National Drought Policy

The Hon. C. BONAROS (16:21): I move:

That this council—

1. Notes that a national drought policy was established in 1992 to provide a coordinated nationally consistent approach to drought;

2. Acknowledges that throughout the 1990s drought was progressively removed from natural disaster classifications as governments adopted a proactive risk-management framework;

3. Recognises that in 2013 the Intergovernmental Agreement on National Drought Program Reform replaced disaster relief measures with preparedness and resilience initiatives, including farm management deposits and concessional loans;

4. Notes that from 2014 drought was formally excluded from national disaster funding arrangements;

5. Acknowledges that the 2013 agreement was reviewed in 2017, with industry groups calling for greater national consistency;

6. Recognises that in 2018 the National Drought Agreement was signed, continuing the emphasis on preparedness, risk management, and resilience;

7. Notes that the 2020 Royal Commission into National Natural Disaster Arrangements identified the policy gap created by the exclusion of drought from natural disaster classifications;

8. Notes that algal blooms represent an emerging and unprecedented challenge to South Australia and its regions;

9. Notes conflicting views about whether marine environmental disasters, including the algal bloom event in South Australia, are captured under the existing natural disaster frameworks; and

10. Acknowledges calls for a new national framework for managing significant marine mortality events and marine environment disasters whether through a new mechanism or explicit reform of the existing framework.

The final report of the Independent Review of National Natural Disaster Governance Arrangements, chaired by Dr Robert Glasser and released in October 2024, noted the Australian government's 2011 National Strategy for Disaster Resilience stated that: 'It is uncommon for a disaster to be so large that it is beyond the capacity of a state or territory to deal with effectively.' The Glasser report went on to say:

Those words, and the systems, policies and funding and governance arrangements underpinning them, are now out of date…

The climate is continuing to warm rapidly. We are now entering uncharted waters, where our historical experience in a broad array of areas, including our experience of disasters, is no longer a reliable guide for what lies ahead. This has enormous consequences for how we prepare for these extreme events and for how we structure and manage our national governance arrangements…

The climate science suggests that globally we can anticipate, among other things, more frequent, longer and hotter heatwaves; coastal flood risks from accelerating sea-level rise as well as torrential downpours and intensifying storms causing flooding; altered distribution of pests and pathogens; ocean heating and acidification; hotter and longer bushfire seasons; and longer and drier droughts…

Climate change will dramatically increase the frequency and severity of many of these hazards. The number of record hot days in Australia has doubled in the past 50 years, and heatwaves have become longer and hotter.

Our state has faced devastating droughts over the last two decades, from the Millennium Drought to the severe dry spells of recent years, that have seen once productive paddocks reduced to dust bowls. These are disasters not just of climate change but of community. They lead to stock losses, financial hardship and farm closures, and tragically they contribute to mental health crises in rural and regional areas. Drought might not level houses in a single night like a bushfire does, but it slowly, silently and comprehensively tears at the fabric of communities.

Similarly, our coastal communities are being smashed by an entirely different kind of slow, silent apocalypse, an algal hammer blow to our seafood and tourism sectors. These algal blooms, driven by a complex mix of warming ocean temperatures, nutrient pollution, water movement and climate change, have led to massive loss of our marine wildlife and fish stocks and devastation of marine habitats. For the seafood sector, one of the pillars of South Australia's regional economy, this is an existential threat. For tourism operators in our coastal regions, it is a nightmare scenario, yet still the commonwealth refuses to call it out for what it clearly is: a natural disaster.

Droughts not only exacerbate natural disasters, such as algal bloom. I believe they are inextricably linked to the federal government's reluctance to declare the algal bloom catastrophe a natural disaster. Let me first take the chamber back to the history of drought policy in this country. I am not lecturing anybody on this. I know that we all know this, but I think it is worthy for the record.

According to the commonwealth Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry website, drought policy in the middle of the 20^th century focused on attempts to droughtproof agriculture by expanding irrigation. In 1971, government policy shifted to recognise drought as a natural disaster. This allowed affected people to be helped through joint commonwealth and state Natural Disaster Relief and Recovery Arrangements, but in 1989 drought was removed from the Natural Disaster Relief and Recovery Arrangements.

A review found that previous drought policy was poorly targeted, it had distorted farm input prices and it worked as a disincentive for farmers to prepare for drought. The response to the review was the National Drought Policy announced in 1992 and the objectives of that policy included encouraging primary producers and other sectors of rural Australia to adopt self-reliant approaches to managing for climate variability The policy set up assistance programs, including grants and interest rate subsidies, and also income support for farmers within declared exceptional circumstances and areas designated boundaries.

In May 2013, the Australian state and territory primary industries ministers agreed to the Intergovernmental Agreement on National Drought Program Reform, known as the IGA. The IGA recognised that farm businesses needed to prepare for drought, rather than rely on governments' response as an exceptional circumstance. Focus shifted again to concessional loans, a nationally consistent approach to debt mediation and an enhanced farm management deposits scheme.

A preceding report found EC declarations and related drought assistance programs did not, in fact, help farmers improve their self-reliance, preparedness and climate change management. With the IGA, there would be no formal declarations of drought for exceptional circumstances or at any other level, and that is still the case today.

In 2017, a review of the IGA received industry submissions outlining a need for greater consistency and harmonisation across states, more transparency in measuring outcomes and fairer national support arrangements. The review saw the IGA replaced. In 2018, the Council of Australian Governments signed a new National Drought Agreement, which continued the emphasis again on preparedness, resilience and risk management. It still excluded, though, droughts from national disaster classifications, again meaning no disaster-style relief payments.

Under the current Australian government drought policy, aligned to the National Drought Agreement 2024 to 2029 and I quote the DAFF 2024, Australian Government Drought Plan, Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestries, Canberra:

…acknowledges that farming is a business, and drought is one of many business risks that should be planned for and managed. It also reflects that farmers are responsible for making decisions about how to manage their businesses across the drought cycle.

Algal blooms often associated with drought conditions present what we know is an emerging challenge, and are similarly not adequately being addressed under current national frameworks. According to the Global Plant Council, drought events and intense rainfall are both associated with climate change, and they both exacerbate bloom conditions because intense rainfall is associated with increases in nutrient run-off, and drought events can cause concentration of nutrients in waterways.

In SA, the bloom has now spread to an area spanning more than 4,500 square kilometres since it was pinpointed off the Fleurieu Peninsula back in March, and according to the peak national body, Seafood Industry Australia, led to the death of roughly 13,800 marine animals and counting across 400 species, including fish, shark, rays, sea dragons, cuttlefish, octopus, shellfish and even birds and mammals. Scientists are still unable to predict how long it will last.

Last month, I successfully proposed an amendment in this place to the Emergency Management Act to explicitly list strategies relating to emergencies that cause or threaten to cause damage to marine environments, including marine flora and fauna. That amendment was passed in this place and in the other, meaning that marine events such as the current algal bloom crisis will have to be responded to by the state as a natural disaster in line with other events that are declared under the EMA such as bushfires and floods.

The Emergency Management Act establishes a framework for managing emergencies, including preparation, response and recovery from various hazards. The Premier, to his credit, acknowledged that the algal bloom is a natural disaster when he said on the ABC in July:

I want to be really clear about this. This is a natural disaster. I think politicians can do themselves a disservice when they get caught up in technicalities. This is a natural disaster. It should be acknowledged as such.

Our Prime Minister, Anthony Albanese, refuses to do the same. During a visit to Adelaide, I think it was last month, he merely said the commonwealth had 'acknowledged it as a significant ecological event'. Federal environment minister, Murray Watt, seemed himself to be caught up in technicalities when he said in July that the algal crisis did not meet the definition of a natural disaster under the country's laws. Minister Watt was quoted by the ABC as saying:

The fact is that as the Commonwealth's Natural Disaster Framework currently exists, it doesn't consider an event like this to be a natural disaster.

The Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet defines natural disaster as events that pose significant risks to life, property and the environment. That same department, back in November 2020, under the then Morrison government, acknowledged that the 2020 Royal Commission into National Natural Disaster Arrangements concluded that the commonwealth government has the power to and should play a greater role in relation to natural disasters on a national scale. To quote the department:

For such disasters, the Royal Commission found that the Commonwealth should be able to declare a state of national emergency, supported by clear legislation. This includes the ability to take unilateral action, whether or not a state has requested assistance, subject to a high threshold. The Royal Commission found such a declaration would be the catalyst for a more coherent, pre-emptive and expeditious mobilisation of Commonwealth resources.

The Morrison government at the time welcomed the recommendation, which, to quote the government's words:

…recognises that such a declaration is necessary in an 'all hazards' approach to national natural disaster events, including those beyond floods and fires.

So why not droughts? And why not an unprecedented algal bloom crisis, which Australian Geographic called 'a catastrophe unlike anything seen before in the Southern Hemisphere'?.

This year, the South Australian agriculture sector was again hit by severe drought. Only last month, Premier Malinauskas announced more than $1 million in funding for extra deliveries of fodder and a free technical advice service for impacted farmers. The state government said its $73 million drought package had assisted more than 3,000 farmers with on-farm infrastructure grants, while almost 2,000 farmers have benefited from the delivery of 16,000 tonne tonnes of hay through the Donated Fodder Transport Drought Assistance Scheme.

