought support package. Our support package was developed in concert with advice we received from extensive consultation with industry bodies, drought-affected farmers and community representatives. It included a series of regional drought round tables, ongoing discussions with the Drought Advisory Group and a round table hosted by the Premier with farmers and key industry bodies. Recommendations and feedback from this engagement directly informed the government's response.

The package provides practical, wideranging support and addresses a range of areas including financial support, mental health, donated fodder, subsidies for livestock, pest management, drought preparedness and resilience, funding for community events, and support for small businesses.

The new support schemes are comprehensive and include financial relief for those in most need, support for regional communities, programs to address a number of water needs, funding for pest animal management, and funding for drought preparedness and resilience programs.

It is worth going through a list of the various programs that are available. Announced in April this year, there was a further $13 million, going to a total of $18 million, for on-farm drought infrastructure grants for rebates that assist with projects to manage drought conditions and strengthen drought preparedness. The original grants required a 25 per cent co-contribution from the primary producer, with grants being up to $5,000. Following feedback from industry, the second package of grants retains that option but also includes an option for up to $20,000 with a fifty-fifty contribution.

The package included an additional $4 million, taking it to a total of $6 million, to assist charities with freight costs for the transport of donated fodder to assist farmers with feeding livestock. It included immediate financial relief by providing rebates for the emergency services levy and commercial vehicle registration fees for primary producers receiving the commonwealth's Farm Household Allowance; $2.5 million for a strategy to boost mental health and resilience in drought affected areas; $1 million for rural financial counselling support; and $3.5 million in additional supports for rural small businesses.

It included $3.1 million to assist with culling pests and managing kangaroo populations, which are competing for feed with livestock; $4.5 million to support producers with the implementation of electronic identification for sheep and farmed goats; $1.4 million to co-invest with councils in the upgrade of regional standpipes; and $500,000 to make bulk water available from Bundaleer and Beetaloo reservoirs.

It included $2 million to assist sport and recreation clubs in drought-affected areas through the Active Club Program; $400,000 to develop and encourage new regional events in drought-affected areas through the Regional Event Fund; $250,000 to provide financial support for country students affected by drought to attend camps and excursions; and a further $250,000 for grants of up to $5,000 for the Connecting Communities Events program, for groups to host events that foster social connections and provide support.

Many of these have been done in conjunction with, for example, Grain Producers SA and Livestock SA. Finally, $17.4 million was provided for Future Drought Fund preparedness and resilience programs. These were able to be rolled out as soon as they were developed and announced. They did not require a drought declaration before they could be implemented. They did not require potentially months—months—of bureaucratic red tape before they could commence being rolled out, and that is what would be required if this bill were to be successful.

The package was carefully designed to complement existing support from the commonwealth, which includes concessional loans, income and other financial supports through the Farm Household Allowance; the Farm Management Deposit scheme; and ATO measures, such as payment plans, tax deductions and small business tax concessions.

I do not for a moment consider that the commonwealth support is perfect. I and the Premier, and others in our government, have been advocating to the commonwealth government for additional support. That advocacy will continue, but it is worth mentioning that those commonwealth support measures are always available, thanks to the current national drought policy, without which farmers would be required to show that they are in a drought-declared area to qualify for support, which goes back to the problems of that approach in decades past.

A drought cross-government implementation group has also been established to assist with timely, effective and coordinated delivery of the drought support package. Delivery of the package is being led by the Department of Primary Industries and Regions, in close collaboration with other agencies responsible for support measures within the package. Significant progress has been made on delivering the support package, noting that some initiatives will be delivered over multiple years.

In addition, the government made a second recent significant appointment when, on 30 May, the Chief Executive of PIRSA appointed a dedicated executive director to the delivery of the drought support package, with a key role of assisting in coordinating initiatives across government. We have worked closely with affected primary producers, industry and communities, including the round table which I co-hosted with farmers and key industry bodies, the ongoing discussions of the Drought Advisory Committee and the regional drought round tables that I mentioned earlier.

It is also important to get an understanding of where industry sits in regard to this bill. I quote from a letter from Primary Producers SA, which is the peak body and has as its members Grain Producers SA, Livestock SA, the South Australian Dairyfarmers' Association, the South Australian Forest Products Association, the Horticulture Coalition and the Wine Grape Council of South Australia. I think it is fair to say that the PPSA correspondence is very balanced. It certainly commends the opposition for wanting to assist. It also commends the government on the actions that we have taken so far and the $73 million package. But now I will quote some specifics from the letter:

While we strongly agree the scale and persistence of this drought requires both formal coordination and partnership with industry to deliver a truly integrated response across government, we acknowledge state-enacted measures should be consistent with the National Drought Agreement (NDA). The NDA establishes the principle that drought response remains outside of the formalities of emergency management frameworks, with ongoing support based on need rather than formal emergency declarations.

We acknowledge the effectiveness of this approach continues to be a topic of public and political debate, and we are actively engaged in this discourse through the National Farmers Federation.

