Wednesday, 12 August 2026

 Emma KEALY (Lowan) (09:34): I move:

That I introduce a bill for an act to amend the Planning and Environment Act 1987 and the Environment Effects Act 1978 in relation to agricultural land and for other purposes.

Victoria is Australia’s largest agricultural producing state, accounting for approximately 28 per cent of Australia’s gross value of agricultural production, with a farmgate value of around $22 billion each year. Our state is home to more than 21,000 farming businesses, representing around one-quarter of all farming enterprises in Australia. Together they produce the food and fibre that feed and clothe millions of people, generate billions of dollars in exports and underpin one of Victoria’s most important industries.

But agriculture’s contribution extends well beyond the farm gate. This sector supports thousands of jobs across transport and logistics, food processing, manufacturing, agricultural technology, research, science and innovation. It is the economic backbone of many regional communities and a vital driver of investment, employment and prosperity across our state. Farmers are also the custodians of our landscape. Every day they manage our soils, care for our waterways, protect biodiversity and safeguard the natural assets that future generations will depend upon. They carry the responsibility of producing the food and fibre the world needs while ensuring the land remains productive for those who come after them. That is why this bill, the Planning and Environment Amendment (Agricultural Land and Food Security) Bill 2026, is so important. This bill is about protecting capability, not preventing opportunity. It recognises that Victoria’s most strategic agricultural land should be protected while ensuring development elsewhere only proceeds where our long-term agricultural capability can be maintained.

Yet despite agriculture’s enormous contribution to our economy and our communities, agricultural land receives surprisingly little recognition within Victoria’s planning system. When major projects are assessed, we rightly consider biodiversity, cultural heritage, native vegetation, landscape values and environmental impacts, but too often agriculture is treated as simply another land use rather than as a strategic asset that underpins our food security, regional economies and export industries. This bill seeks to change that. Its purpose is straightforward, and it is certainly not to prohibit development. It is to ensure that when decisions are made that affect agricultural land, those decisions are informed by agricultural expertise and made transparently, consistently and with proper regard for Victoria’s long-term agricultural capability. We cannot manufacture more high-quality agricultural land. Once productive land is unnecessarily fragmented, sterilised or permanently degraded, its productive capacity may never be fully restored. That is why decisions affecting agricultural land deserve careful, informed and transparent consideration.

This bill establishes a new framework within the Planning and Environment Act to ensure agriculture is properly recognised in planning decisions. It establishes clear objectives, recognising the importance of agricultural land and food security. It provides for the identification of strategic agricultural land. It requires decision-makers to give significant weight to protecting that land. It introduces agricultural land impact assessments for prescribed developments. It requires consultation with Agriculture Victoria before significant decisions affecting agricultural land are made. It requires agricultural expertise to be represented on advisory committees and Environment Effects Act inquiry panels. It strengthens rehabilitation obligations through mandatory rehabilitation bonds and ongoing monitoring, and it establishes a public register and annual reporting requirements so Victorians can better understand the cumulative impact of development on agricultural land. These are practical reforms that improve decision-making, transparency and accountability.

Importantly, this bill does not presume every proposal should be refused, nor does it elevate agriculture above every other public interest. Rather, it ensures agricultural impacts are properly understood, properly assessed and properly weighed alongside all other relevant considerations. Projects that can coexist with agriculture should be able to demonstrate they can do so responsibly. Projects that permanently reduce Victoria’s agricultural capability should be required to justify those impacts and demonstrate why they are in the broader public interest.

Victoria faces increasing pressure on agricultural land: urban growth, renewable energy generation, electricity transmission, extractive industries, major infrastructure. Each of these developments may be necessary, but each of these also has the potential to permanently alter productive farming landscapes. As these pressures increase, our planning system must evolve to ensure agriculture is no longer the forgotten consideration and farmers have a voice. Regional communities deserve confidence that agricultural expertise will be at the table when decisions affecting their livelihoods are made. Farmers deserve confidence that the long-term productive capability of this land will be properly considered. I commend this bill to the house and urge that anybody who enjoys our Australian and Victorian food support this legislation.

 Dylan WIGHT (Tarneit) (09:40): I rise this morning to make a contribution on this procedural motion and respectfully to make a contribution not in favour of this procedural motion and not in favour of introducing this private members bill by the member for Lowan. In doing so I would like to acknowledge the member for Lowan and her contribution and acknowledge her deep care for her community and Victoria’s agricultural sector as a regional member of this place. Victoria punches well above its weight and always has in respect to our thriving agricultural sector. With just 3 per cent of this country’s landmass, Victoria contributes 28 per cent of Australia’s agricultural exports. Some of that may be that we are a pretty coastal region, and it is pretty hard to grow things in the centre of Australia, but we punch above our weight nonetheless.

