A new Australian Government drought plan

Country Women’s Association of NSW
Incorporated in 1931 by an Act of NSW Parliament
Constituent Society of the Associated Country Women of the World
ABN 82 318 909 926

18 September 2024

Assistant Secretary,
Drought Policy Branch
Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry
GPO Box 858
Canberra ACT 2601

Re: Submission to consultation on the draft Australian Government Drought Plan

The Country Women’s Association (CWA) of New South Wales (NSW) is the state’s largest women’s rural issues advocacy group with well over 8000 members and close to 400 branches across NSW. There is no other rural, regional, remote member-based organisation that has the breadth and depth of membership on matters affecting country people.

CWA of NSW aims to improve conditions for country women, children, and families by advocating for its members, helping local communities, creating a network of support and meeting together in towns and cities across NSW. The CWA of NSW advocates for positive action on a range of issues that impact the lives of women, children and families throughout NSW.

CWA of NSW welcomes the opportunity to provide this submission to the consultation on the draft Australian
Government Drought Plan (the Plan) informed by the following CWA of NSW policy positions:

1. Inclusivity of Support: Advocate for the expansion of drought aid eligibility and the simplification of
application processes, ensuring support for non-primary producers. Recognise the broad impact of
drought across all sectors of rural communities, beyond agriculture.
2. Government Accountability: Seek commitments from political parties for concessional loans, ongoing
funding, and streamlined access to drought relief programs. Ensure consistent and efficient
government response to droughts through long-term planning and policy implementation.
3. Animal and Environmental Concerns: Address the intersection of drought relief with ethical livestock
management, ensuring proper procedures are followed before intervention. Balance environmental
conservation needs with agricultural demands, particularly in debates around water allocation during
droughts.
4. Human Impact: Prioritise the mental health and financial well-being of rural communities, advocating
for continued support such as Drought Support Workers and the establishment of a Special Needs
Fund. Emphasise the social dimensions of drought, recognising its far-reaching effects beyond
economic losses.
5. Proactive Measures: Support evidence-based decision-making and improved systems for identifying
and responding to drought conditions. Advocate for long-term solutions, including the creation of a
National Disaster Fund, to ensure sustainable and proactive drought management policies.

Level 2, 244 Coward St, Mascot NSW 2020
PO Box 222, Mascot, NSW 1460 • Telephone: 02 8337 0200 • Facsimile: 02 8338 1595
Email: info@cwaofnsw.org.au • Website: www.cwaofnsw.org.au
Question 1: Is the Australian Government’s approach to drought across the drought cycle clear in the draft plan?

The CWA of NSW recognises the dynamic nature of drought preparedness and acknowledges that achieving
100% preparedness is unrealistic. However, CWA of NSW support the Australian Government’s phased approach to managing drought, which includes preparedness, response, and recovery. This clear separation of phases highlights the cyclical nature of drought and the importance of sustained support and risk management, rather than solely reactive measures.

While this approach aligns with the CWA of NSW’s call for evidence-based decision-making, long-term planning, and proactive measures, there is a need for clearer guidelines on how the government will respond proactively, particularly in the early stages of drought, to help communities prepare more effectively. The CWA of NSW also encourage further detail on how each phase will be practically implemented and coordinated with state and local governments, especially in rural and remote areas where the capacity for adaptation may be limited.

Question 2: Is the draft plan clear as to why the Australian Government’s drought policy and response is different to that for natural disasters?

The draft plan effectively distinguishes drought as a slow-onset event, in contrast to the sudden, catastrophic nature of natural disasters. However, it would benefit from further elaboration on how this distinction informs resource allocation and ensures a consistent, efficient government response, particularly in terms of funding decisions. Drought’s gradual onset and the unique challenges faced by rural businesses and communities often necessitate ongoing, varied, and adaptive responses—requiring a more nuanced approach compared to other emergencies that have more immediate and straightforward solutions.

While the draft highlights these differences, it does not fully explore the long-term socio-economic and social impacts of drought, which, like natural disasters, can have devastating and prolonged effects on rural communities. For example, Australian rural women face significant challenges related to declining water availability, climate change, and their roles in agricultural industries. Many are overloaded by work, caregiving, and financial responsibilities, especially as farm incomes decline. These pressures contribute to family separations, marital breakdowns, and increased stress-related health issues, such as depression.

Drought also exacerbates domestic and family violence, as well as sexual assault, the impact of which is compounded by physical and psychological isolation. Research shows that during extended droughts, people may leave communities permanently, communication systems may fail, and social supports can weaken over time. This isolation can persist as communities recover, leaving lasting scars (Sety, 2012)1. Given that regional, rural, and remote communities already struggle to provide essential services, greater clarity on how the government’s financial and policy responses will address these long-term impacts would improve public understanding.

Question 3: Does Pillar 1 – Evidence-based decision-making provide greater clarity about when, why, how, and what the government will consider when determining its response to drought?

Pillar 1 offers a positive step towards more data-driven and transparent drought management. The emphasis on leveraging research and scientific data to inform government action is commendable, however, the CWA of NSW calls for clearer leadership and coordination, especially across tiers of government around policy

11
Edwards, B., Gray, M., & Hunter, B. (2009). A sunburnt country: The economic and financial impact of drought on rural and regional families in Australia in an era of climate change. Australian Journal of Labour Economics, 12(1), 109-131.
Level 2, 244 Coward St, Mascot NSW 2020
PO Box 222, Mascot, NSW 1460 • Telephone: 02 8337 0200 • Facsimile: 02 8338 1595
Email: info@cwaofnsw.org.au • Website: www.cwaofnsw.org.au
coordination to maximise this approach.

