National Drought Policy

Adjourned debate on motion of Hon. C. Bonaros:

That this council—

1. Note 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 replace 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 environments disasters whether through a new mechanism or explicit reform of the existing framework.

(Continued from 17 September 2025.)

The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY (17:17): I move to amend the motion as follows:

Insert paragraph A1.

A1. Acknowledges that in 1989 drought was removed from the Natural Disaster Relief and Recovery Arrangements as governments adopted a proactive risk-management framework, as a result of a review finding that previous drought policy was poorly targeted, distorted farm prices and worked as a disincentive for farmers to prepare for drought;

Paragraph 1:

Leave out 'a' and insert 'the'

After 'approach to drought,' insert 'encouraging preparedness and management of climate variability'

Leave out paragraph 2.

Insert paragraph 2A.

2A. Acknowledges that between 1997 and 2012, farmers main source of support relied on exceptional circumstances declarations, which had narrow application and created inequity;

Paragraph 3:

Leave out 'disaster relief measures' and insert 'exceptional circumstances arrangements'

After 'concessional loans' insert ', to assist farm businesses to become better equipped to withstand droughts, which are forecast to increase in frequency, severity and length in many regions;'

Leave out paragraph 5.

Paragraph 6:

After 'resilience' insert 'while also recognising the role of government to assist farmers and rural communities by implementing coordinated and complementary drought policies in accordance with the National Drought Agreement;'

I am standing up today to give the government's response to the National Drought Policy, with an amendment. The national policy relating to drought is constantly evolving, based on continual testing and reviewing of the efficacy of existing and past policies. In September, a National Drought Forum was held in Gawler where the current National Drought Policy was reviewed extensively. In 1989, drought was removed from the Natural Disaster Relief and Recovery Arrangements. A review found that previous drought policy was poorly targeted, distorted prices and worked as a disincentive for farmers to prepare for drought.

Up until 2012, the Australian government made exceptional circumstances declarations, which was a prerequisite for access to most drought support. EC declarations required three key conditions to be met, being that the drought in question is (1) rare and severe—that is, it must not have occurred more than once in every 20 to 25 years, and must be significant; (2) has resulted in a rare and severe downturn in farm income over a prolonged period of over 12 months; and (3) not predictable or part of a process of structural adjustment.

The decision to close the exceptional circumstances program was based on successive reviews of drought policy which found that those arrangements were inequitable. Eligibility was determined by lines on a map. Some farmers who experienced the same drought as their neighbours were located on the other side of a boundary line and could not access support. This approach was reflected in the 2013 Intergovernmental Agreement on National Drought Program Reform.

The year 2013 was when the current approach to drought was first broadly implemented, with the formal abolishment of the inequitable exceptional circumstances arrangements and replacement with a focus on management and resilience initiatives in a climate where drought is predicted to become more frequent and severe. This approach was taken forward in the National Drought Agreement, which was first agreed in 2018, where the commonwealth and states and territories have agreed to the principle that there should no longer be exceptional circumstances declarations and associated lines on maps. The Premier of South Australia signed the most recent National Drought Agreement 2024-2029 in June 2024.

Algal bloom Senate inquiry submission: the South Australian government made a submission to the inquiry dated 28 August 2025, addressing the inquiry's terms of reference. We have taken action to strengthen the legislative framework by explicitly requiring marine environment emergencies to be incorporated into the state emergency management plan. The South Australian government has advocated for broader national reform and that the disaster recovery fund arrangements would provide an essential mechanism for supporting communities, industries and ecosystems in responding to these complex climate-driven events.

The disaster recovery funding should be amended to specifically include long-onset and complex emergencies, such as harmful algal blooms and biological events. In the event the commonwealth is unwilling to recognise harmful algal blooms and similar events under the disaster recovery funding, an alternative mechanism would be established.

Algal bloom funding: the federal and state governments in July announced an initial joint $28 million harmful algal bloom support package. The comprehensive package covers industry support, science and research, communications, community support and clean-up. This is in addition to the fee relief measures and the $1,500 direct support payments to impacted primary producers. The key measures in this harmful algal bloom support package include:

1. Coastal Monitoring Network—investing in expanded early detection and monitoring of harmful algal bloom species through real-time sensors mounted on buoys in the sea, satellite imagery and oceanographic modelling, with rapid detection of harmful algal blooms and early warning systems for industry.

I seek leave to have the remainder of my speech inserted in Hansard without my reading it.

Leave granted.