The Carroll Labor government understands that and understands the critical importance of Victoria’s agricultural sector to the Victorian economy. It contributes a significant amount to this state’s gross state product and contributes a significant amount to this state’s exports and puts a significant amount of money back into the pockets of Victorians. As a government that has several regional members, many of whom are in the chamber right now, including the Speaker, we understand the pivotal and vital role that our agricultural sector plays, and we will continue to ensure that agricultural perspective is properly represented through evidence which is brought to the table in the interests of Victoria’s farmers.

It is understood by this government, though, that the issues that are on the table now that are being debated through this piece of legislation are complex. They are complex issues that we need to work through properly and thoroughly both through government channels and also through talking to our farmers and primary producers. This government has invested significantly into the agricultural sector over the last –

Jade Benham interjected.

Dylan WIGHT: Just you wait – almost 12 years. Member for Mildura, this year’s budget delivers $84 million for agriculture on top of $146 million in drought support. We know over the past couple of years that parts of our state have seen significant drought events and a lack of rain, so we have provided $146 million in support. It is kind of ironic, because what they are arguing against consistently is what causes the droughts. But we have invested significantly into the agricultural sector, and we always will. It also includes $62 million in direct support following the January bushfires, and it also includes $16.9 million in biosecurity and animal welfare, which is obviously incredibly important, as we see at the moment with rising cases of bird flu. I know the member for Eureka, as the Minister for Agriculture, is working feverishly to try and do everything that we possibly can to minimise the effects of that.

The plain fact of the matter is that decisions of this nature that they are trying to address in this bill are already considered under current planning regulation and legislation. This government, the Carroll Labor government, will continue to support the agriculture sector.

 Roma BRITNELL (South-West Coast) (09:45): I rise to support my colleague, the Shadow Minister for Agriculture Emma Kealy, in the introduction of this bill that will safeguard agriculture, land and food: the Planning and Environment Amendment (Agricultural Land and Food Security) Bill ‍2026. This is a place where ideas are put forward by anyone, and a private member’s bill should have the opportunity to be discussed and debated in this chamber, and something as important as agriculture has long needed the protections that this bill introduces.

We need to safeguard our agricultural land so we can ensure our food security into the future. We know that once you sterilise or fragment high-quality farmland, you can never fully get it back. That is why it is disappointing to hear the member for Tarneit stand up and say they will not allow this bill to be debated today. Debating actually grows an idea and brings better opportunities for it to be improved. If it needs improving, and the Labor Party do not like the concept, they can improve it. But who can argue that against safeguarding agricultural land? This is our food security for the future.

Already in Victoria we do an extraordinary job as farmers in making some of the most fertile land highly productive; high-rainfall areas produce and supply food for people all over the world. That is not going to continue if we continue to leave farmers out of the discussion of how we can make sure food is produced safely and responsibly into the future. These farmers that work the land every day care for our fertile soils. They make the most of our reliable rainfall and favourable climate. In South-West Coast we produce a third of Victoria’s milk, around a quarter of the beef and a significant share of our sheep, lamb, food and fibre, and that must continue. Having this bill introduced today into the Parliament will ensure we put the parameters in place to allow that into the future for our future generations. Once farmland is lost, it is incredibly difficult, if not impossible, to get it back.

Our farmers are not just feeding Victorians, they are driving regional jobs. They are providing exports for around the world, and we need to safeguard this critical asset. At a time when Labor say they protect farmers, they are doing the exact opposite by not allowing this bill to be debated. Farmers should have the right to have a say in whether people can come onto their land. If that happens at a time when you are lambing or harvesting or calving, that could be detrimental to the animal welfare or the food production aspect that is taking place at that point in time. Under this government, we are not seeing that. We are seeing, under this government, a government that wants to tax volunteers and stop them from volunteering with emergency services to put out fires. We see them trying to put up powerlines all over agricultural land that is not suitable, land that will be lost from agriculture if you cannot spray or fly over areas where you want to put fertiliser out by aeroplane.

This is an opportunity to make sure we come to the table and debate the importance of agriculture. We already know we have protections for biodiversity, cultural heritage and environmental values. Productive agricultural land is also something that we should be taking into consideration in the discussion when planning laws are made, but farmers are continually left out of that conversation and pushed aside when ideas of other land uses are suggested to be better. That might be okay from a market perspective, and that needs to be considered – I understand that – but you cannot take away the fact that once you lose agricultural land or sterilise it or fragment it, you cannot get it back.

