THERE are far more effective ways of helping farmers through drought than waiting until one occurs, says PETER KENNY

In June this year, Federal Agriculture Minister Tony Burke appointed our panel to assess the social impact of drought on farm families and rural communities.

We were asked to identify gaps in social support services to help people cope with drought and to identify areas where improvements could be made to ease the impacts of stress due to drought.

Over six weeks we held 25 consultation forums across the country which attracted more than 1000 people who gave us a first-hand account of their experiences of living with drought in recent years.

Our subsequent report reflects our strong belief in the need for a new approach to living with drought rather than dealing with drought or, as we prefer to call it, dryness.

At the moment, government responses to drought are not effective enough because many are crisis-driven and not focusing on early preparedness.

There is funding to run barbeques or 12 weeks of yoga classes that aim to rebuild declining social capital or to tell farmers and rural businesses which assistance to apply for and help them fill in forms.

There is even funding to drive from farm-to-farm handing out food parcels and pamper packs with a leaflet inside that advertises, say, mental health or church services.

All these are valuable and useful, but they are short-term fixes to longer-term problems.

The panel recommends future policy should move people towards an acceptance that future dryness will occur, that it is not a crisis and that planning for dryness should be about both farm development and personal and family well-being.

We propose future policy be focused on investment in, and planning for, the well-being of farm families and rural communities and that this occur prior to dry periods.

The panel suggests governments consider a mutual responsibility policy that only provides help to farm families who have developed an appropriate plan before dryness gets to a point that could be described as beyond their control.

We consider governments should provide the means and incentives for families to develop and implement their own well-being plans, which will reinforce the need for self-reliance.

Structural adjustment will be promoted and agricultural and environmental resources will be protected.

Longer, drier periods will be withstood and the longer-term sustainability of farms and farmers can be assured.

The panel believes governments have a crucial role in providing certain basic human support services for rural Australia before, during and after drought, as they do for all Australians.

While we all understand, even if we can't always welcome, the pressures that drive services to be centralised, we need to ensure those living and working in rural areas are not disadvantaged through, say, their costs of accessing services being driven up whether in terms of time, financial outlay or even both.

The panel heard the current response by government to fund a variety of providers and individuals together with a considerable presence from non-government charity and church organisations has created a number of uncoordinated stop-start initiatives.

When education and training are considered, drought affects people's participation and ability to access education and training so the panel recommends that the viability of classes, schools and bus services should include consideration of community stress and if services are withdrawn, viable alternatives should be offered to the families in those locations.

In relation to health and well-being, the ad hoc approach of bringing in extra mental health resources during drought largely does not succeed.

The panel believes this approach should cease and that there needs to be greater investment in the capacity of existing primary and allied health care services in rural communities to enable them to respond to the physical and mental health impacts of future dryness.

Extra resources introduced for drought responses should remain through recovery and be used to build preparedness and resilience for handling future dry periods.

Governments should focus future policy on facilitating the social well-being of farm families, rural businesses and rural communities so that there is an improved capacity to live with dryness.

If governments can do this better we believe there will also be positive economic and environmental outcomes for rural Australia that results from improved decision-making.

The individuals and families who want to live and work in rural Australia and contribute to the nation are important. These are people of hope and their determination and initiative must be supported.

• Peter Kenny is chairman of the expert panel appointed to examine the social impact of drought as part of the Federal Goverment's review of drought policy. This is an edited extract of the address he gave when releasing the panel's report, It's about people, changing perspectives on dryness, last month.