Tasmanian Times


Cable car: Richard Flanagan’s speech in full …

*Pic: Rob Walls of Richard Flanagan …

Pic: Rob Walls ( https://thisworkinglife.wordpress.com/ ) of Bob Brown with his thumb down …

Pic: Ted Mead … The huge crowd …

Pic: Ted Mead

Pic: Ted Mead of Richard Flanagan with Bob Brown and Bob Brown Foundation’s Jenny Weber

First published May 6

Cable car: ‘All for a mess of pottage …’

The cable car company says the Hobart public support the cable car—if this is support I’d hate to see what the opposition looks like.

The cable car company says they’ll take our children up the mountain for free. I’ve got news: the mountain has always been free. Kids have been enjoying it free forever.

And I’m one of them. I’ve loved the mountain since I was little. To have this wonderland, this thumb of the south west, sticking itself into the pie of our city always seemed to me a miracle. I’ve walked all over it, camped in snow caves as a kid, and climb the Zig Zag most weeks. I’ve watched the snow swirl around the columns of the Organ Pipes and walked on into the wonder.

I made a book with Peter Dombrovskis and Jamie Kirkpatrick about the mountain. I asked Peter, the greatest wilderness photographer in Australia’s history, a man who lived on the very mountain at his Ferntree home, why he thought the mountain was so important.

And Peter told me that it was because it was where all the people—all the people— could come and be in wildness. Peter died before the book went to print. A service was held for him at the Springs. It was a terrible day, heavy showers and wind and very cold. And the emotion of the many people who gathered was extraordinary. This great man who showed us our world of Tasmania was coming home in death to the wild mountain.

Standing there that day we felt the profound power of our mountain. The spirit of this place. It was our place.

And what I have learnt is that this mountain—our mountain, kunanyi—is a deeply spiritual place for so many Tasmanians.

The Palawa fought a brave and terrible war for this land. And their love of this island, their sense of the very real spiritual power of this land, seeped into the souls of the invaders until they too were changed, and they began standing up, fighting for this island also, rather than against it.

And so this mountain is our home, Palawa and Tasmanian. Our home, our place, our mountain.

Now we are presented with the proposal to slash the face of the mountain with the flick knife of greed, in the form of a cable car, ascending over, of all things, the Organ Pipes, destroying the mountain’s great jewel, the six cables like six slash marks across the Mona Lisa’s face, with a grotesque great tower at the apex of the Pipes, and passing overhead one airborne greyhound bus after another, after another, every five minutes.

What serenity, what peace, what wonder remains for the people below?

Why, if the cable car is such a good thing, are there so many secrets around what the cable car will be? Why has the state govt, as the developers admitted last week, sought to stifle public discussion?

So many secrets, so many questions. What secret subsidies has our govt promised the developers? What informal approvals?

And how is it that the chair of the board of Tourism Tasmania, James Cretan, also can also be the largest preference shareholder in the Mount Wellington Cable Car Company, having bought through his company, Tucre Pty Ltd, 250,000 shares for $312,500?

Tourism Tasmania is a statutory board member of the Mt Wellington Trust, which manages Mt Wellington. How can it be that the Mt Wellington Trust board never saw a conflict of interest with the Tourism Tasmania representative, whose ultimate boss is James Cretan, taking part in its decisions to allow the very same Cable Car Company to conduct preliminary excavations on the mountain?

According to respected economist John Lawrence the Cable Car Company “is a typical start-up company struggling to organise the necessary permits and plans including the use of public land, which may then produce a windfall gain to the few shareholders who have taken a punt and made contributions.”

Did the Mt Wellington Trust ask questions of Tourism Tasmania’s representative? And if it did not, why not? Did the Tourism Tasmania representative table the fact of Mr Cretan’s considerable stake and the possibility of him profiting substantially from the cable car to the Trust? And if they did not, why not?

I am not suggesting impropriety on the part of Mr Cretan. But it appears to be a conflict of interest for him, for Tourism Tasmania, for the Mt Wellington Trust, and for the government.

Mr Cretan should either sell his shares immediately or resign as chair. And if he does neither, I call on Premier Hodgman to sack him. Because no matter how much the govt say it is not an issue, it is an issue.

It is wrong.

Imagine the scandal if the French govt allowed quad bikes to rumble through Paris’s Louvre museum, because cruise boat tourists found it more convenient to ride them than walk, and because the quad bike company—part owned by a board member of the Louvre—will profit from it?

If Mr Hodgman continues to argue—as he has—that Mr Cretan’s personal stake in the cable car is irrelevant, how can his government be seen to have any credibility or integrity continuing to back the cable car?

There is only one justification for this project and that’s tourism. And yet everywhere we look in Tasmania today we see tourism too often not supporting our way of life, but destroying it. It profits a few, but who does it benefit? A tsunami of money is washing over us, and much of it threatens to wash away with it the very things that make this island precious to us—and for those who wish to visit.

And that’s the fundamental issue at stake here. We Tasmanians have a way of life that is deeply and profoundly precious to us. Yet everywhere we see it under attack. We see our city threatened by high rise hotels. We see our shack life being lost to $100 million golf resorts. We see our national parks being prostituted and their global significance being hollowed out.

We even see Tasmanians living in tents while speculators make money out of housing tourists.

We see our soul being sold for a mess of pottage and there is no end to the shame and the sadness that we must endure in order to have more and more tourists. And you have to ask: why is this government more interested in building a cable car for tourists than it is in building homes for homeless Tasmanians?