We have seen, in other parts of the world, nations that have become hungry. We have never had hunger here in Australia. We came close during COVID; we saw what happened when supermarket shelves were bare, and I think then was the opportunity for us to recognise the importance of understanding that food will not happen without the hard work of farmers and the land that they have to work with. So we must debate this bill today. We cannot have a Labor Party who say they care about farmers and care about agriculture but have them deny the right to have this bill debated, which would put safeguards in place to protect our agricultural land and to have it farming for future production of food safely and responsibly into the future for our generations to come. That is why this bill must be debated today and not – (Time expired)

 Alison MARCHANT (Bellarine) (09:50): I rise to speak on this procedural motion introduced by the member for Lowan. Often when I have been in this place when agriculture or farming type bills or debates are in this chamber, I hear the opposition say that Labor governments do not understand regional Victoria or they do not understand farmers. I absolutely want to make it clear from the outset that I particularly and personally recognise the importance of agriculture, and I absolutely recognise the importance of the issues sitting behind this debate today. As a regional MP who has had a long farming history in my own family, one who still is a farmer today and owns farming land in western Victoria, one who has had a little boutique farm herself and sold garlic and berries at farmers markets and talked to customers about why it was really important that they knew where their food was coming from and that they knew their farmer and about that paddock-to-plate concept that has grown across our state because people care about their farmers and care about where their food is coming from, I certainly enjoy the debate. It is clear that this side of the government has absolutely made huge investments to protect and to support farmers in this state.

In addition to having a personal understanding of farming and the challenges that it presents, I think I am a sixth- or seventh-generation farmer in my own family. We have seen and documented a series of challenges. Mainly they have been droughts and fires that we have experienced across our communities, and they absolutely can decimate our communities. But in another sense, I would like to just maybe talk a little bit about the land use, which is what is being raised here. For four years from 2012, if I get my dates right roughly, I and rural communities across western Victoria got up to protect agricultural land from fracking, from gas drilling, that was going to completely decimate our agricultural sector. When I was doing that advocacy I was not in this place as a member; I was part of a community that went around and spoke to opposition members, and I spoke to opposition members on that side that were in Parliament. I spoke to them about supporting agricultural land, protecting water and protecting livelihoods against gas drilling. When I spoke to those members – I will give credit where credit is due – some members understood the value of agriculture and fought fiercely for it. I will give credit where credit is due. But there were some that were very pro gas, very pro fracking and very pro making sure –

Members interjecting.

The SPEAKER: Order! I ask members to show some respect to the member on their feet. The member for Bellarine, without assistance.

Alison MARCHANT: When we were fighting to protect agriculture at that time there were members that were more interested in the gas industry. We as a government were very proudly the first in the country to ban fracking in Victoria, and we very proudly have a $22 billion industry that we support in this country. The only question I have with the amount of time I have left is: I have heard that there is going to be a gas boost for the state under an opposition government. I understand that that gas – (Time expired)

 Jade BENHAM (Mildura) (09:55): Obviously I am in enthusiastic support of this bill, the Planning and Environment Amendment (Agricultural and Food Security) Bill 2026, which has been presented by the member for Lowan. Honestly, I cannot believe that this has not been done before, and the utter hypocrisy that is coming from the other side – pun intended – is fracking unbelievable. There is only one side of politics in this place that has ever done fracking, and that is Labor. There is only one side that has tried to industrialise agricultural land in this Parliament: Labor.

Members interjecting.

The SPEAKER: Order! The member for Lowan can leave the chamber for half an hour. The Leader of the Nationals is warned.

Member for Lowan withdrew from chamber.

Jade BENHAM: Victoria is Australia’s largest agricultural producing state. This covers not just boutique farms but also commercial farms that feed the entire world. I was just saying to the Leader of the Nationals that one of the farms where my husband currently works, located in Victoria, is bigger than a lot of inner-city electorates. It is about 18 square kilometres and has more permanent plantings ‍– trees – than a lot of inner-city electorates have people. We are producing food for the entire world at a rate of knots. As I have said multiple times in this place, without agriculture in Victoria you would all be hungry, naked and sober.

There were a lot of people upstairs last night at the Victorian distillers awards, a lot from the other side and a lot of staffers from the other side too. And what did we see on display, apart from all of the wonderful spirits? The grains which those spirits come from. We have heard members on the other side talk about how they support the ag industry and how they understand that they would go hungry and they would go sober without it. Do you know what, instead of playing politics with farmland in this state and instead of being utter hypocrites with private members bills that are introduced from this side that you know are good policy, similar to what we saw yesterday –

The SPEAKER: Member for Mildura, I ask you not to use the word ‘you’.

Jade BENHAM: Apologies, Speaker. We saw the government yesterday introduce a bill to criminalise coercive control that the member for Eildon, to my right, introduced in November last year. Since then, 44 women in Australia have died at the hands of domestic violence, and now they come in today wearing orange ribbons supporting domestic violence –

Anthony Carbines: On a point of order, Speaker, the member is not being relevant to the procedural debate before the house, and I ask you to bring her back to that process.