The CWA of NSW recommends more clarity around the use of data and the specific indicators or thresholds that will trigger certain levels of government intervention. Statements such as “If drought conditions and their effects are prolonged and severe, we may consider additional support needs”2 , beg the question what counts as prolonged or severe? and how frequently will data be reviewed to ensure the response remains relevant and timely. Defining key metrics and benchmarks for decision-making would help affected communities understand the process more thoroughly and enable them to prepare accordingly.

Question 4: Does Pillar 2 – Strategic drought support provide greater clarity about how the Australian
Government will respond across the drought cycle, including what support it will not provide?

Pillar 2 offers a clear framework for the types of support available at various stages of drought but more specific examples of the type of strategic support provided at each stage of the drought cycle would be beneficial. The explicit mention of what will not be supported is appreciated, as it helps manage expectations, but it should also outline alternative pathways for those seeking assistance beyond government provisions reinforcing the concept of ‘shared responsibility’ underpinning the Plan. This would empower communities to seek other forms of support and collaboration with the private sector. More detail is needed regarding support for long- term infrastructure investment and sustainable water management, which are essential for building resilience in rural and remote communities. Additionally, it would be beneficial to clearly outline how federal support will complement state-level programs to avoid duplication or gaps in assistance.

Question 5: Have you identified any gaps in how we have responded to any of the review recommendations in the draft plan?

Although noted that this is beyond the scope of the plan, one gap that stands out is the need for a more comprehensive response framework that clearly outlines roles and responsibilities at various jurisdictional levels (federal, state, and local).

More emphasis on community engagement and how regional and rural communities will be consulted throughout the decision-making process could be included. This engagement is essential to ensuring that the response reflects the unique challenges faced by drought-affected areas. Additionally, the role of private sector partnerships, particularly in funding resilience-building infrastructure, should be more fully explored in the plan. Another gap is the limited focus on the social and mental health impacts of drought, particularly on women and families in rural communities.

Drought has wide-reaching effects that go beyond economic hardship, and these human factors must be addressed with greater resourcing and attention.

While the draft discusses technological innovations and infrastructure investment, it lacks detail on how these measures will be made accessible to small-scale farmers and marginalised communities that may struggle to access such resources.

Question 6: Do you have any comments on the work underway for us to consider as we progress it?

The CWA of NSW acknowledges the government's commitment to providing strategic drought support but feel there are several gaps that need to be addressed. While it is reasonable to expect farming businesses to draw on their preparedness activities at the onset of drought, it is unclear when additional government support will be triggered and how it can be accessed. More clarity is needed regarding the timing and

2 P.16 Australian Government Drought Plan: consultation draft
Level 2, 244 Coward St, Mascot NSW 2020
PO Box 222, Mascot, NSW 1460 • Telephone: 02 8337 0200 • Facsimile: 02 8338 1595
Email: info@cwaofnsw.org.au • Website: www.cwaofnsw.org.au
accessibility of this support, especially during prolonged and severe drought conditions.

There is also concern about the government's reliance on existing services, such as mental health and primary care, which are already stretched thin in regional, rural, and remote communities. These areas are significantly underserved, and yet there is no mention of expanding these essential services during drought, when demand will inevitably increase. The plan suggests that these services are "well placed" to support emergency planning, response, and recovery, but without additional staffing, funding, or resources, this is an unrealistic expectation.

Furthermore, the plan references the involvement of not-for-profit and charity-based providers to fill gaps in service delivery. While these organisations play a vital role, relying on them without providing additional government support raises concerns about sustainability and equity in access to services.

The government’s emphasis on building resilience in farming businesses is commendable, but it should be matched with a commitment to expanding and funding critical community services, particularly during drought. The Helping Regional Communities Prepare for Drought initiative, delivered by the Foundation for
Rural & Regional Renewal and the Australian Rural Leadership Foundation, is a step in the right direction, but more needs to be done to ensure comprehensive support across all drought phases.

As the government moves forward with the Plan, it is essential to prioritise community engagement and ensure that the voices of those directly impacted by drought, including women and small-scale farmers, are actively involved in decision-making. Consideration should also be given to developing targeted support programs for regional and remote areas, where economic diversification and employment opportunities are often limited, exacerbating the impacts of drought. Continued collaboration with state governments, agricultural bodies, and rural advocacy groups like the CWA of NSW will be vital in ensuring the effectiveness and reach of these initiatives.

In summary, while the plan’s principles are sound, we urge the government to provide greater clarity on how and when additional support will be triggered, and to ensure that essential services are adequately funded and resourced to meet increased demand during drought. The CWA of NSW looks forward to further consultation as the plan progresses and offers ongoing support in advocating for the needs of rural communities across New
South Wales.

Yours faithfully,

Joy Beames
President CWA of NSW

Level 2, 244 Coward St, Mascot NSW 2020
PO Box 222, Mascot, NSW 1460 • Telephone: 02 8337 0200 • Facsimile: 02 8338 1595
Email: info@cwaofnsw.org.au • Website: www.cwaofnsw.org.au