We need tourism, but in today’s world the challenge is no longer in attracting more tourists. It is in keeping their numbers in manageable bounds, offering high quality experiences at a premium price. We need tourism, but we need to have tourists visit on our terms. If there are too many tourist buses going up Mt Wellington, restrict bus numbers. It’s not hard. And you know what? Tourists will value our island more for the respect we grant it and ourselves.

Tourism must enhance our world, not destroy it; tourism must respect our values, not trash them; tourism must respect what is sacred, and not profane it. The cable car battle is the moment when Tasmanians can say enough is enough.

Tourism should serve us, not we serve tourism.

Build tourist infrastructure on the mountain that respects our values: not a cable car, but more upgraded walking tracks and bike tracks. Disband the discredited Mt Wellington Trust and make kunanyi a national park. It’s time.

Link the kunanyi national park up with the World Heritage Area. Build tracks from here to Port Davey and the Styx Valley, and bill them as the great walks they would be. And that would be development for the mutual good and betterment of all.

The alternative is handing the mountain over to a company that registered the word kunanyi as a web domain name for their cable car project. What gives them the right to take a Palawa word and seek to exploit it for their own commercial gain?

They didn’t ask the people whose word this is, the Palawa people, whose language it is, whose mountain it has been for forty thousand years, if they could they make commercial use of it.

They just took it.

And that’s what they want to do with the mountain. Take it. Take it, and make money out of it.

But it’s not a greed mountain. It’s not a money mountain. It’s not a government mountain.

It’s the people’s mountain. It’s our mountain, the mountain, kunanyi, and we will fight to save it.

This fight won’t be easy, this fight will be long, but we have been down this track before and we have learnt that if we persist long enough, hard enough, the truth will surface, and the truth will show that we, the people, were the true guardians of our island’s soul.

And we will win, I promise you.

Our home, our place, our mountain.

We will fight for the wonder, our wonder. And we will fight, and we will fight.

And we will not stop until we win.

Thank you.

All Pics below are by Rob Walls …

Andrew Wilkie speaks …







All Pics below are by Ted Mead …






*Richard Flanagan is an acclaimed writer. He won the 2014 Man Booker Prize for The Narrow Road to the Deep North …

Mercury: Richard Flanagan to headline anti-Mt Wellington cable car rally

ABC: Thousands turn out to cable car protest (Supplied: Rob Blakers)

Luke Martin: Tourism Industry Council Tasmania response to Mt Wellington Cable Car protest …

Bob Brown Foundation: 5000 at Hobart cable car protest

ABC: Hobart Lord Mayor douses idea to hold elector poll on cable car proposal

Author Credits: [show_post_categories parent="no" parentcategory="writers" show = "category" hyperlink="yes"]


  1. MjF

    May 17, 2018 at 12:10 pm

    No worries RCH
    So you can’t explain the landscape values, character, and what objectives should be achieved etc etc which is the whole basis of your argument ?

    I think I know what you’re inferring.

    Luke Martin or at least his organisation may know more about LMZ’s than you reckon.

  2. Robin Charles Halton

    May 17, 2018 at 2:57 am

    #64 … Unfortunately I cannot locate my copy of the FT Landscape Manual issued some 25 years ago!

    I will have to wait till I run into ex FT Landscape Advisor Bruce Chetwynd again, as I often do, for a brief chat in the Sandy Bay area.

    I may have to go and beg at the local STT office and ask one of the two remaining Tech. Fors. at their SE office now on Lampton Ave, Moonah.

    You probably know what I am saying, it’s all of the other poor bastards who love the mountain, but have no idea what I am saying, to back up their concerns using a technical approach!

    Luke Martin would regard Landscape Management as utter nonsense .. so much for those natural scenic values displayed right on our doorstep behind the city!

  3. Snowy

    May 16, 2018 at 5:36 pm

    #59 … “A line of 12 megawatt wind towers …” in a place so windy that the upper operational limit (which I understand to be around 90 kph) will shut them down for a significant number of days each year. Yeah, that makes sense. The BOM has recorded 137 days annually of 80+ kph wind, the comfort limit accepted by the MWCC, at the summit.

  4. MjF

    May 16, 2018 at 9:59 am

    #63 … You bang on about the landscape values of the mountain a lot. Robin Charles.

    Can you provide an analysis of the key points and objectives so that we might better understand them ?

    If you still have your old landscape manual gathering dust, you should be right.

  5. Michael Anderson

    May 16, 2018 at 7:50 am

    A (projected) million visitors a year and you won’t have a housing market for local residents. Even with half that.

    Also, the Mt. Wellington scheme comes at a time when housing prices are starting to collapse, coupled with wage and job stagnation.

    Sounds like real estate speculation on steroids. Rentier Capitalism. In business and government, multiple outcomes are always planned for.

  6. Robin Charles Halton

    May 16, 2018 at 3:28 am

    I have worked most of my life in forestry, while Radiata pine plantations have their place as they do produce decent timber used everyday in construction. PR’s are also an acceptable TIMBER species often dominating parts of the Tasmanian landscape.

    The recent and more widespread invader on our landscape which is a far less desirable timber species is the Nitens plantations for which is only good for PULPWOOD yet it now takes up a considerable part of our NATURAL LANDSCAPE often blotting out productive farmland and replacing native vegetation.

    Before the Nitens tax dodging MIS explosion Tasmania retained a significant area of appealing NATURAL LANDSCAPE. OK Forico are making money out of this stuff but at the expense of Gunns failure and ridiculous investment schemes into what is pulp mill feed stock only good for export, does absolutely nothing for our RURAL SCENERY or for an influx of JOBS GROWTH for that matter!