2. New national testing laboratory in South Australia for harmful algal bloom and brevetoxin testing. Currently, samples are sent to New Zealand for analysis, resulting in delays of up to a week

3. Assessment of fish stocks and fisheries to quantify impact, including modelling ecological impacts on near shore marine ecosystems and all sanctuary zones utilising remote underwater video surveys and dive surveys

4. Citizen Science—rapid meta-analysis of citizen science records and documented ecological impacts to provide a baseline understanding from which to assess recovery

5. Develop a dedicated harmful algal bloom response plan for future bloom events

6. A Harmful Algal Bloom Taskforce that meets weekly, with a media conference to follow to keep the public informed on latest developments

7. Public forums for impacted coastal communities and a trusted single point of information and contact for timely, accurate, and clear communication to industry and the public including a single phone hotline, website, consistent physical signage and information

8. Public information campaigns focused on rebuilding confidence and driving visitation to our coastal regions and marine based tourism businesses and promoting the seafood industry and benefits of recreational fishing

9. Community support and clean up initiatives

10. Community Fund to support activities and small projects in affected communities

11. Beach clean-up funding for local government to assist cleaning up dead fish and marine life.

During a visit to Kangaroo Island in August to see some of the impacts of the algal bloom and meet with impacted businesses, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese committed further Commonwealth funds as follows:

12. $4 million for direct funding to local government for grants to assist those local communities who are dealing with challenges posed by the algae

13. $2.25 million in targeted scientific research support

14. $2 million to enhance the monitoring and data collection of marine heatwaves through the CSIRO's water quality system called AquaWatch

15. $250,000 for algal bloom related research informed by the South Australian Algal Bloom Science Panel through the National Environmental Science Programme.

On 14 October, the Premier announced the $102.5m Algal Bloom Summer Plan, a comprehensive suite of measures to protect South Australia's coast, back coastal communities and support our summer lifestyle.

The plan, jointly funded by the Albanese and Malinauskas Governments, is the culmination of significant consultation with experts, industry and the broader community and has three core objectives:

16. Ensuring South Australians can enjoy their summer

17. Backing coastal businesses and communities

18. Advancing research and protecting our environment.

This includes more than $37 million in science and the environment, including $20.6 million invested in our natural environment for:

19. Large-scale native oyster reef restoration

20. Community shellfish reef restoration

21. Seagrass and blue carbon restoration

22. Threatened and vulnerable marine species breeding.

The Summer Plan also includes a further $17.3 million for science, research and monitoring, including:

23. Water monitoring and forecasting

24. Offshore water analysis

25. Establish an Office for Algal Bloom Research

26. AI Cytobots

27. Algal bloom mitigation

A further $48 million is also being invested in backing coastal businesses and communities through the following initiatives:

28. Dining Cashback – up to $50 off meals across coastal hospitality businesses

29. Travel vouchers – between $100 and $500 for coastal experiences and stays

30. Coast is Calling tourism advertising campaign

31. A new round of industry support grants for businesses which have already received a grant and can demonstrate a further three months of downturn, including:

Grants of up to $10,000 for small businesses

Grants of up to $100,000 for fisheries and aquaculture licence holders who have been unable to catch or harvest their usual catch.

An additional up to $25,000 for hardest hit fisheries and aquaculture licence holders to support their workers.

32. An Industry Response and Resilience Program with grants of up to $150,000 for commercial fisheries and aquaculture licence holders to invest in projects that build business resilience.

33. Extending licensing fee relief for the fishing and aquaculture sectors through to 30 June 2026.

34. Programs to help grow the recreational fishing industry.

35. Supporting industry research and development projects.

36. Grants for coastal recreational facilities.

37. Grants of up to $20,000 to help promote events in coastal communities.

And more than $16 million in ensuring South Australians can enjoy their summer, including:

38. 'Between the Flags' beach patrols every day across eight popular beaches

39. Beachsafe app providing up to date information for 23 locations, updated four times per day during summer

40. Daily beach clean-ups along metro and southern beaches

41. Activating school pools to increase swimming pool capacity

42. Active Club Grants for aquatic-based sporting clubs

43. Free access to coastal parks

44. Mental health support programs

45. Keeping South Australians informed through public information campaigns, the official algal bloom website and hotline, community forums and signage.

The PRESIDENT: Leave is granted against the advice of the Clerk. I want that noted.

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI (Leader of the Opposition) (17:23): I rise to speak to the motion brought forward by the Hon. Connie Bonaros. I thank the honourable member for bringing this matter to the council. We are speaking in favour of this motion because it places on the record something we can no longer ignore, that is, Australia's national disaster framework is no longer fit for purpose.

I indicate that the opposition will not be opposing the government member's amendments, as it is my understanding that the mover of the motion has indicated she is comfortable with those amendments. I also seek leave to have the remainder of my speech inserted in Hansard without my reading it.

Leave granted.

