Parliament of Victoria | Legislative Council | Second Reading
14 October 2025
David ETTERSHANK (Western Metropolitan Region):
I rise to make a contribution to the Australian Grands Prix Amendment Bill 2025 on behalf of Legalise Cannabis Victoria. The Legalise Cannabis Party is, let us say, a broad church with a diversity of opinions on most things – apart from the legalisation of cannabis, on which its members are in lock step. In contributing to this debate I am mindful of the differing views of our supporters. A great many of our supporters absolutely love the grand prix. They reckon it is the best weekend you can have in Melbourne – and who can blame them?
There is no question that the Australian Grand Prix at Albert Park is one of the great sporting spectacles in the country. It is a fabulous, well-organised event that puts Melbourne on the global stage, attracts thousands of people to Melbourne and creates jobs for locals.
Legalise Cannabis also has supporters who absolutely loathe it. To them it is nothing more than an overpriced behemoth run by billionaires that has cost this state hundreds of millions of dollars over the last decade. They consider it a grotesque celebration of fossil fuel consumption and environmental vandalism at a time when we are witnessing climate-fuelled disasters every other day. As I said, we are a broad church with many competing views.
Recently a review was conducted into the grand prix by the Australian Grand Prix Corporation (AGPC) and the Department of Jobs, Skills, Industry and Regions. We have not seen that review. It has not been made public, but we understand that the bill before us acts on the recommendations of that review.
At the end of the day we are extremely supportive of the rights of people to participate in the grand prix, and we have no issue with improving governance of the Australian Grand Prix Corporation board and other provisions of the bill. However, I am mindful of the competing needs of the open space areas used during the bump in and bump out of the grand prix and during the race itself.
The fact is the people who live in this area are extremely inconvenienced by the grand prix, particularly those who regularly use the Albert Park reserve facilities, and that includes local residents, schools, sailing and rowing clubs and visitors to the Melbourne Sports and Aquatic Centre. That adds up to about 7.2 million users per year.
Currently the park is completely inaccessible for a seven-day period, with ongoing restricted access to parts of the park in the lead-up and post-race periods due to all the infrastructure installation and dismantling. The government is seeking for that exclusion period to extend from seven days to three weeks.
The justification for this is that the grand prix’s attendance has grown such that the AGPC simply does not have time to set up the necessary infrastructure in seven days. The safety of the general public was cited as a concern. Apparently people have been walking onto the site during set-up. There were also security concerns following some incidents of vandalism.
While I am sure the AGPC would appreciate the additional two weeks, nothing has essentially changed. Why does the AGPC need an additional two weeks to set up? The government has failed to make the argument as to why exclusively blocking access to Albert Park for an additional two weeks is necessary for safety or security.
If the Las Vegas Grand Prix can manage the race set-up while avoiding a complete lockout up until the day before the actual race, why cannot we do the same? Why should the local communities be further disadvantaged and lose their amenities for three weeks in the absence of a compelling argument from the government? There has to be a balance. The residents of Albert Park and surrounds already have to endure a great deal before, during and after the grand prix.
The government has moved some amendments around the declaration of public access areas to ensure that the people affected by the closure get sufficient notice and to give some more flexibility for park tenants seeking additional compensation. We have no problem with supporting those amendments.
The Greens will also be moving amendments which seek to remove the clause enabling the public access exclusion zone to extend to 21 days, increase the legislated payments to Parks Victoria from $100,000 to $500,000 and prevent any person who has served as a minister, cabinet secretary, parliamentary secretary or ministerial officer at any time in the preceding two years from being appointed to the board of the Australian Grand Prix Corporation. These are sensible amendments which we are happy to support. We can also support the opposition amendments, which are similar in scope. We were not given those to review beforehand.
While we are on the grand prix – I know this is not the issue that the many stakeholders we have been contacted by are considering right at the moment – why are they subsidising this? We are being told to tighten our belts. We are seeing continual cuts to community services. For example, Parentline is being cut after 25 years of operation and will cease to operate at the end of this month.
At a time when youth mental health issues are surging, we cannot afford the $1.3 million to fund a service that takes up to 18,000 calls each year from distraught parents. But we can afford to subsidise a multibillion-dollar company to the tune of over $100 million last year.
What is more, the government has expended $350 million to upgrade the Albert Park pit lane. But is this included in the claimed benefits to the community? We just do not know. Why are we not at least asking for a meaningful contribution rather than the 25 cents per $200 ticket price? That is right – of the $200 you will pay for a ticket, 25 cents goes back to the government.
We are told that the grand prix brings in $3 for every dollar spent by the state, that it employs thousands of people and that it increases tourism. But much of this is taken on faith. There is no transparency around the costings and benefits of hosting the F1 grand prix. The calculations are totally opaque.
As I said, we support the right of people to participate in the grand prix and will be supporting this bill with the amendments, but there is no doubt that this is a costly event for the people of Victoria, and it is something that should be considered when important services are being cut elsewhere. Whatever benefits the grand prix may bring to Victoria, it should not be a one-way street.
[Council divided on amended Bill]
Voted for: Ryan Batchelor, Melina Bath, John Berger, Lizzie Blandthorn, Jeff Bourman, Gaelle Broad, Georgie Crozier, David Davis, Moira Deeming, Enver Erdogan, David Ettershank, Michael Galea, Renee Heath, Ann-Marie Hermans, Shaun Leane, David Limbrick, Wendy Lovell, Trung Luu, Bev McArthur, Joe McCracken, Nick McGowan, Tom McIntosh, Evan Mulholland, Rachel Payne, Harriet Shing, Ingrid Stitt, Jaclyn Symes, Lee Tarlamis, Sonja Terpstra, Gayle Tierney, Rikkie-Lee Tyrrell, Sheena Watt, Richard Welch
Voted against: Katherine Copsey, Anasina Gray-Barberio, Sarah Mansfield, Aiv Puglielli, Georgie Purcell
[Bill passed 33 votes to 5]