    The point is these losses in LANDSCAPE CHARACTER across the State are making the place less appealing to the eye.

    Same as for that dreadful loss of native vegetation near Triabunna on the SOLIS failure which now appears as a failed quarry development and not the way a golf course should be developed.
    The shocker on the Great Eastern Drive, dont look sideways Maria Island in the background is beautiful but the foreground is a landscapers disgrace!

    Its about time Councils, State governments and private developers had more understanding of the natural attributes in Tasmania.

    The cable car proposal across the dominant frontal face of Mt Wellington as seen from the waterfront and along the Derwent estuary is just one of those fanciful ideas where the government is expected to cough up to provide financial grants for what is really a dodgy development given the mountain is already scarred enough with ugly towers on top and the road to the summit.

    We can put up with what is there now, but the road does provide a reasonably safe and enjoyable drive to the summit and back and I am sure that is sufficient for most of us!

    When conditions are bad the road is closed and believe there are many days when a cable car would not be operating due to extensive fog and extremely conditions anyway.

    Just leave the mountain alone as there are plenty of other attractions in the Southern region that just need a little bit more care and consideration to “reopen” for tourists to visit and enjoy.

    Why not the “new” Lake Pedder area has plenty to offer, incredible scenery, rivals Cradle Mountain in my opinion with a lot more flexibility to do as one pleases.

    Tahune Airwalk is pretty good to, an appreciative glance at the Southern Forests both harvested areas growing on as well as the permanently reserved forests along the Huon area.

    The sightseer has to be aware of the Tassie weather no matter what one chooses to do, be in the right place at the right time.

    Hobart still remains as a city without ruination with massive developments!
    There is hope yet but just leave the NATURAL SETTING of mountain alone.

    I hope Mr Luke Martin @ # 53 understands a bit more about NATURAL LANDSCAPE VALUES, you dont have to be hardened on anti everything Greenie to understand the basics of why visitors come to visit our State.

    If one desperately needs entertainment go to MONA its bloody good, rip around BRUNY ISLAND in a day, or slip out to BONORONG PARK for look, which is a simple and very basic but enjoyable day out with the native animals and the wonderful views of Mt Wellington.

  7. MjF

    May 16, 2018 at 2:09 am

    Wasn’t it speculation of up to 1 million visitors per year ?

  8. Heather Donaldson

    May 16, 2018 at 1:41 am

    A million tourists per day wanting to go to the top of Mt. Wellington !

    My God, if we believe that prediction maybe it’s time we stopped trying to lure more tourists here.

  9. Christopher Eastman-Nagle

    May 14, 2018 at 1:11 pm

    Re 49: Charles, ‘Natural Landscape values’ sounds portentous, but really, the proposed development is going to be but a speck on those values. And it is not as if this is some thin edge of the wedge harbinger of dozens more of the damned things, or the beginnings of a boom in cliff hanging dwellings onto the side of the mountain.

    Mount Wellington is not a sacred site except perhaps to some aboriginals, who thought any prominent place was sacred, because they were animists. We aren’t and some of the readers here who ridicule Christian sacred sites really are being a bit twee in indulging aboriginal ones, when they are not prepared to indulge equally dubious European ones.

    As to the use of the top of the mountain, I think large telecommunication towers and wind turbines are an ideal addition to the Mount Wellington horizon line. A line of 12 megawatt wind towers along the ridge line would be global statement as to the city’s commitment to reversing climate change, I would have thought.

    Even the spirits of the mountain would agree to these new wind serpents, powering the ride up the mountain when once it was a tiring two to three hour walk to see the ancestral sites. Very nice

    • Chris

      February 20, 2019 at 8:03 am

      Wind turbines are limited in their ability to operate in high winds!

      How about a cable car up the road .. American style?

  10. MjF

    May 12, 2018 at 1:38 pm

    #56, Gilmour … You’ve already got a chairlift, a world class spectacular national park, the world’s cleanest air blowing across a Chinese farm, nice oysters, a badly contaminated river, a disused railway and the Rocky Cape tavern.

    What else could you possibly want ?

    Maybe a good pressure clean of the Port Latta shed would help. Then they’ll come.

  11. Ted Mead

    May 12, 2018 at 1:54 am

    #53 … Those dubious numbers are highly questionable, and if Luke Martin has come up with them then he should be working as a spin doctor for Forestry, or the Premiers media department.

    There are probably only 300 days, at best, of quality weather on the mountain – considering it has been stated that the mountain is under cloud cover 40% of the time.

    So that equates to 1500 people up there each day. Doesn’t happen!

    Really, do you think the public is that easily hoodwinked?

    I suspect Luke’s figures include stragglers into the Ferntree tavern, maintenance workers, council personnel, and countless people who wander around the pipeline track, Pottery road and other fire trails with their dogs in the morning.

    Even that’s pushing it.

  12. Claire Gilmour

    May 12, 2018 at 1:13 am

    Instead of thinking of how to get up the pyramid … build the pyramid …

    #53 … Luke Martin. As a tourism head, why don’t YOU offer an alternative? Why are you riding the government gifted white horse down the Hobart mountain. which already has plenty of visitors, when there are other areas in Tassie which would benefit from some investment in tourism and infrastructure dollars?

    If you were a smart man, a thinking, for ‘truly long term benefit for Tasmania’ man, how about you get your band of merry men to invest in, and develop, a rail link around Tassie? This would benefit Tasmanian residents and tourists.