What is also needed is for the federal government to step up to the plate, including reinstating drought as a natural disaster. Drought is not an occasional inconvenience. It is a recurring natural disaster in this country, one as destructive as floods, cyclones and bushfires. When a flood strikes, emergency funds are rightly mobilised. When fire rages, relief is delivered. But when drought strikes, our farmers do not fare nearly as well. Farmers in regional SA have reported failing crops, soaring feed costs and dwindling stock water. Without sustained drought support, we risk not only the collapse of family farms but the long-term viability of entire regions.

Families who have farmed for generations will be forced from the land unless they are given access to no or low-interest loans, one of the state's peak agriculture bodies told The Advertiser again last month. Grain Producers SA Chief Executive Officer, Brad Perry, joined farmers in calling for either the state or the federal government to increase their drought relief packages to offer no or low-interest loans. I know this is an issue that has been ventilated in this place, particularly by the member opposite, the Hon. Nicola Centofanti, exhaustively. Mr Perry has told The Advertiser:

Our number one priority now is for no or low-interest loans. Ideally, we'd love it to be a joint response…but we just can't bring the federal government to the party, and we feel that our last hope is with the state to provide that support.

While we contend with drought on the land, we know another crisis is devastating our shores and the communities who rely on them. The algal bloom outbreak, dubbed the 'algae Armageddon' by Australian Geographic, is choking our waters. As mentioned yesterday, it has killed thousands of marine creatures, it has upended our ecosystems and it threatens to drive visitors away from once-pristine beaches, impacting our seafood and tourism economies. It threatens our international seafood trade, which is worth hundreds of millions of dollars to the South Australian economy.

For South Australia, a state defined by its coastline, seafood and clean natural environment, this is shaping up to be a disaster of biblical proportions. There have been reports of calamari or squid not being sighted in Gulf St Vincent for months. A Senate inquiry into the bloom crisis, as we know, held hearings across Adelaide, Port Lincoln, Ardrossan and Victor Harbor last week. We have heard from Port Lincoln Mayor Diana Mislov, who told the inquiry that fishermen were struggling to catch fish in the Spencer Gulf. She said as quoted in the press:

We're feeling it in our bays—the fish just aren't biting, they are not there.

She said fishermen were having to drive to the West Coast, taking their boats over 600 kilometres away, and fish there.

The Senate also heard warnings from the seafood industry of dramatic layoffs over the next 12 to 24 months. A visit to Yorke Peninsula, which is a destination point for fishing and tourism, seems more today like a visit to a ghost town. If you are in touch with locals there you will know that there is simply no activity in those surrounding towns. An SA government business submission says some businesses have reported revenue losses already of as much as 90 per cent year on year, and this is an industry that contributes towards $12 billion of economic activity and supports over 70,000 jobs across this nation.

Let's talk about the elephant in the room that we do not appear to want to be addressing when it comes to the algal bloom and declaring it a natural disaster in SA. I remind honourable members that the Premier himself has said, 'Make no mistake, this is a natural disaster.' Why is it inextricably linked to drought? As mentioned previously, the government has over the last few decades moved from that reactive to a proactive national disaster framework, with drought removed from the list of contributing factors that trigger emergency relief and recovery. The new shift in policy focuses on resilience and risk management and preparedness and diversifying businesses to deal with climate changes that could result in drought.

Why the shift? If you ask a lot of experts and commentators, they will tell you in a nutshell that drought was simply costing too much. It has been suggested that algal bloom cannot be captured by the current emergency relief framework. That is questionable, and we would know in this place that is highly questionable. But, even if, as federal Minister Watt has suggested, that were to be true, the next question has to be: why have not the necessary tweaks been made to make it happen? We know governments have the ability to react quickly and swiftly to legal shortcomings or to emergencies when they need to. COVID is a perfect case in point. They know that federally, and we know that here at a state level. You can move mountains overnight in government if you need to.

Why have not those tweaks been made to capture algal blooms and why has not the federal government declared a natural disaster in SA? As I said, I tend to agree with those commentators who say that, if we declare algal bloom a natural disaster, what do you think will happen next? There will be a massive push to reinstate drought. It is not that hard to wrap your head around. If it is good for the waters, then it is good for the land, and that is something the federal government does not want to see happen.

The state government is working on a summer plan for algal bloom. I am exceptionally proud of the work that I have done with the peak bodies and the government in the background in getting the responses that we have had to date, and have given my commitment to those communities and to those peak bodies to keep working with the government in terms of that summer plan. But I tell you, we have had plans for a $675,000 200-metre by 100-metre air bubble curtain trial to protect cuttlefish in the Upper Spencer Gulf, with the Premier reportedly saying in October that it is likely for the summer plan to help businesses.

I am delighted the state government is extending and expanding the availability of business grants on offer for those impacted by the algal bloom. I am absolutely supportive of the fact that we brought forward and lowered the threshold for businesses, those who can enter the scheme to be captured by the current thresholds, but there is much yet to be done and we will all be looking at that summer plan very closely. The algal bloom outbreak in this state might not be the only one, and we simply do not know what is to come.

