It’s starting to feel like the longest-running game of political ping-pong in WA agriculture — letter, article, letter, article — back and forth between WAFarmers and the Minister over what should be the most straightforward of shared priorities: drought.
But here we are, months later, with the Minister, her department, and the farming community speaking entirely different dialects. One from Venus, the other from Mars — one fluent in political-managerial climate-catastrophe language full of “multi-hazard resilience frameworks” and “stakeholder engagement pathways to mitigation readiness,” the other speaking plain “farmer” — a language built on rainfall charts, cracked earth, and whether there’s enough water in the tank to see the sheep through to the next rains.
One side wants to “embed climate adaptation metrics into a cross-sectoral governance model.” The other just wants a state drought policy that keeps the standpipes flowing.
I’ve worked for more than my fair share of Ministers, and any half-decent one would have seized the opportunity when WAFarmers called for a joint approach to developing a new state drought policy. In politics, opportunities like that are gold: when a peak body is willing to sign off on a policy, you grab it with both hands.
In this case, it was the perfect escape hatch from a self-inflicted pothole — a chance to pivot from “$5,000 drought cheques in the Minister’s electorate just before an election” to a serious, grown-up plan for the next dry spell. One that keeps the country scheme water pipes full and steers the federally funded Drought Hub away from wasting money on “the learnings of 60,000 years of Indigenous climate change” posturing and back toward real science.
Instead, the Minister has kept the spotlight firmly on debating the difference between “mitigation” and “adaptation” — as if farmers will forget the standpipes running dry once they’ve grasped the semantics.
The Letters Speak for Themselves
- 10 June 2025 – WAFarmers writes: Let’s hold a drought policy roundtable. Clear, practical framework. No tricks, no bait.
- 22 July 2025 – Minister replies: Yes, but reframes it as “policy approaches to climate adaptation initiatives” — bureaucrat-speak for lumping drought into the climate-change basket.
- 24 July 2025 – WAFarmers responds: Fine, run your climate adaptation roundtable — but that’s another discussion. We’re talking about what happens when the decile hits 1, and we even sent you an agenda focused on water independence when the country water pipe gets throttled down.
Her response? Double down on climate adaptation and hint that, thanks to “Chinese whispers,” WAFarmers CEO must be losing interest.
The Minister reads our letter and decides — in her own mind — that she’s been perfectly clear: farmers must understand it’s all about climate adaptation, not drought. And because of these so-called whispers, she suggests I’m losing interest in the whole idea.
Actually, I am. I wish I’d never raised it, because here we are, arguing over definitions while the next decile-one drought could be three months away. If the Minister thinks the real problem is that WAFarmers doesn’t appreciate the subtle distinction between adaptation and mitigation, she’s missing the point entirely. Farmers care about the state’s response in decile-1 years — a very different beast to all the climate change, carbon farming, carbon mitigation, and adaptation madness currently keeping DPIRD bureaucrats busy.
What’s even more telling is how quickly the Minister falls back on “he said/she said” exchanges between me and the Director General, instead of simply putting her position — or asking for clarification — in writing to the President of WAFarmers.
We have a staff of three. The Minister has at least a dozen in her office and another two thousand in the department. Surely someone could have picked up the phone and clarified what “he said to she” before it was whispered to whoever drafted the letter. This is amateur-hour public service delivery. Someone should be promoted out of the way into the DEI unit as punishment.
No doubt this was done because the spin on what I didn’t say works neatly in the Minister’s favour. That’s fine — I can play politics with words too. But I do it in writing, not based on what I think I heard someone say.
Let’s Be Absolutely Clear
As per the last letter sent, this is what WAFarmers proposed for a drought roundtable:
- Examine the role of the State Emergency Drought Coordination Unit.
- Clarify the priorities of the WA Drought Hub.
- Provide a platform to develop a clear and practical drought priority framework.
- Reassess support for mental health, fodder supply chains, emergency stock water, rural financial counselling, and the Country Water Supply Scheme for dealing with a drought.
- Map future opportunities from DPIRD’s Smart Water Use Project.
Notice how often the word drought appears. I even reinforced it with a 2,000-word op-ed in Farm Weekly, in case the Minister needed further clarification. If that doesn’t scream drought policy, then put me out to pasture.
So, the choice is hers: start thinking about a new drought policy, or keep attempting to rack up cheap political points. From where I’m standing, I’m more than happy to keep playing ping-pong with the Minister for the next three and a half years in the Farm Weekly. In fact, I suspect this would delight most of my readers every bit as much as it will horrify the Premier’s media team.
If this is the level of urgency and professionalism our Minister brings to working with industry — even when we put forward constructive suggestions — she’d better pray the weather gods are kinder than the political ones.
In the meantime, I’ll attend the climate adaptation/mitigation forum she’s hell-bent on running. I’ll report back — and confirm whether the $5,000 policy gets a mention. As for the drought roundtable, that’s now the Ministers problem.
From an old political hack: free advice to the Minister, her Chief of Staff, and something for her media advise to raise with the Premiers office — this is not a good look. None of it passes the pub test. The Minister needs to rethink her approach to stakeholders, including the executive in DPIRD, because I’m not the only one who’s noticed the aggressive, dismissive tone. You have a problem.