    Instead of thinking of how to get up the pyramid … build the pyramid …

    Stop the hill billy strategy for some suits … coming round the mountain … seems to appropriately suit.



    By the way can you suggest a good strategy for the far NW tourism industry?

    ‘Cos we the next bees knees up here, if only the Tourism Council of Tasmania would seriously think beyond Hobart. Hint – health, food vitality, education in appropriate eco-tourism.

    Do yourself a favour .. instead of dreaming of heady high lofts from cold mountain to your office … catch a bus from Hobart to Stanley/Smithton … and learn something !

    Instead of thinking of how to get up the pyramid … build the pyramid …

  13. Pete Godfrey

    May 11, 2018 at 9:16 pm

    #51 says that up to a million visitors will want to go to the top of the mountain each year. That adds up to 2,740 people a day. Now if each day the visitors only want to go up during the daylight hours that would mean that there would be 274 people per hour during a 10 hour day.

    That is a lot of people, I wonder how many actually go up now.

    Of course there will be many days when no one will want to up there at all, so the numbers per hour will have to increase.

  14. Ted Mead

    May 11, 2018 at 6:49 pm

    #52 … One would think the delusional drongos at TICT would have based their Cable Car predictions on something like the Table Mountain in Cape Town, which is grand, but not necessarily more beautiful that Kunanyi.

    Table Mountain does receive 1 million visitors per year, and there is a huge management administration to oversee it all.

    It took 28 years of tourism promotion to reach that 1 million annual visitation figure on Table Mountain.

    Now considering South Africa had 16.2 million tourists in 2017, then one only needs to calculate percentage of visitors who went to the mountain against the percentage ratio of tourist visitation to the country.

    Now correlate that percentage to Tasmania’s 1.28 million 2017 visitor number to give you a likely figure on how many are likely to go up Mt Wellington cable car or not!

    We will let these bumbling bureaucrats do their maths on that and see what they come up with!

    But then again, we haven’t considered the likely public subsidies to encourage tourists on a cable car ride so they can crank the numbers up so as to justify the whole existence of another white elephant that will probably fall back to the taxpayer carrying the tab!

    And to get the numbers they need to justify a cable car, the road access would be closed beyond the Springs without doubt!

  15. Luke Martin

    May 11, 2018 at 6:30 pm

    #52 … Wellington Park Management Trust Annual Report cites Hobart City Council figures estimating 450,000 visitors and locals entered the park in 2016/17, with an annual average growth rate of 4.3% p.a. over the past decade.

    Not surprising, total visitor numbers to Tasmania have grown at an average 4.5% p.a. since the turn of the century, and this is also the projected rate of growth for the short to medium term at least.

    Extrapolate that rate of growth into the future, plus local population growth, and you can see how it’s very reasonable to forecast a doubling of potential visitors to the mountain by 2030. Of course, current infrastructure on the mountain is obviously not able to cope with that kind of demand, so the numbers are purely theoretical, but it is a valid point for those who oppose the cable car, but who offer no credible alternative.

  16. Geoff Holloway

    May 11, 2018 at 4:49 pm

    #5 … Luke Martin – what evidence do you have to substantiate your claim that ‘it is probable that up to 1 million visitors to Hobart and locals will want to get to the summit each year’?

  17. Luke Martin

    May 11, 2018 at 3:22 pm

    #49 … Shuttle buses will only work when you close the road to private vehicles, and make it the only way to access the summit. Like the current Cradle Mountain service.

    Several days over summer, and now with “snow days” it is estimated over 3,000 visitors and locals make their way to the summit. Simple maths may be applied and your 22-seater tour buses would need to do nearly 150 return services per day, and this is on 2018 numbers. How sustainable a solution is that in 2025 or 2030, when it is probable that up to 1 million visitors to Hobart and locals will want to get to the summit each year?

    One also needs to consider the significant infrastructure required on the summit for so many people waiting for their shuttle bus service in such an extreme environment. Not a comfortable place to wait for long in a line!

    These are some of the reasons why seemingly nearly every comparable mountain destination to Mt Wellington anywhere in the world has now gone away from cars and buses in favour of sustainable low-impact cable ways. But hey, this is Hobart.

    And for the record, Chinese visitors to Tasmania currently make up less than 3% of all visitors to the State – less than come from South Australia. (Wouldn’t want to be stereotyping!)

    And my office chair isn’t that comfortable, Robin.

  18. Michael Anderson

    May 10, 2018 at 8:49 am

    #49 … Well said. When monetisation, financialisation and commodification of everything – land (in this case “nature”) resources, people (labour) and culture take over, this is what happens.

  19. Robin Charles Halton

    May 10, 2018 at 3:33 am

    I would say that the end result for the cable car proposal calamity should be based on immediate and essential recognition of the natural landscape values the mountain presents itself, as seen from the city and also closer up at some of the more prominent points seen from Pinnacle Road.

    There is no doubt that local aboriginal people, if they are still practicing what that believe in, should make known their concerns to government to keep the mountain as natural as possible.

    I am acutely aware, as a former Tech Forester who did some landscape training during Forest Practice sessions back in the 1980’s once Gunns, private forests and State areas were established to support the new beaut nitens plantations, that any hope of preserving a range of Tasmanian natural landscapes went out the window in favour of future forest resource supply management regimes.

    The same is happening with Mt Wellington except it is a permanent blot on the natural landscape. Everybody comments on it, and the concrete tower at the summit. For modern communications it is an important/essential piece of infrastructure! In the fast advancing digital age, but it may not be necessary to remain as the visual intrusion it is! Telecommunications experts today may have a better answer!

    The cable car is an unnecessary mechanical intrusion on the high natural landscape values that the mountain presents itself to the eye.

    Cable cars for Chinese Tourists, who have no other concept of being swept up in a global consumerist tourism market, are taken from their accommodation by people-movers with their Chinese speaking guide and loaded onto the cable car, taken to the summit where they admire the view while more or less distracted by taking selfies, then return to the Springs to the famous Robert Nunn inspired alpine restaurant/ accommodation building by people-movers to be over indulged with Tasmanian fare, with more selfies indoors of course, and then return to their comfortable accommodation in the city with more selfies.

    I am sure this is the typical Luke Martin Tourism CEO outlook for mountain tourists, raking in the dollar for Mr Bold and his cronies! But not every day on the mountain can provide this comfortable experience, one which actually distances itself from enjoying the natural outdoor values the mountain can provide on a reasonable day.

    A 22 seater Toyota coaster bus service would be the best and safest bet for foreign tourists to visit the mountain, combined with a few optional guided short walks below the summit when the weather is kind, for getting in touch with the natural fauna and flora on the mountain.

    Tasmania should do something different other than copy other global attractions that may use cable cars, and get visitors out and about on their feet for exercise, and to be appreciative of a unique outdoors experience.

    Did you ever consider these things, Mr Martin? Get out of your plush office chair, get some exercise, breathe some fresh mountain air, familiarise yourself with the vegetation flowering times, the bird life, the mammals, the dolerite geology, the boulder fields, and the “untouched” natural and unique landscape surrounding the mountain.

  20. Doug Nichols

    May 9, 2018 at 8:45 pm

    Re #46 … If the cable car ends up as evident as Hobart’s zoo, I’ll be happy.

  21. MjF

    May 9, 2018 at 6:17 pm

    The evolved landscape just evolves, agreed, not necessarily by market forces alone but by a range of drivers, not the least of which is increasing population and it’s associated demands.

    I’m for it, you’re against as a naysayer. We both value our positions, naturally.

    I’m not at all interested in the Council for The Preservation of Rural England. Anybody with a fixation on such a presumably august but unrelated entity goes partly towards explaining the anti-progressive malady that pervades a good chunk of VDL’s population.

    This is not little England. We grow evergreen hardwood trees here, in case you hadn’t noticed. We have dolphins here, not porpoises. Our dishwater runs down the plug hole clockwise, not in the English direction. We don’t eat haddock either. We have never been governed by Romans or The Franks or plundered by Viking armies.

    Sadly we remain connected to that House of Windsor chap whose heir apparent’s main wish in life was to be reincarnated as a tampon for use by his mistress.

    No, lets have no more talk of England, thanks Gwenda. If that’s Ok with you.

  22. Christopher Eastman-Nagle

    May 9, 2018 at 4:03 pm

    Gwenda, #45 … It goes without saying that coalition governments are by definition ecological vandals. What the the feds are doing to the Murray-Darling and climate policy is a catastrophe. On a smaller scale, what is happening in the fish farming industry is no better, albeit on a smaller scale.

    I grant you that the tourism industry can become an ecological problem if it isn’t designed and managed properly. And having a coalition government in power in Hobart doesn’t inspire a huge amount of confidence that they will always do or ensure that, which is why the ALP-Greens’ insistence on dashing their brains out on the gaming industry was so disappointing and why the election was an example of the cast iron rule that no matador takes on a bull that the picadors haven’t weakened first …

    Heritage designation is a much trickier area because it is so ideologically charged. The balances between preservation, conservation and integration with new heritage-in-the-making can become a massive headache if there isn’t flexibility in the system. The heritage industry tends to attract preservation hard-liners who are a real pain-in-the-arse bunch of preciouses.

    If you want to check out a classic of the genre, then the dispute between the footballer Doug Wade and the academic Parkville community in Melbourne over his palladio redesign of a Victorian house in the middle ’80s is a beauty.

    And I think this skyrail project is another example of that genre. It seems to me that the project proponents have gone to enormous effort to produce something that has minimal ecological, existing residential amenity and mountain face visual impact, but adds an enormous amenity to the city.

    A significant majority of the populace of the city are going to love it once they see it, and it will become part of the bucket list of things families do, besides visiting the zoo and the botanical gardens.

    And because of that, I think the heritage opposition to this project is going to come out of the battle very badly with reputational damage that will make much more important ecological/heritage issues far harder to win downstream, and you will drive the tourist industry into the arms of the coalition, much as you did with the gaming people.

    I just do not think you are picking your battles rationally because from where I stand, you are doing it on an electoral defeat rebound that confirms you didn’t learn by it.

  23. Gwenda Sheridan

    May 9, 2018 at 1:10 pm

    Okay MJF, if you value history, then perhaps you have heard of the Council for the Preservation of Rural England (try first half of twentieth century).

    Perhaps you have also heard how “tourism” into the countryside had to be managed through getting more and more out of control by the 1950s.

    You probably know that the United States too, and the U.K,. did large land use recreation studies to find out what people were doing – a supply and demand assessment.

    While you are looking at history you might look at where Canada went in the late 1950s, early 1960s re land uses. It’s called the Canada Land Inventory. That Inventory had recreation use as a “use” of the land. Australia refused to go down that path and did no federal recreation studies.

    And further in keeping with history, you might look at the Land Use Policy in Australia 1984 which attempted to deal with land use at the federal level. It didn’t happen.

    Consequently we still have bushfires everywhere across the country in 2018 from coal, gas fracking, fish farms, cable cars, endangered species becoming more endangered, a one state planning system, ditto, ditto, ditto, wherever one turns. No climate change policy, and in fact when it comes to Tasmania, no very strong, rigorous State land use polices at all.

    If we go back to Christopher’s analogy, then the Australian Heritage Commission was wrong to put the Wellington Park on its heritage list. We shouldn’t have a national heritage list? We shouldn’t have a state heritage list?

    Even further back in time, remember that late 1700s and early 1800s Niagara Falls was a wilderness area. Well, we know what happened to Niagara Falls.

    And let’s take another example. Back when Kosciusko National Park was not a park but under the jurisdiction of a Trust (as is the Wellington Park) then a million visitors drove to the top. Bus companies wanted to have a car park up there and slice some of the top of Australia’s highest mountain away.

    The National Parks NSW when formed 1967 had closed the road at Charlotte’s Pass by the early 1980s. There are board walks to the summit, board walks everywhere I’m told.

    The essential aspect in here is how land, land use and then evolved landscape is managed. It’s that endless issue between conservation of land, protection of land on the one hand and its use and development on the other.

    The evolved landscape just evolves, and it’s the market place that should dictate that? Is this your argument?

    We can just go on bickering, one side against the other. It’s hardly productive and most of us don’t have the time.

  24. MjF

    May 9, 2018 at 5:47 am

    #8 … Does history not count for anything in Tasmania?

    Of course it does, as it does anywhere, both Indigenous and European.

    Addition of a cable car will add another chapter to that history.

    Personally I hope its built, I hope it’s successful and I urge you (being a naysayer) to simply look through and beyond the scant infrastructure involved when it’s off and running.

    This precious mound of dolerite will still be there with its existing adornments, plus some new.

    I will certainly line up for the experience. I will also drive up the mountain again, as I will undertake some of the provided walks as I’ve done in the past.

    Having options for multiple use is a wonderful thing.

    I personally can’t wait for it to be developed.

    The opening soiree should be some sort of hoedown.

    Perhaps a current day version of Francis de Groot will appear with sword flashing to beat all dignatories to the ribbon. Imagine that for the next chapter of oral and written history. Has certainly served Sydney well since 1932.

    Can’t help but think Federal Group will eventually gain a foot in the door on this project though.

    What odds a dedicated gaming car to glide over the edge of the pipes ?

  25. James

    May 9, 2018 at 5:46 am

    At #41, Mike Lester repeats the line used by James Cretan in a letter to the newspaper this week.

    Cretan said he made “a small investment”.
    Lester says Cretan is “a small shareholder”.

    The truth is this: In 2016 Cretan’s company Tucre paid $312,500 for 250,000 MWCC shares, making them the third-largest MWCC shareholder. Cretan is a half-owner of Tucre, making his investment $156,250.

    $156,250 is not exactly a “small” investment, unless of course you’re a millionaire.

  26. Christopher Eastman-Nagle

    May 9, 2018 at 12:20 am

    Gwenda #38 … All your appeals to ‘history’ and ‘tradition’, ‘beauty’, spiritual values and the whole damned thing are exactly the same as the ones trotted out by anti-railway landscape romantics and canal lobbyists, and more recently anti-wind farm interests.

    All you are basically pedalling is emotional attachment to the status quo and a very particular vision of what is a semi-urban landscape and a project that will deliver that landscape in a new dimension that everyone who uses the skyrail is going to love.

    And behind that is a displacement agenda for a group of people who have lost their grip on events and don’t want to take responsibility for their role in producing another period of coalition government that is known for its lousy environmental stewardship.

    Having learned nothing from the political defeat at the hands of the gambling lobby, you clearly want to add to your problems by adding the tourist industry as a major contributor to the next coalition victory in Tasmania.

    Clearly you are committed to heroic defeat for the foreseeable future, and the fish farming industry will just go on screwing your coastline for the indefinite future, and of course that will be everyone else’s fault except yours.

  27. mike lester

    May 9, 2018 at 12:08 am

    #25 … Andrew Muthy and I have lot in common. For one, I can’t ride a camel either. I also happen to strongly agree with his comment “I noticed that a couple of people were making personal attacks on a friend of mine because of where she works and her purported political views.” There is one slight difference though .. and I think this is common to both sides of such debates.

    Initially I thought he was going to mention Richard Flanagan’s not so veiled attack on James Cretan. That, in my view, comes under the heading of personal attacks. I know James well. He is a friend. Like Andrew, I feel drawn to come to the defence of a friend against a very personal attack. James is a shareholder in the MWCC – a very small shareholder – but he is ethical, has integrity and fair-minded. Now, I’ve enjoyed a few glasses of wine with James over the years (as I have with Andrew) and we don’t always see eye to eye on politics etc.

    Personally, I’m not convinced about the cable car. But for more than 20 years James has been a strong advocate for the tourism industry. I know he loves Tasmania and highly values our wilderness and natural beauty. He values the brand and wouldn’t want to harm it. Most importantly – and this is where I’m very much on Andrew’s side – he has a right to have a different opinion. Don’t fear sensible debate. It’s the bigots and haters we don’t want to hear from.

  28. Ted Mead

    May 8, 2018 at 11:30 pm

    #39, Robin… It is difficult to gauge what factions of the the Greens, and/or conservation movement actually support the offshore development around Recherché Bay.

    Maybe you can ask your mate Vica to see what is TWS’s position.

    To some the premise is based on supporting external WHA developments rather than the internal invasive hut-mania that seems to be pandemic under the Liberals EOI process.

    I don’t support the Recherché Bay flotilla of huts or a hotel because inevitably there will some form of land-based access which could develop into something further down the road.

    Based on anything Mr Nunn has come up within his career so far, then the aesthetics will probably be a visual nightmare.

    But you just never know.

    Maybe they could cover it all in army camouflage material to placate everyone!

  29. Robin Charles Halton

    May 8, 2018 at 10:04 pm

    I would expect that the Greens would also respect the attributes of an interrupted natural landscape at Recherche Bay given the floating resort that is planned by that Professor Nunn, the same architect that designed that ugly floating shed now known as the Brooke St Pier.

    Recherche is a region best left wild – apart from overnight boat tours, and no floating or land-based tourism infrastructure must be permitted at Quiet cove in Pigsties Bay

    I understand the Wilderness Society is already involved with some sort of skulduggery with the proposal which, if permitted to go ahead, would ultimately change the remoteness feeling of the Bay.

  30. Gwenda Sheridan

    May 8, 2018 at 8:40 pm

    Dear Christopher, TFC, MJF and naysayers,

    For the record, the Wellington Park (that is the whole of the park and its foothills) was placed on the Register of the National Estate in 2002. Please read that entry. You can still find it on the Australian Heritage Data Base.

    Before you tell all of us who have studied something of the natural and cultural history for the mountain from the time of the French (in the 1700s) and prior to the 1803 British arrival) there is something in the order of 45,000-60,000 years of history which can be followed for this mountain.

    Does history not count for anything in Tasmania?

    Does beauty of a place (acknowledged across a 160 year history at least) not count for anything at all either?

    And no, “beauty” is not in the eye of the beholder, if you follow the research. So don’t give me that argument please …

    It’s not just romanticism Christopher. Do you know anything at all about how places are identified and then put on the World Heritage Area list? I know something of this, having put two in Tasmania (with others in the team) on that list.

    Gwenda Sheridan.

  31. Doug Nichols

    May 8, 2018 at 7:19 pm

    #35 … You seem to know an awful lot about this proposed cable car and its associated complex on the summit. In particular you assert with certainty that the visual impact will be minuscule. That implies you must know where the base station is going to be built and exactly what the building on top will look like.

    How come you are party to this stuff when we, as local residents, haven’t been told any of it?

  32. MjF

    May 8, 2018 at 7:10 pm

    #34 … Why are there no chairs evident ?

    This wasn’t a symbolic orchestration in contradiction of the project, was it ?

  33. Christopher Eastman-Nagle

    May 8, 2018 at 6:24 pm

    Marcus, #32 … The visual and ecological impact of this project is going to be not only minuscule, but will also enable people from and all over the world to see the beautiful mountain without using a car to get up it, and with the same eyes as a hang glider enthusiast without all those accompanying risks. Then they will stay up there for longer because there will be decent facilities at the top to help with a more leisurely appreciation of the the spectacular views below and then go back again as counterweights to the people coming up behind them.

    This protest is not merely nineteenth century ‘wildist’ landscape romanticism, but a groupthink sacred siteist displacement exercise to divert attention from the awful mess they made of the last election, and the extent to which they have marginalised themselves; you know, turn something insignificant into a perfidious capitalist plot and inflated it into [i]une cause celebre de l’Epoque.[/i]

    You’d think it was Lake Pedder they are trying to ‘save’. The sheer breathtaking baloney of it !

    And I’ll bet you that virtually everyone in the country will have it on their bucket list of things to do before they die.

  34. Ted Mead

    May 8, 2018 at 5:26 pm

    #33 — ?

    Such a meticulous observation from such an insular cerebrum.

    You must have sat around for few days pondering on what cynicism you could provide ..

    Is that the best you can come up with these days?

  35. MjF

    May 8, 2018 at 3:54 pm


    Going by the happy snaps, does nobody in Hobart Town own a camp chair, or smoke ?

  36. Marcus Higgs

    May 8, 2018 at 3:02 pm

    Here is the valuable quote in 1887, about the importance of Mt Wellington by George Perrin, Tasmania’s first appointed Conservator of Forests …

    [i]“The great advantages possessed by this grand recreation-ground, its nearness to the city, and other natural beauties, should make the proper care and supervision of a place so eminently suited to the wants of a large and ever-increasing city the first care of its citizens, and more particularly in a place like Hobart, which is famed all over the world for the natural beauty of its surroundings …”[/i] (Parliamentary Papers, House of Assembly, No. 61, 1887)

  37. Christopher Eastman-Nagle

    May 8, 2018 at 2:42 am

    I confess that I haven’t had to read so much balls’ ache since the 1970s, which was premium period for that sort of thing.

    I struggled to find anything that looked like a plausible argument in Flanagan’s speech and I simply couldn’t find one. It was pure treacly petty bourgeois sentimentality and ideological catastrophising from beginning to end.

    There is something here of the conundrums that came out of the circumstances that led to the witchcraft trials in Salem. It is as if a whole group of people, who managed between them to lose an almost unlosable election, want to take their collective failure out on something that diverts attention from their own incompetent lack of judgement and foresight.

    The extent of negative investment in this environmentally quite minor project is completely irrational.

    If I were Hodgman’s shoes right now, I would be hardly able to contain my glee, because I would know for absolute certain that I would be able to screw you through at least the next couple of election cycles.

    You dopey twits have already taken a hiding over the gambling industry, and now you want to do exactly the same with tourist industry to get exactly the same result and then blame everyone but yourselves when our Singaporean friend gets all 40 something storeys for his high rise in the middle of town.