The SPEAKER: Yes, member for Mildura, come back to the procedural motion before the house on the introduction of a bill.

Jade BENHAM: I am being entirely relevant to the procedural motion, pointing out that in November last year we introduced a bill similar to what we are trying to do today. We know that the government side of politics, the Labor side of politics, knows this is good policy and knows that it should have been done long before this, because it is basic common sense to have agriculture expertise at the table and to have advisory committees to take into account agricultural land with regard to development. What we know, as was demonstrated yesterday, is that when good policy is presented to the Labor side of politics, they agree it is good policy, as we have heard from the Labor members, but they will vote against introducing it today. Then they will wrap it up dressed as their idea, and in six months time – they will not have six months; they have got a couple of weeks left – they will try and introduce it and issue a media release like it was their idea, as they tried to do yesterday, which is an absolute insult.

I commend this bill to the house. Like I have said, this should have been done decades ago: requiring agricultural expertise with regard to prime agricultural land on advisory committees and with consideration to the environment effects statements. We know that farmers are some of the best land caretakers in the land as their entire livelihoods depend on it. I commend this bill to the house and, instead of being utter hypocrites, Labor should too.

 John LISTER (Werribee) (10:00): I rise to oppose this procedural motion to allow the Nationals to debate this private members bill. As a member literally on the front line of pressures when it comes to agricultural land, much like the member for Bellarine and the member for Tarneit, in our peri-urban communities we see the pressures of planning. I do appreciate the Nationals actually coming up to this place with policy, not just putting out the bins like their coalition partners have done over the weekend, and coming forward with something that means something to their constituencies. But I think the reason why I oppose this bill in particular is because I do not believe the Nationals at any point have bothered to consult with peri-urban communities like mine in particular when it comes to issues around access to agricultural land and trying to restrict access to officials to go onto agricultural land. While that side likes to tilt at windmills and renewable energy projects –

Annabelle Cleeland interjected.

The SPEAKER: The member for Euroa can leave the chamber for half an hour.

Member for Euroa withdrew from chamber.

John LISTER: a few weeks ago I had the delight of having the Minister for Agriculture come out and meet with residents in Little River, which has been at the front line of pressures between rural conservation zones and urban development, particularly successfully fighting off Pacific National and their proposal out that way. But also I stand with them to make sure that we maintain the unique character of that place. In fact the member for Mildura referenced the spirits and distillery show last night, and I would like to note that Rothwell Distillery is one of those places where they grow that grain onsite –I believe the member for Mildura wishes to waste some of my time.

Jade Benham: On a point of order on relevance, Speaker, this is a procedural debate, not a members statement.

The SPEAKER: I do not uphold the point of order. Other members have mentioned the same thing.

John LISTER: As the member for Mildura referenced that and referenced the show, I feel it is appropriate to comment that Rothwell Estate sits on a rural conservation zone but of course they are trying to develop it in such a way that they can attract new business from nearby urban areas to be able to engage there. But in meeting with the Little River Action Group – and I note the minister is in the chamber – one of the key pressures and things that they want to see is the ability for officials to go onto agricultural land in the area and ensure that it is actually being used for agriculture, rather than for inappropriate uses like vehicle storage. They want officials to come onto the land, to be able to enter it and to monitor the use in line with the rural conservation zone planning schemes, as well as monitor introduced species on that land. It is important to consult with all of these groups before we go to adjusting our Planning and Environment Act 1987around this. It is really important to get out there and meet with those peri-urban communities.

I would like to note that in this place, just before my time, in 2024 one of our committees did do an inquiry into food security. In briefly reading through the recommendations – and I have spoken about this inquiry myself in this place – there are a whole lot of recommendations there. Only one goes to the idea of food security and healthy eating options out in our peri-urban communities and on this front line between rural conservation zones and urban development: recommendation 24. It recommends that we explore some of the restrictions and some of the opportunities to make sure that land is being used appropriately but also look at healthy food options within those communities, which I know the member for Northcote knows quite well, as we have been engaging on that – and the proliferation of KFCs on the urban fringe is something that I have spoken about in this place as well. The government’s response says that they will work with stakeholders to implement these planning provisions and to explore these planning provisions, because this is not necessarily something that we have to go to legislation for in this place and where we expect the good people of Victoria to come and watch us on Hansard, on our live broadcast. Rather, they will have that consultation out on the ground, with people like the Little River Action Group, to understand these pressures before planning provisions are put into this place or even regulatory changes, which do not require the contribution of the National Party in Parliament to be able to happen. I think it is important that we encourage people to engage with our local members around this and to work with the Minister for Planning on these provisions.

Assembly divided on motion: