Wednesday, 17 June 2026

 Rikkie-Lee TYRRELL (Northern Victoria) (14:47): I seek leave to move motion 1487 standing in my name in an amended form.

Leave granted.

Rikkie-Lee TYRRELL: I move:

That this house notes that:

(1)   farmers are the lifeblood of the Northern Victoria region;

(2)   many of those farmers rely on irrigation to grow their crops and livestock;

(3)   water needs to be protected for communities and food and fibre production;

(4)   the Department of Energy, Environment and Climate Action’s 2022–23 surface water reports show that more than 570 gigalitres of water held in the River Murray–Goulburn Murray Water share accounts and 915 gigalitres from Goulburn and Campaspe basins was written off as spillable water;

(5)   when water is lost during storage overflows, this impacts farmers;

and calls on the government to investigate the viability of all reclassification options in carrying over water spilled from storages to alternatives such as environmental water and report it as such.

First off, I would like to thank the Minister for Water for her constructive engagement on this motion. There is no doubting that water is the lifeblood of the Northern Victoria Region. Many of our farmers rely on access to irrigation water to provide the food, fodder and fibre needed to feed and support the state. For decades our farmers have been forced to wear the costs associated with spillable water during wet years. They use carryover water as a way to secure their water needs from year to year. They pay fees to carry this water over, on top of the costs of the water and yearly fees charged by the water board, just to have access to water on their properties. Farmers are charged at almost every step of the process. Then in the very wet years, when the storage has become too full, they lose that water without compensation. It is just written off as spillage and gone from their accounts. It hardly seems fair, does it? In recent years northern Victorian farmers have seen enormous volumes of carryover water classified as spillable and subsequently written off. Victorian water accounts show that in 2022–23 alone more than 570 gigalitres of spillable water was written off from Murray Water share accounts, while more than 716 gigalitres was written off due to spill events across the broader Goulburn system. Those are staggering volumes of water, all at the cost of our farmers. Imagine going to the pub, buying a beer and watching the barman pour half of it down the sink but still having to pay the full price.

The pool of water available to irrigators is getting smaller and smaller every year. Only 28 per cent of the water held in storages is assigned for irrigation, industrial use or communities. Eighty-two per cent of the water recovered by the Murray–Darling Basin plan has come from the southern basin. The southern basin is where 40 per cent of Australia’s food is grown. If this continues, Australia will become a net importer of agricultural products by 2037. It is unimaginable that this could happen to a country that for decades has been proudly touting its world-class agricultural products. We have seen some of the best food and fibre products in the world, but the industry is slowly and painfully being destroyed by a system that is stacked against it.

Reclassifying spilled water from carryover is just a small step towards keeping the system fair. The question is simple: if this water is no longer available to the entitlement holder, where does it go? In many cases the water remains in the river system. It contributes to river flows, wetland inundation, environmental outcomes and downstream system benefits. If that is the case, then surely we should be honest about its use and recognise it for what it has become – environmental water. The reclassification of spillable carryover water would improve the transparency around where our water goes and what it is used for. Governments regularly report environmental water holdings and environmental watering outcomes. If hundreds of gigalitres of privately held water are effectively contributing to those outcomes, Victorians deserve to know.

Environmental benefits achieved through spilled carryover water should be counted when governments assess environmental water needs and future water recovery programs. It makes little sense to ignore water already delivering environmental outcomes while simultaneously seeking to acquire more water from productive agriculture. Reclassifying spillable carryover water would recognise the contribution made by irrigators. Farmers are frequently portrayed as competing with the environment for water, yet when spillable carryover is written off, irrigators are effectively providing water that benefits the environment without recognition or compensation. That contribution should not be invisible.

This proposal is not about reducing environmental outcomes; it is about accurately accounting for them. Every megalitre that leaves a farmer’s account and contributes to river health should be recorded accordingly. At a time when communities are being asked to surrender more productive water through federal government buybacks and recovery programs, the government must be transparent about all sources of environmental water. If spilled carryover water is helping achieve environmental objectives, then it should be counted as environmental water.

Victoria’s irrigators deserve fairness, taxpayers deserve transparency and our water accounting system should reflect reality. I therefore call on the government to investigate the viability of all reclassification options of spilled carryover water, such as environmental water, report it as such and ensure that the contribution made by irrigators is properly recognised in future water policy decisions.

 Jacinta ERMACORA (Western Victoria) (14:54): I thank Ms Tyrrell for her motion. It takes me back to water, although I am not a very north-of-the-divide water person, so we will see how we go. We recognise the amended motion, which removes wording the government was not in a position to support. With these amendments the government will not oppose the motion. We acknowledge Ms Tyrrell’s continued advocacy for regional communities’ water rights in Northern Victoria Region.

As a person raised on-farm and in a farming community, a community that relies on agriculture, rainfall and water are really important things. It has been a part of my life, and I recognise the critical role of farming in our communities and our nation for economic, social and environmental reasons. In terms of our water system in Victoria, we have got a number of government-owned water authorities that are charged with managing the water resource in our state and in doing so making sure that the environment, the economy and communities and cities and agriculture are all accounted for in an even-handed, as best as possible, way, given the moving variables, which are climate change, seasonal variations and the chosen land use. It might be using a dairy-farming form of agriculture in a dry irrigation area, which is perhaps a really high use of water and a low-value product.

There is always the dynamic of demand and supply. You have got the existing demand; then you have got future demand; then you have got climate change. Then you have got a low climate change scenario, a medium climate change scenario and a high climate change scenario, all supported by evidence and applied to the particular relevant areas. Then of course you have got supply, and again that is related to how big your storages are, if there are any storages what the flows are and the variation in those flows. For example, a large storage serving a small community is highly unlikely to ever encounter restrictions, whereas the reverse is definitely the case. A small engineered storage supporting a growing community that might have outgrown its infrastructure would more regularly experience water restrictions. Rainfall, rainfall catchments and types of catchments and then reticulation systems and the types of reticulation systems for water and their efficiency, again, become a variable. Then, as I mentioned, environmental flows are very important to support the landscape from which the water has been taken in the first place. And of course there are sometimes recreational water flows, which are about supporting tourism industries, caravan parks and waterskiing and fishing in regional communities.

Of course you have got urban water, which is the big cities, urban communities and the small urban communities as well. I think it is true to say that 70 to 75 per cent of water consumption is agricultural irrigation and about 20 to 25 per cent is urban water consumption in this state, so it is certainly a very important issue that Ms Tyrrell has raised. Because of that, one small saving, one small efficiency in the agricultural irrigation space, is going to produce some really strong outcomes. Then of course you have got business uses for water – we have got not just agricultural uses, but a number of manufacturing industries rely on water. In fact cities have often grown up around industries that have relied on water. In my community we call it dryland farming; no irrigation is the norm, I suppose. We have got a few small farms in south-west Victoria that do a mixture of irrigation and dryland farming, but irrigation is certainly the big picture north of the Divide, and that is where we have a water-trading market. We try and supply the economic system with a trading system that provides the right balance for the economy, the environment and the agricultural businesses. I want to take the opportunity to say thanks to the water corporations and those involved, as a former water person, because they do some very good work, and well-managed water is central to the economy and the market of Victoria in general.

In terms of spillage and spillage works, the premise in the motion is a good one and worth having a look at. Carryover and spill rules have been refined over time and in close consultation with water users and the community, but that is not to say that this scenario is not worth having a look at. Irrigators and environment and water corporations have all been involved in those consultations. These communities are impacted when there is spill water, and as Ms Tyrrell said, that is impacted by drier years versus wetter years. Water can be redefined as it is spilt. I think the scenario of investigating whether or not it ought to be called what it is being used for in the first place, since it does end up back in the environment, is a valid question to consider.

The Victorian Environmental Water Holder leased 20 billion litres worth of carryover space in the 2024–25 year to help farmers get water during drier years. There is that sort of capability for the system to adapt in drier years. The basin plan is premised on environmental water holders having that flexibility, and spills are already accounted for in basin plan water recovery targets. Deducting spills from the environmental water holder accounts would mean more held water would need to be recovered. Farmers and rural communities could end up carrying that cost.

Our record on supporting northern Victorian farmers is a strong one. Let me be very, very clear about who delivers for those communities when it comes to water. There is no conflict of interest, unlike with the Nats, and no Office of Living Victoria looking after their mates –

Members interjecting.

Jacinta ERMACORA: If you are going to poke at me, I will raise some of the disasters from last time you were in government.

David Davis interjected.

The PRESIDENT: Order! Mr Davis, if you are going to interrupt, it has to be from your spot – repeat offender.

Jacinta ERMACORA: I have not given myself enough time to detail some of the disasters last time the coalition was in government in this state in relation to water, so I will not actually go into them, but your comments and interjections have given me an idea for a future speech should you raise the matter. I have run out of time, so I will say thank you very much for raising the issue and I will leave my contribution there.

 Wendy LOVELL (Northern Victoria) (15:04): I rise to support the motion, although I have to say that I am a little bit disappointed. The motion runs through about five points that are a little bit motherhood in statement. But then it did have a call to actually ‘reclassify carryover water spilled from storages as environmental flow and report it as such’. But of course it has now been watered down, pardon the pun, to just say ‘investigate the viability of all reclassification options’. I think it is a pity that the amendment has been accepted because I think the first motion was much stronger. I strongly support the concept of overflows or spilt water being classified as environmental water, because farmers do not benefit from spills, the environment does. The farmers cannot actually capture any of that spilt water – not that they would, because water is only spilt in years where it is pretty wet and the farmers probably do not need additional water, and if they did, it would be pretty cheap anyway. But the environment does benefit and the Commonwealth and state environmental holders also have the option to actually release more water on top of the spilt water to create environmental waterings in those years, therefore only the environment can benefit from that water.

However, water does not spill very often. What we have seen is in the 16 years since 2010 there have only been four times when water has spilt. It is highly unlikely that we will get any water spilling this year – very, very unlikely. The four years that we have had water spill have been after flood years. We had flooding in late 2010 and early 2011, and we saw spillages in 2011–12 and 2012–13. And then of course we had the very big floods in Victoria in October 2022, and we saw water spill in 2022–23 and in 2023–24. There were nine years in between those two lots of spillages where there were no spills whatsoever.

If we look back at the history of carryover water, we know that carryover water was introduced in the Murray and Goulburn water systems in northern Victoria in early 2007. This was done as an emergency drought measure under conservative rules that limited the amount that individuals could carry over. After the success of the 2007 year there was a review, and the carryover water was continued on. But when carryover water was first proposed, it was proposed by the environmental water holders, and the ministers at the time were just going to make it for environmental water holders. But of course the irrigators were upset with that. They wanted carryover water, and the Victorian Farmers Federation, which was supported by the Victorian Liberals and Nationals, insisted that it also be applied to irrigators’ water. The argument in this motion that the first water spilt should be environmental is one that we put strongly from the very beginning. Following the review that happened after the initial carryover water was put in, there were limited changes made, and carryover, of course, continues today.

In the motion Ms Tyrrell talks about one year where there had been a large release of spillable water, and that is the year that was affected by the 2022 floods. And of course there was going to be a large amount of water released that year, because the reason that we actually do have the spilling of the water is to ensure that we do not exacerbate more floods in the area. If we do not create airspace in the dam to collect the current year’s inflows, then we are going to be in real trouble. But if we look at the 570 gigalitres that was released in the Goulburn–Murray water area, there was little or no environmental water that was spilled in that – it was all irrigators’ water entitlements – and in the Goulburn and Campaspe area, where Ms Tyrrell talked about 915 gigalitres, only 78 gigalitres was environmental water, so 837 gigalitres was water that belonged to irrigators. So we see that irrigators are losing out here. It is irrigators’ water that is being spilt. The environment is benefiting from it, but no-one is compensating the irrigators, and no-one is actually holding the environmental water holders accountable for making sure that there are environmental flows. Irrigators are the ones bearing the cost for no benefit. Again, the only benefit from these spills is to the environment, or perhaps to Labor’s mates in South Australia.

The spilling of water is used to prevent large floods and damage to water storages. Figures used in the motion follow the biggest flood in Victoria, and I have spoken about that already. Water does need to be released from dams when the dams are full so that there is available airspace for the water that is coming in from new inflows for the new season. In fact some communities, like Rochester, would like to see water spilled earlier from the Eppalock dam in wet years to minimise the flood risks and the heights of floods in their communities – you can never eliminate it, but to actually minimise the risk to their community. Part of the problem at Eppalock is that there is limited ability with the infrastructure when it comes to water releases. When the community raised this issue with Minister Shing in her previous role as water minister, the last time she had the portfolio, her response was to tell them that if they wanted to live on a flood plain, they should get used to being flooded. It was a disgrace. It went down like a lead balloon, and she was virtually chased out of town.

Why should the government listen to this request? Well, the answer is fairly easy. This motion follows many years of advocacy by irrigators and the coalition for spills to be classified as environmental water. The reason for that is because irrigated agriculture is highly productive and contributes greatly to Victoria’s gross state product. In 2020–21, 5400 farm businesses irrigated in Victoria, accounting for 25 per cent of Victoria’s 21,600 farm businesses. The total area of irrigated land in Victoria is 490,000 hectares, which is only 4 per cent of Victoria’s total farming area of 11.4 million hectares, but from that 4 per cent they actually produce $5.24 billion of irrigated agriculture, which is about, I think, 25 per cent of Victoria’s total agricultural production. Most of the Victorian irrigating farm businesses are in the Goulburn, Broken, North Central and Mallee systems, so they are in northern Victoria. They receive their water from a number of sources, some through irrigated channels, some through rivers and creeks, groundwater, reused water, farm dams et cetera, but they contribute greatly to the agricultural production – as I said, about 25 per cent of the state’s agricultural production.

 Sarah MANSFIELD (Western Victoria) (15:15): I rise to speak on this motion today. I understand that Ms Tyrrell has made an amendment to the motion. In its original form we probably could not have supported it, but I understand that that amendment has been made and a review is probably a reasonable thing to do. I will still make my contribution based on some of the points that have been made in the motion and the contributions that have been made so far.

I do at the outset want to acknowledge that farmers in northern Victoria are vital for Victorian food security, as are farmers right across the state, including in my own electorate of Western Victoria. As we all know, access to water is critical for farming, but climate change is making farming work harder every year. Irrigators depend on reliable water allocations, but that reliability is being undermined by a warming climate, overextraction and decades of market-driven water policy. The fundamental problem is that water is treated like a commodity or an asset to be bought and sold. This view fails to see our rivers, groundwater and other waterways as inextricably linked to each other and to all life around them. We all – farmers, communities and the ecosystems around us – depend on healthy river systems, and unpicking the mess of the commodification of rivers and moving back to a holistic understanding of water that existed for tens of thousands of years in this country is perhaps an almost impossible task, particularly given how heavily modified and exploited our rivers are and how entrenched the market model is.

This motion today brings to the surface many of the issues with the water market, but I am not sure that the action it is suggesting in making spills environmental water will do much for our rivers or our small farmers, who it is purporting to help. Instead the main winners from the proposal could well be big institutional investors like overseas superannuation funds and Wall Street traders playing the water market, who could further rip off farmers and shift the risk onto taxpayers.

Firstly, it is worth reviewing what spillable water actually is. The river system in question here is highly regulated, with many dams and weirs. Water entitlement holders get an allocation of water and can also have carryover water banked from wet years to have in reserve for drier spells. It is a sensible way to deal with natural variations in water availability to stock up in wet years as insurance against the drier ones. The water is considered spillable if allocations plus the carryover exceed the total entitlement for that water holder, and that water cannot be traded or used until the system manager determines that dams are very unlikely to fill. If that determination is made, entitlement holders can use it or trade it. If they do feel there is a risk of overflow, water is spilt to help manage storage and flows.

With respect to the costs that were outlined in the original motion, while spills are definitely losses for the entitlement holders, the estimate that was provided of $57.1 million for spillages has been calculated based on the market price of water. The problem with that is that the market price does not apply to spills; it only applies to water if there is available storage capacity, so it is not really accurate to apply this cost. Further, all water entitlement holders that have used carryover bear the cost of spills. It is not just farmers. Spills are an integral part of the overall assumptions underpinning the basin plan, forming part of the base flows within the plan. If they were to be reclassified, as has been suggested should be done, it would require the whole basin plan to be reviewed, including how much water can be taken through all of northern Victoria, and would actually quite likely increase the amount of water needed for the environment.

Here is why. Environmental flows are not the same as base flows. All the regulation and modification of the river system through dams and weirs have altered the natural flows of river systems. High flows into flood plains and wetlands in winter and spring and receding flows that drew nutrients back into the channel in summer all supported native ecosystems and life cycles. That was the natural flow of rivers. But now it is all topsy-turvy as water is pushed downstream to support export crops like almonds in the summer, and all the normal rhythms that ecosystems – including those of fish and bird species – rely on have been messed up. This is where environmental flows come in. They can be used to try to somewhat recreate the natural pulses of water down the river that have been disrupted through intervention and modification over many decades. Environmental water is fundamentally different from base flows. It is planned, timed and targeted to ensure that our flood plains and species like birds and fish get what they need when they need it. So if base flows, which spills constitute a form of, are considered environmental water, we may need more environmental water than previously to meet the required outcomes.

Why is this change being proposed? It could be worth having a look at who would benefit the most from this. All water holders use carryover; for example, farmers to plan for dry years and environmental water holders to ensure they can meet seasonal demands. But institutional investors also benefit from it and they use it; they absolutely love carryover. Currently big investors and speculators like overseas superannuation funds and Wall Street traders buy and sell water shares for profit. They do not have any connection to the land or water. They do not grow anything or have practical use or need for the water other than to line their own pockets. They hang on to carryover in dams and sell it on the market at peak prices for maximum profit. Meanwhile, small family farmers literally pay the price of this, having to buy water being sold by these investors at the highest price. As climate change makes Victoria hotter and drier and as water becomes more scarce, exacerbated by things like the El Niño we are currently now officially in, these big investors stand to gain even more from farmers who have no choice but to buy water from them if they are to have any chance of keeping afloat. But at least at the moment, all entitlement holders using carryover bear the cost and risk of spills, including those Wall Street traders. If spillable water gets reclassified as environmental water, this effectively shifts the risk for those institutional investors onto taxpayers, while they still get to rip off family farmers.

This is not to say there is not scope for a review into how the system works and how reliability for water entitlement holders could be improved; for example, by creating a more flexible system to manage water releases. The Greens have also long argued for bigger reforms regarding transparency in the water market so we can have a clearer view about what is going on and stricter rules about who can trade water. It has been broadly acknowledged that the water market is opaque relative to other markets. The lack of transparency creates information asymmetry and mistrust in the system, and there have been several reports and recommendations to government regarding this issue but inadequate action in Victoria to improve transparency. At present the public is only able to access information on those corporations that own 10,000 times the amount of water shares as compared to the average water holder.

It is fundamentally problematic that big institutional investors can distort our water markets to maximise profits at the expense of our food growers, who end up paying more for water in the end. We believe at the very least water shares without an associated water licence or intention to get one should be recorded on the Victorian register. The government previously rejected our amendments on this when we tried to make them to the Water Act 1989 a couple of years ago.

While spills are losses for all entitlement holders, including farmers, reclassification as environmental flows we do not believe is the answer. Instead of spreading the risk across all entitlement holders, this would shift all of the risk onto taxpayers, and what a boon that would be for the big institutional and overseas investors. They can buy up even more water and bank it, knowing that Victorian taxpayers are underwriting their risk, while making bigger profits off the backs of the everyday farmers in northern Victoria who actually need the water to grow our food – the very farmers that this motion is trying to help. In that sense we really do not support the reclassification as environmental flows but totally accept that a review is a reasonable thing to do, given many of the issues and frustrations that farmers are experiencing.

 Sheena WATT (Northern Metropolitan) (15:24): Thank you very much for the opportunity to make a contribution on the motion moved by Ms Tyrrell and then provided in an amended form here to the chamber. I have some remarks that I want to present, some with respect to the former motion as it was presented and some with respect to the newly amended one. But it is safe to say that I join many members of the chamber in acknowledging the importance of water management for regional farming and that of course it is one of our most precious resources in rural Victoria.

Water is quite literally the lifeblood of our regional communities and our agricultural sectors and economy. The motion before the house highlights important points about the deep dependency of our hardworking farmers on highly reliable irrigation to grow their world-class crops and successfully manage their livestock. It notes that water needs to be protected for our communities as well as our food and fibre production. The motion before us points out that according to the surface water reports for the 2022–23 financial year there are more than 570 gigalitres of water held in the River Murray and Goulburn–Murray water share accounts, and there are another 915 gigalitres from the Goulburn and Campaspe basins, and that was written off as spillable water. The motion notes that when the water is lost during storage overflow, this impacts farmers.

I must confess, unlike my colleague Ms Ermacora, who has a long history with water policy in our state – and can I thank her for being our lead speaker; she is someone who I have from time to time turned to for advice and counsel on water issues in our state – I needed to do a little bit more research into the topic to fully understand the issue and why reclassification is so complex. I needed of course to understand how our carryover and spill rules function here in Victoria. These rules have been carefully refined over many years in close consultation with water users and the regional community. The carryover framework is an essential tool because it enables people to keep their unused allocated water at the end of the season so they can carry it forward to use in the next season, providing farmers with much-needed flexibility to hold, use or trade their water when it is of the highest value to their operations, allowing them to prepare for shortages during drought. Carryover space is successfully utilised by active irrigators, environmental water holders and urban water corporations managing vital town water supplies across the state.

Because our water storages have a finite capacity, we must have robust rules in place to ensure that carryover water does not unfairly impact other users, and under the established rules only water that sits above your full entitlement volume is lost through spills. When dams get too full, this excess carryover water is the very first water to spill, ensuring that water users are not blocked from receiving their current allocations. Crucially, these spills are applied proportionally to absolutely everyone holding water rights over their full entitlement volume, meaning irrigators, environmental water users and town water corporations all take that hit equally, and there is no charge for any water lost from a spillable water account. We will always continue to look for opportunities to improve the current system to benefit all users.

Whilst also turning to Ms Ermacora I had a chance to reflect on some of the work undertaken as part of the Environment and Planning Committee’s inquiry into the floods. It reactivated my memory about the significance of our water holdings here in the state and how it does certainly impact right across the state. To the other members of that inquiry, can I just acknowledge all our work during that time, because that was an enormously challenging inquiry that went over a considerable amount of time. It certainly, to my mind, opened up my understanding of the preciousness of our water here in Victoria and particularly our regional communities.

There is a misconception that exists that water written off during a storage spill is simply lost to the system. Spills from dams do not just disappear, they flow directly downstream. This creates various massive benefits across the entire river network, being the critical needs of downstream irrigators or of course downstream storages needed to directly support more reliable entitlements for everyone.

There is more that I can say. I know that this is an area that many of our regional members in this chamber have some very firm views on and do want to take the time to share them with the chamber. So I will just perhaps, if that is okay, wrap up and say that the government certainly is very much focused on real, strategic and perfectly balanced water management that fundamentally supports our farmers, rigorously protects our natural environment and confidently secures Victoria’s long-term economic, social and environmental future.

 Gaelle BROAD (Northern Victoria) (15:30): I am pleased to be able to speak to this motion and indicate that the Nationals certainly are very supportive of the motion. Spills cause losses. Farmers are certainly paying the price for that when it is written off with no compensation, and when farmers pay, we all pay. That cost is extended. I note that there have been some changes made to the motion. Certainly the cost impacts have been removed, and rather than ‘reclassify’ it has been changed to ‘investigate’. So I trust that the government will, as Ms Ermacora said, be supportive of this motion.

One thing that has not been changed, which is good, is that ‘farmers are the lifeblood of the Northern Victoria Region’. That is so true. I cover the Northern Victoria area, and farmers drive so much of our regional economy. They have got kids in school, they are using health services and visiting the retail stores and they need to have transport – so many different aspects that help drive regional economies – and we appreciate the work of farmers. I grew up on a farm, so I am biased, and I know the importance of water and how significant it is. Dad would often be out there irrigating – including on Christmas Day – morning, noon and night when it got hot. Water is so important to our food and fibre production in this state.

I remember attending a water leadership forum in Bendigo, which was with the Goulburn–Murray irrigation district. There were over 100 industry leaders there, and they were very strong on the point of being against water buybacks. That is certainly an issue that we have talked about in this chamber before. I remember speaking to a dairy farmer who was recalling the water-saving measures, and they were actually moved to tears as they recalled the pain of what it was like losing their water. Just as an example of the impact of water, I remember Jason Limbrick, who is CEO of Australian Consolidated Milk, spoke about the impact of water buybacks on Victoria’s dairy industry. Twenty per cent of Australia’s milk production comes from northern Victoria. Eighty-five per cent of milk produced in the basin comes from northern Victoria, and we also supply milk to the northern states. The dairy industry creates about 13,000 jobs in northern Victoria alone, and 20 years ago northern Victoria produced 2.7 billion litres of raw milk. Now, because of reduced water availability and higher water prices, we produce half that amount – about 1.4 billion litres. So we need water. It is absolutely critical.

Government – certainly the federal government, as we have seen – often focuses on water buybacks, but water security and ensuring that we have capacity to retain water are so important. I think about the infrastructure development back in the 1870s. Bendigo is a town that was developed, rarely, without a river near it. It relies on water being transported. It was Joseph Brady, an engineer, in the 1870s who helped design our gravity-fed water channel. It is an open water channel that still exists. It took until 1877 for water to get to Bendigo via that channel. It just astounds me that it is still an open channel, and it is so important to the water supply for the Bendigo area.

I know Tim McCurdy, my Nationals colleague and the member for Ovens Valley, has been a strong supporter of the Big Buffalo dam and of expanding that, because we need to be able to capture water and ensure that it is put to productive use. We cannot keep squeezing juice out of the same lemon; we need to be thinking about making cordial and really prioritising efficiency projects and infrastructure over water buybacks. I think it is likened a bit to musical chairs. I feel at the moment, certainly with the federal government, that they just keep removing the chairs and thinking everyone is going to get a seat at the table, and it is not the case. I remember at that leadership forum they talked about water buybacks and that Swiss cheese effect where when you take people off the line – and it could be anywhere; there was no coordination to it – it is very difficult. The social impact and the economic impact that water buybacks have on our region are extensive.

I was part of the flood inquiry and certainly saw, with the intense rainfall that we had, that spills did cause some towns to have very little or no warning. We saw that certainly in Rochester. I remember years ago when I worked at Coliban Water that at the time there was a lot of discussion about stormwater and intense rainfall and how we capture it. It just gets lost to the system. I know some water groups have actually talked about how they cannot put any more environmental water to good use. More environmental water in the system is not going to actually help the system.

I remember being at Benjeroop and meeting with a number of farmers there. Following the floods they talked about their region. A number of them have been actually tracking water levels in dams. The environmental water gets stored, and the level of their dams increases. They were talking about how over the years, when farmers used the water, the levels would go down, but since the introduction of the environmental water they have increased. Then we have got a problem, like we saw following the floods: when we get that heavy rainfall, it is already at high capacity, and then we have the overflows that can occur. Another thing that the Benjeroop farmers mentioned were the levees and the lack of maintenance of levees. A lot of them are full of holes, and the levees do not work. If it is like a bucket with a hole in it, it is no good.

The Nationals are very pleased to support this motion because when farmers pay the cost, we all pay the cost. The Nationals support this motion and will continue to support our farmers.

 David LIMBRICK (South-Eastern Metropolitan) (15:36): I also would like to speak on this motion brought forward by Ms Tyrrell. I will say from the outset that the Libertarian Party will be supporting this amended motion. The original motion I did have a couple of problems with, mainly because I was concerned that the government could not actually do what was being asked unilaterally. I see that there has been a change here to look at the viability of reclassification.

But this is a real issue in that spillover water does go into the environment but is not counted, and there should be a way of reclassifying it. I am not pretending to have the answer, and I do not think that this motion is pretending to have the answer either. It is saying ‘Let’s look at the viability of classification options’, and I think that is a sensible thing to do. It is vitally important that we manage our water resources well, especially up in northern Victoria, because of all of the irrigation and the food and fibre production that occurs up there. It is vitally important.

I know that my colleague from the last term of Parliament Mr Quilty had a lot more to say on the Murray–Darling Basin system and the Murray–Darling Basin agreement. I think he wanted it basically restarted from scratch. I know that there are a lot of people who are unhappy with the arrangement. Nevertheless, if we can look at ways of improving current faults in the system or things that are oversights in the system, then that is a good thing, and therefore I will be supporting this motion.

 Jeff BOURMAN (Eastern Victoria) (15:38): I want to give a contribution on motion 1487 regarding water storage from Ms Tyrrell. The farmers of Victoria are the lifeblood of our state. They are the people that grow the food we eat, produce the fibre that supports our industries, employ thousands of workers, support local businesses and keep our regional towns thriving. From dairy farmers in Gippsland to fruit producers around the Murray, these farmers have built their livelihoods around hard work, resilience and careful management of their resources.

Farmers rely on water to produce crops and maintain livestock. Irrigation provides the certainty needed to invest, employ people, improve productivity and contribute to the economic strength of our state. But the farmers cannot plan properly if the rules around the water are unclear or if the value of their water can simply disappear without proper recognition. They have invested in equipment, planted crops and managed their businesses based on the expectation that their water entitlements would provide security.

One consequence when water is lost due to storage overflows and returns to the environment is that the consequences are not shared equally. The water may physically leave the storage system, but the financial impact remains with the farmers who held that water and depended on it. These farmers are not asking for special treatment. They are asking for recognition and fairness that the water that is lost should count towards the environmental water allocation. The current approach creates the situation that when water spills from storages it can be counted as a loss, while the environmental benefit of the water may not properly be recognised. This does not provide a clear or transparent picture of how our water resources are being managed. A transparent system benefits everyone. It benefits farmers so they can better understand how their water is being managed, it benefits communities because they can have the confidence in government reporting and it benefits environmental decision-making because the true contribution of different water sources can be accurately measured.

Farmers have invested in efficiency improvements. They have adapted their practices. They have embraced new technologies and found ways to produce more with less. Yet the burden for farmers continues to grow. These negative outcomes cannot continue to fall disproportionately on regional communities. Our farmers have carried the responsibility of maintaining food and fibre production whilst navigating some of the most challenging water conditions in our history. They have dealt with drought, floods, rising costs and changing markets. The least they deserve is a water management system that is fair, transparent and accountable. Water security is food security. Supporting agriculture is supporting regional jobs, local economies and the future of Victoria’s prosperity, and I commend this motion.

 Michael GALEA (South-Eastern Metropolitan) (15:41): I am very pleased to rise today to speak on water, a very important part of government policy – perhaps starkly ironically so, given I have just spilt a glass of water over my desk, a good way to kick off my contribution with my soggy notes and –

Jeff Bourman interjected.

Michael GALEA: No, it was not a stunt, Mr Bourman. But this is a very serious and important topic, because we are talking about the livelihood of our farming communities and the ongoing environmental and economic sustainability of regional Victoria, in particular northern Victoria and the Murray–Darling Basin. This government has a very long, proud and determined track record of support for northern Victorian communities, whether it has been through, as Mrs Broad touched upon, the devastating floods that we saw just four years ago or other major disasters and fire events. Indeed, as mentioned in another contribution on another topic earlier this week, it is starkly the case that we are in an environment where places can be under bushfire and flood threat at the same time. So when it comes to the news that we saw this morning – that is, the declaration of an El Niño – it reminds once again those of us who live in the south of the state just how precious and critical northern Victoria communities are. It reminds us of the work that our farming communities do in order to keep us all fed and to keep their local economies and our broader state economy moving strongly and indeed of the very real social impacts that that has on them when faced with extreme weather situations in either scenario. That is what brings us to discussion of this topic before us today.

Having recognised the important role that our communities face, I acknowledge as well that although I still have relatives in the north of the state, they are no longer involved in agriculture, but for quite some time they were in fact dairy farmers, not too far away from Ms Tyrrell’s property back in the day, up in the Kyabram area. As a younger person I got to go up and spend time with them and see the wonderful things that that lifestyle provides but also the very real and ongoing challenges that our farming communities face, especially when weather conditions change in unpredictable ways.

The carryover and spill rules that we have in place currently have been refined over time and in close consultation with water users and the community, which does enable people to keep their unused allocated water at the end of the season to use in the next season. It is an important tool that gives people more flexibility to hold, use or trade water when it is of the greatest value to their business and to prepare for shortages due to drought. There are currently rules in place to make sure that carryover water does not unfairly impact on others, including that only water above your full entitlement volume is lost through spills, so that when dams get too full, it is the first water to spill, ensuring that others are not unfairly impacted because there is additional water in the storage and that spills are applied proportionally to everyone holding water over their full entitlement, including irrigators, the environment and water corporations for town supply, which is also critical. There is no charge for any water lost from a spillable water account. But in saying that, it is important that we are always adaptable and open to new and better ideas of how things can be improved, which is why I do welcome the chance to speak to this motion, which as Mr Limbrick highlighted perhaps does not seek to be prescriptive or give an answer in its current form but does enable us to have that genuine and open discussion.

I have been in and out of the chamber, but I know there have been some valuable contributions from regional MPs already. I look forward to hearing further from regional colleagues too, because we still know – even those of us that live in the metropolitan, growth or exurban areas – the importance that our farming communities have for our state, and that is in every corner. That is in Gippsland, that is in the west and it is absolutely in the nation’s food bowl in the Murray–Darling Basin, which in Victoria is perhaps the food bowl of the food bowl. That is probably a bad analogy, but it certainly holds true that we are part of the Murray–Darling Basin, which is one of the most productive regions in the whole country.

I acknowledge Ms Tyrrell for amending her motion to enable the government to support it today. It is important that we can have these discussions openly and frankly. Whilst I will not spend too much time dwelling on the motion we were debating just before this one – this place can get frivolous on a Wednesday in particular – when it comes to the livelihoods of farming communities, and all Victorians, of course, but regional Victorians in particular when they are facing particular and unique challenges, it is an important opportunity for us to come together across the aisle, I hope, and share ways in which we can make important changes which will support our farming communities. There is much more I could say, but I understand there is a long list of speakers, so I will pass back to you, Acting President. I am happy to have had the opportunity to speak on this motion today.

 John BERGER (Southern Metropolitan) (15:47): I rise to speak on the motion before the house regarding water management and the impact on local farmers. There is no question that farmers are the backbone of our regional communities. Farmers play a vital role in Victoria. They contribute enormously to the prosperity of our state, and this government intends to continue to support them all through the work that they do. Water is an important asset in this state that needs to be managed responsibly to support communities, agriculture and the environment, especially as our climate is becoming more volatile. Our farmers continue to face droughts, bushfires and changing seasonal conditions, and our farmers are central to the strength of our regional communities and food security.

The Allan Labor government’s budget commits $84 million in support for Victorian farmers and their agricultural industries. Importantly, that includes $60 million in response to the January 2026 bushfires, providing primary producers with grants, concessional loans and emergency fodder to support and help farming families recover and rebuild. We are also providing $5.9 million for programs that support the health and safety and wellbeing of our farmers and agricultural communities, recognising that farming brings not only financial pressures but also personal challenges. This includes funding for the National Centre for Farmer Health and the Rural Financial Counselling Service, ensuring that farming communities have access to practical advice and support when they need it.

The government is investing in the future of Victorian agriculture through initiatives that improve productivity while supporting sustainability. The Allan Labor government is also investing $5 million to support farmers with reducing emissions on their farms and $2.2 million to extend the fox bounty program to manage the impact of livestock predation. We know drought and tough weather conditions put real pressure on our farmers and communities. Labor has backed Victorian farmers with more than $146.5 million as part of the drought support package, recognising the ongoing challenges presented by drought. This investment is supporting our farmers and communities to stay resilient and overcome drought conditions. We are also investing $7.6 million in biosecurity, protecting the future of our agricultural industries. The strength of Victoria’s agricultural sector is reflected not only in the resilience of our farmers but also in the results they continue to achieve on the world stage. The recently released 2024–25 Victorian Food and Fibre Export Performance Report demonstrates just how significant our agricultural industry is to both Victoria’s economy and regional communities.

Victoria’s food and fibre exports reached a record $22.1 billion, increasing our share of Australia’s total food and fibre exports to 28 per cent. This is an extraordinary achievement and one that belongs to the hardworking farmers, producers and agricultural businesses across the state. Despite challenging seasonal conditions, they have delivered a fourth consecutive year of record export growth, highlighting both the quality of Victorian produce and the resilience of those who produce it. Exports increased by almost $2 billion compared to the previous year, with Victoria exceeding its ambitious $20 billion export target well ahead of schedule for the second consecutive year. Our meat industry continues to be the cornerstone of that success, generating $8.2 billion in exports. Strong demand for Victorian beef and sheep meat has increased our national market share from 28 per cent to 30 per cent, reinforcing Victoria’s position as Australia’s second-largest meat-exporting state.

These outstanding results extend across the agricultural sector. Grain exports reached $4.6 billion, dairy exports totalled $2.8 billion and horticulture recorded its strongest year-on-year record, with exports valued at $1.9 billion. These figures demonstrate that Victorian farmers are not standing still. They continue to innovate, adapt to changing global markets and produce high-value products that are recognised internationally for their quality. While China remains Victoria’s largest export market, accounting for almost $5 billion in exports during 2024–25, our producers are also successfully expanding into markets including the United States, Japan, Indonesia and New Zealand. Importantly, almost half of Victoria’s export income now comes from markets outside our top five trading partners. That diversification strengthens the resilience of our agricultural sector and provides greater certainty for producers in an increasingly competitive global economy.

Of course we recognise that these successes have not come easily. Many farmers continue to face the challenges of drought, rising input costs and increasingly unpredictable weather. That is why the Allan Labor government continues to back our agricultural sector through the practical investment shown in this year’s budget – the commitment to supporting Victorian agriculture alongside drought support to help farmers and regional communities respond to the challenges they are facing. Our Economic Growth Statement also identifies agribusiness as one of Victoria’s priority industries, recognising that a strong agricultural sector combined with growing trade will continue to drive economic growth, create regional jobs and strengthen communities across our state.

The Allan Labor government will continue to back our farmers. Supporting our farmers means supporting the industries that sustain regional jobs. With that, I conclude my remarks.

 Rikkie-Lee TYRRELL (Northern Victoria) (15:53): I wish to thank all of my colleagues for their contributions. Irrigators in my communities in the Northern Victoria Region have been calling for a very long time for change to the system. Investigating changes to spillable carryover water is a very small first step. Maybe the next step could be investigating the viability of removing speculators from the system so there is more water for farmers in the environment. The water system must be made fairer for all who use it physically and rely on it to preserve life in our irrigation communities and river systems.

Motion agreed to.