This motion traces the evolution of national drought policy, from the early 1990s, when drought was still treated as a natural disaster, through to the major reforms of the last decade which shifted governments toward risk-management, preparedness and resilience. Those principles are sound ones. They are principles the Liberal Party has long championed. We believe in strong and self-reliant communities. We believe in proactive preparation and long-term planning.

But Mr President, resilience is not an excuse for neglect. And for the past eighteen months, communities across regional South Australia have been living the consequences of a national system that no longer recognises drought as the devastating event it truly is.

In 2013, a national intergovernmental agreement—the Intergovernmental Agreement on National Drought Program Reform or IGA—was entered into, shifting the focus from exceptional-circumstances declarations and post-drought relief to preparedness and resilience. In essence, drought was formally removed from national disaster classifications.

That created a structural policy gap that the 2020 Royal Commission into National Natural Disaster Arrangements explicitly warned about.

The Commission could not have been clearer: excluding drought from disaster arrangements leaves governments without the tools they need when slow-onset events become too severe for ordinary preparedness measures to cope.

And we have seen that gap play out in real time—and, in fact, we are still seeing it unfold today.

Farmers, businesses, contractors, local stores, regional towns, every layer of our rural economy, has been hit by a drought that has stretched well beyond what farm management deposits or ordinary risk-planning can absorb. Families in areas which are yet to see sufficient rains are exhausted. Local government is stretched. Industry bodies are pleading for national consistency and clarity. And yet the current national framework provides none of it.

This gap has also allowed the Malinauskas Government to hide behind process rather than take responsibility. Instead of showing leadership and acting decisively, they have used the exclusion of drought from national disaster settings as a shield. The result has been over a year of avoidable hardship, delay and confusion for communities who deserved clarity but all they got was empty headlines and bureaucracy.

The motion also turns our attention to another subject: significant marine environmental disasters.

The harmful algal bloom that has devastated South Australian waters this year has become extraordinary in scale, impact and duration. It has caused mass fish deaths, destroyed incomes, disrupted industries and shaken coastal communities.

Yet, incredibly, it seems unfortunately clear that an event, even of this scale is not captured within the current national disaster framework.

South Australia now has lived experience, very painful experience, Mr President, that events like harmful algal blooms can have consequences every bit as severe as fires, floods or storms. The lack of national clarity has slowed decision-making, complicated coordination with the Commonwealth, and left affected industries unsure of what support they could expect.

That is not acceptable. Not for our fishers. Not for coastal towns. And not for a state that relies on its marine environment for economic and social wellbeing.

Mr President, the South Australian Liberal Party has been consistent in our drought advocacy. We have been clear that droughts should be declared based on formal criteria and advice from local governments and industry bodies. We have said repeatedly that government must be able to activate practical, on-ground supports quickly when communities are in strife. This includes access to truly low- and no-interest concessional loans delivered through a state authority, as outlined in our Drought Response Bill 2025.

Our position has always been simple: take the politics out of disaster response. Establish a permanent, transparent and independent system for immediate response and recovery. When a society is in crisis, it needs clarity.

We know that in the middle of a drought, prevention is no longer the priority. Preparedness must give way to relief. Infrastructure grants and long-term planning are important in normal seasons, but right now, as has been the case for months and months, communities need help they can feel. It needs to be immediate, direct and practical. While our strong preference remains for state-level independence in disaster oversight, including a defined role for a Drought Response Coordinator, the motion before us is a reasonable and tolerable middle ground, especially when compared to the ad-hoc approach of the current government.

Mr President, the Liberal Party believes deeply in building robust and agile communities, but robustness is not built by ignoring reality. A modern disaster framework must recognise that both slow-onset events like drought and sudden environmental shocks like marine mortality events can devastate entire regions. We know all too well that the ongoing exclusion of these events from national arrangements leaves communities more vulnerable than they should ever be allowed to become.

Updating the national framework will not undermine resilience, or preparedness, it will strengthen it. Governments will have the tools to respond when shocks exceed what reasonable preparedness can manage. And it will be far better than the patchwork system communities are currently forced to navigate.

For these reasons, the Liberal Party supports the motion.

Also, for these reasons we will not be supporting the Government amendments put forward by the Hon Mr Wortley, which significantly dilute this motion to the point of uselessness.

The Opposition urges the Commonwealth Government to modernise national disaster classifications and funding arrangements so that drought and significant marine environmental events are properly recognised, both immediately and into the future.

I commend the motion to the Chamber.

The PRESIDENT: Again, leave is granted with the absolute disdain of the Clerk.

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: I do what I am told, Mr President. Thank you.

The PRESIDENT: I normally do, too. The Hon. Ms Bonaros to conclude the debate.

The Hon. C. BONAROS (17:24): Thank you.

Amendments carried; motion as amended carried.