PPSA acknowledges the urgency surrounding current parliamentary deliberations and the intention to bring the bill to a vote in the Legislative Council on Wednesday, 18^th of June. For the avoidance of doubt, the Policy Council has not reached a consensus to support the bill in its current form or within the proposed time frame.

I think that is particularly important. PPSA is not necessarily saying that everything in the bill is not agreed with, but they certainly cannot support at this time the bill as it stands, and they also referred to the timeframes.

I think it is important that we engage constantly with industry. Sometimes that will be one-on-one with individual farmers and landholders, as I of course have been involved in, but it will also be with peak bodies, the peak bodies who those farmers have determined will be their representatives.

Our government support has been responsive to feedback both from individual farmers and from those peak bodies. We will continue to work closely with industry bodies and those affected by the drought to ensure that support remains tailored and effective and, where necessary, changes and expands. For all of the reasons outlined above, including the fact that peak industry bodies, representing so many of our primary producers, cannot support the bill at this time, the government will therefore not be supporting it at this time either.

The Hon. J.S. LEE (12:52): I rise to speak in support of the Drought Response and Recovery Coordinator Bill 2025. This bill represents a critical step forward in how we respond to and recover from drought in South Australia. As the Hon. Nicola Centofanti outlined in her second reading speech, this bill recognises that drought is not a one-off event; it is a recurring and intensifying challenge that demands a coordinated, strategic and compassionate response. It is not enough to rely on fragmented programs or ad hoc support. We need a framework that brings together government, community and industry in a unified effort and a coordinated approach.

Some honourable members, including the minister, have suggested that formal drought declarations are no longer necessary. They point to the existence of programs like the Farm Business Resilience Program and the Drought Hub as evidence that we are already doing enough. Respectfully, this view overlooks a critical reality. Formal drought declarations are not just symbolic; they are functional. They are often a trigger for external support from banks, insurers and federal agencies like the ATO. These institutions frequently require formal recognition of drought before they can offer relief such as loan deferrals, tax concessions or hardship assistance.

I note that Grain Producers SA in their press release have indicated that their survey has revealed that one in two South Australian grain producers are currently facing difficulties accessing finance or credit during the drought. They also pointed out that almost 10 per cent have actually said that their bank requires a formal drought declaration before assistance will be considered. So without a declaration, many of these supports remain out of reach for those who need them the most. This bill provides a legal and administrative framework to make those declarations in a timely, transparent and evidence-based way. It ensures that we can activate not just state support but also unlock the broader ecosystem of assistance that our communities rely on.

In response to growing pressures, I note that the government has taken some steps and appointed a Commissioner for Drought Support, Mr Alex Zimmerman, to assist with managing the drought response. While this is a welcome acknowledgement of the seriousness of the situation, it is important to recognise that this role is not underpinned by legislation. It does not come with the statutory authority, transparency or accountability mechanisms that this bill provides.

This bill goes further. It establishes a legally defined role with clear responsibilities, oversight and the power to coordinate across government and community. It ensures that drought declarations are made transparently and that support is delivered efficiently, not just through goodwill but through a structural and enduring framework. It also recognises the importance of the supply chain in drought response.

From hay deliveries to water carting and mental health services to concessional loans, the bill enables a coordinated approach that supports not just farmers but the entire network of people and organisations who keep our rural communities functioning. It allows for charities and community groups, those on the frontlines of drought relief, to be supported in delivering aid when it is needed most, in the most efficient and effective way possible.

Crucially, this bill establishes a state drought response and recovery fund, a dedicated pool of resources that support drought-affected communities. This fund must be accessible to all farmers in need, regardless of their size, location or sector. Whether it is freight subsidies, concessional loans or mental health support, the fund should be a lifeline, not just more red tape. It must be administered with fairness, transparency and urgency.

I acknowledge that there are existing programs, such as the On-farm Drought Infrastructure Rebate Scheme and the Rural Business Support Relief Fund that the minister has mentioned. These are well intentioned, but they fall short of what is needed right now. The rebate scheme requires farmers to spend money up front, funds they may simply lack, before they can claim a portion back. It is a long-term resilience tool, not a short-term cash flow solution.

The Rural Business Support relief program offers only up to $1,500 per family, which may help with utility bills or a grocery run, but it is not going to keep a farm business afloat or a supply chain moving. While every bit of support helps, the scale of need across our state far exceeds what small one-off grants can address.

I also want to address the Regional Drought Resilience Planning Program. It is a valuable initiative when we are planning—planning—for drought, but we are way past preparing. Our entire state is in drought. The minister acknowledged that in her opening statement early in her speech. Our farmers and the supply chains that they are part of need ongoing relief and support to recover, not just more paperwork.

This bill delivers that more comprehensive support, with the structure and authority to act decisively. This is a bill about supporting our farmers, ensuring centralised coordination and prioritising compassion. It give us a tool to act not just for when the crisis hits but before it deepens. With those remarks, I support the bill and believe that it will support our farming communities who are in deep crisis.

Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. I.K. Hunter.

Sitting suspended from 12:58 to 14:18.