Parliament of Victoria | Legislative Council | Disallowance Motion by Mr Davis
3 June 2026
David ETTERSHANK (Western Metropolitan Region):
I am going to have to really cut down my comments, given the limited amount of time that is available. Could I perhaps just start out by endorsing the contribution from Dr Mansfield. We have had the pleasure of working through the committees and various other things on these issues, and I think we are of a very similar mindset as to how this should move forward.
Can I say at the outset that Legalise Cannabis is absolutely cognisant of the absolute priority of providing affordable housing that people can actually get into in locations that are appropriately serviced by infrastructure, public transport and health services.
The government’s approach to the planning problem seems to be primarily to simply push aside councils and push aside concerned residents, as though the simple act of deregulating the process of approvals will somehow make things happen. The reality is that this is not simply muddle-headed; it is in many cases counterproductive.
Mr Batchelor talks about the huge growth of townhouse applications. What is not discussed is the fact that those applications are not in inner and middle-ring suburbs. They are overwhelmingly on the outskirts, in the very suburbs that Mr Galea quite correctly identifies as being overwhelmed. So not only do you not achieve the outcome, you make it worse.
[Michael Galea interjected]
David ETTERSHANK (Western Metropolitan Region):
Yes, I have read the motion. Thank you for that. Good share. The reality is that what we have seen are a range of amendments that basically serve to undermine public safety and environmental standards.
A member: Public safety – how?
David ETTERSHANK (Western Metropolitan Region):
Planners are precluded from taking into account flood plains under the legislation that came through last year, as Mr Batchelor is aware. What we are seeing is a situation where the government will not recognise the flaws in this legislation and instead simply reduces this down to a ‘NIMBYs versus YIMBYs’ debate. All nuance is stripped out of the discussion.
I am not suggesting that one side or the other is better, to be honest. It is deeply frustrating that we do not seem to be able to have a sensible discussion about population or to have a sensible discussion about growth, and the fabric of our city for the next half a century is being shaped by a half-arsed approach premised upon free market economics and ‘fingers crossed’.
At the same time, I am very disturbed that there is a perception that has been given to the community that we can simply pass this disallowance motion and it is all over, red rover, the problem is fixed.
Manifestly that is wrong and that is inadequate, and I think it is gratuitous and incorrect to tell the community that that is the way forward. In closing, I would just like to say that whilst we support the concerns that have been expressed, we will not be supporting this motion because it simply does not achieve its stated objectives.
[House divided on disallowance motion]
Voted for: Melina Bath, Jeff Bourman, Gaelle Broad, Georgie Crozier, David Davis, Moira Deeming, Renee Heath, Ann-Marie Hermans, Wendy Lovell, Trung Luu, Bev McArthur, Joe McCracken, Nick McGowan, Evan Mulholland, Rikkie-Lee Tyrrell, Richard Welch
Voted against: Ryan Batchelor, John Berger, Lizzie Blandthorn, Katherine Copsey, Enver Erdogan, Jacinta Ermacora, David Ettershank, Michael Galea, Anasina Gray-Barberio, Shaun Leane, David Limbrick, Sarah Mansfield, Tom McIntosh, Rachel Payne, Aiv Puglielli, Georgie Purcell, Harriet Shing, Ingrid Stitt, Jaclyn Symes, Lee Tarlamis, Sonja Terpstra, Gayle Tierney, Sheena Watt
[Disallowance motion defeated 16 votes – 23]