In one of the 115 submissions to the inquiry into the algal bloom disaster, Flinders University Professor of Water Economics Sarah Wheeler wrote:

…given the difficulties to control—let alone reverse—this type of event, there is a possibility that we are witnessing a tipping point of climate change (with irreversible and long-term implications).

She says that the tipping point is where an effect has crossed a certain threshold, and from that point on it triggers a larger and more significant transformation, having an impact far wider and greater than anything that might have been first predicted. She wrote:

From an economic perspective, the destruction of the algal bloom is akin to the destruction of the capital stock of numerous unique ecosystems, with profound effects on fishing, tourism, recreation, physical and mental health and more generally the willingness of a population to live close to such a compromised ecosystem.

Professor Wheeler says that the commercial fishing industry in South Australia was worth around $478 million in 2023-24, based on a PIRSA 2025 report, while the recreational fishing is estimated to be worth about a billion dollars and generating up to $10 billion in tourism value, based on a SA Tourism Commission report of 2024. Some would say that value of $478 million is probably closer to $750-odd million, but the bottom line is that it is the lifeblood of our coastal regional communities. She also says research suggests that the recreational fishing industry may have been worth about $1.73 billion in direct expenditure in 2024-25.

I am pleased to note that the government's submission to the Senate mirrors my call for a new national framework for managing significant marine mortality events and marine environmental disasters, whether through a new mechanism or explicit reform of the existing framework. The submission from the South Australian government states:

The…government has acted to strengthen its legislative framework by explicitly requiring marine environment emergencies to be incorporated into the State Emergency Management Plan. However, broad national reform is required. The recognition of algal blooms and other protracted natural disasters under the Disaster Recovery Funding Arrangements would provide an essential mechanism for supporting communities, industries, and ecosystems in responding to these complex, climate-driven events.

The submission goes on to state:

The Commonwealth's DRFA does not recognise algal bloom or marine heatwaves as eligible natural disasters, despite their catastrophic impacts. The DRFA should be amended to explicitly include long-onset and complex emergencies, such as harmful algal blooms and biological events. These events, while different in nature from rapid-onset disasters, can cause equally devastating social, economic, and environmental impacts.

The government's submission states:

Updating the national architecture to recognise and support such events would ensure that states are not left to navigate them alone, and that the Commonwealth can play its critical role in providing resources, funding, and coordination.

The SA government submission goes on to state:

If the Commonwealth is not willing to recognise harmful algal blooms and similar events under the DRFA, then an alternative mechanism should be established.

That is precisely what this motion is asking us to acknowledge. I am not calling on anyone to do anything; I am simply asking us to acknowledge these factors, most of which are actually acknowledged and indeed relied upon by the government in its own Senate submission.

Seafood Industry Australia has echoed the state government's position. They have said that Australia's siloed governance arrangements were criticised in the Glasser report, which urged strengthening coherence across the emergency management spectrum. Integration of aquatic resource disasters into the existing natural disaster framework would be consistent with the thrust of the Glasser review.

The Senate inquiry's final hearing is on the 24^th of this month and they are due to report on 28 October. Needless to say, the feds are on notice. They do not want a war on their hands. If they do not want that war on their hands then they best get prepared to deliver for South Australia's marine environment and the communities and sectors that are impacted. A $14 million cash injection mirrored by the states in July is welcome but it is a tiny drop in a vast and contaminated ocean.

Nobody has to agree with anything I have said about climate change. I appreciate that there are lots and lots of discussions—and I can see that on my own social media pages—about what the causes of this crisis are and what role algal bloom plays. Some have suggested desal plants. There are lots and lots of discussions—

The Hon. D.G.E. Hood: Sitting tonight?

The Hon. C. BONAROS: That is not my suggestion. There are lots and lots of discussions in those communities that are impacted about what has caused this crisis in South Australia. You do not have to believe in climate change to expect the federal government to step up and do the right thing by South Australia, which is currently experiencing an unprecedented marine natural disaster the likes of which our state has never seen before.

It is easy to forget that we do have to turn our minds to so many questions that we simply cannot answer today. It is easy for us to all get up in here and ask questions, but the bold, harsh truth remains—and I have faith in the seafood and fishing industry perhaps more than I do in politicians in this place—that we simply do not know what the short and medium and long-term impacts of this crisis will be on our state, but we expect it to be ongoing and we know we need long-term measures for every community of every industry that is being impacted.

To do not nearly enough is to gamble precariously with the future of South Australia—with our jobs, with our industries, with our ecosystems, and with an enviable way of life we have taken for granted for so long.

Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. D.G.E. Hood.