  38. Robin Charles Halton

    May 8, 2018 at 2:30 am

    At the end of the day we only assume the Greens’ great staging event at Cascade Gardens will change the mind of the government. It won’t. Only continued people power outside of Green circles would obligate the government to bow to pressure to delay the Cable Car for another day!

    Jeff Briscoe has suggested a referendum at the Hobart City councils election later this year to test the locals opinions.
    Probably a reasonable move if its get a guernsey worth the $100,000 cost to the ratepayers!

  39. Robin Charles Halton

    May 7, 2018 at 4:43 pm

    #27 … Lee Lloyd, now is the time to bring State politics back to serve the people of Tasmania. Will needs to comprehend the Speaker’s reasonable demands, and not those of the likes of Abetz and Mc Question forever poking their grubby noses too closely into States daily affairs!

    #16 … John Biggs I tend to agree with the basic context of your comments, but as I am not a Green supporter like many other Hobartians, and Tasmanians for that matter, for “whoever we are” behind the anti-cable car cause to prevent the appearance of more man made contrivances/ or structures spoiling the natural view field panorama seen along the mountain’s face from the city and further afar.

    I guess that it is fair to say without a lot of inter-political wrangling within the State Parliament’s indifferences with each other, the people should now be recognised as being listened to because the cable car project is simply just not a Green inspired campaign to gain brownie points for them alone.

  40. john hayward

    May 7, 2018 at 1:03 pm

    #26 … Too right, TGC!

    There are not many places where the corruption is so seamless and homogeneous that the Opposition doesn’t mention the millions perennially disappearing into the chippers.

    John Hayward

  41. lee lloyd

    May 7, 2018 at 3:15 am

    Ah Robin, that would be great. I’m looking forward to Sue expelling Will from the chamber at some point.

  42. TGC

    May 7, 2018 at 12:36 am

    #23 … “Tasmania has become renown for World’s Best Practice Corruption.”
    Certainly when Tasmanians travel overseas and are asked ‘where are you from?’ when Tasmania is mentioned ‘Oh, the corrupt state” which is probably why so many from the mainland want to come to live here – and international tourists are fascinated by Tasmania – our corruption is so special

  43. Andrew Muthy

    May 7, 2018 at 12:30 am

    Just thought I’d share this little side story coming out of the reports on the rally.

    I was reading some of the comments on the Tas Conservation Trust facebook site last night and was interested to read the posts about the rally. I noticed that a couple of people were making personal attacks on a friend of mine because of where she works and her purported political views. I posted a few comments taking the mickey out of the people levelling the insults, and of course, it didn’t take long for the guys to get nasty.

    I noticed that many, if not most, of the comments criticising those who attended the rally or oppose the project more generally were based, not on any sort of reasoned argument, but on contempt for ‘greenies’ and ‘lefties’. (The implication of many of the posts were that anyone who opposed the cable car was a tree hugger, lefty or both, and that this in itself is enough for their views to be ignored).

    I noticed that the posts of one of these people (Scott Wright from Launceston), who’d been a little more nasty than the average green hating dullard, suddenly all disappeared. I assumed that he had deleted the posts out of concern that he’d overstepped the mark. We ended up having a private Facebook message conversation (yes, foolish I know) in the course of which he accused me of having the posts deleted. (I suspect that the level of personal insult was beyond what the site moderator would tolerate).

    Anyway, I said I hadn’t sought to have his posts removed, and that I rather wish they’d left the thread up. His response included the following:

    ‘Lying arab … You started sucking your thumb and became all triggered. You’d be the type to abuse someone while they were driving, and then pull up beside them and pretend it wasn’t you! You wouldn’t spend all day pandering to people who rip off landlords either would you.
    Did you sway your little rainbow flag at the bottom of the mountain? Fancy thinking 1% have a say for “our” mountain not just theirs!! Condoning those dolts illegally scaling the mountain side. Thats what you tree hugging Sue Hicking loving snowflakes do though.!’

    Now, the ‘arab’ reference was because Scotty had done a bit of googling and realised that I’m brown skinned! (therefore arab, therefore lying, I guess).

    I think Scotty has a bit of a thing about brown people as he also managed to get a swipe in about Yassmin Abdel Magied (and live sheep exports) in his posts before they were deleted.

    As poor as Scotty’s rhetoric was, I think it might be important for people to see the sort of the argument being presented in favour of the cable car. (And no, I’m not suggesting that all proponents of the project are as thick as Scotty, just that there’s an awful lot of haters out there mixed in with the support). And this seems a bit typical of Tasmanian politics. The ‘you oppose logging, tourism, cable car.. therefore you must be a cultural marxist greeny public servant (or ‘dole bludger’) riding the taxpayer funded gravy train and must therefore be wrong’, school of ‘thought’.

    To be fair, we were having a little bit of fun at Scotty Wright’s expense, but largely because his attitude seems so typical of critics of the campaign opposing the cable car. Just based on prejudice and a pathetic form of tribalism.

    This isn’t of course the first time I’ve been subjected to racist aggression for expressing an opinion (albeit while having a bit of a chuckle at someone’s propensity to play the person instead of the argument). As a union official some years ago I was told by the owner of a well known Hobart business ‘to get back on my camel and go home’.

    Now this isn’t an effort to get sympathy. I think it’s important in any discussion about the respective levels of support/opposition for the project, for decision makers to note that people’s values and attitudes need to be considered as a bit of an indicator of whether anything they say (their ‘opinions’ should be taken into account at all.

    And I have to say, that my observation is that the pro-project lobby seems to have a disproportionately high number of supporters like Scotty.

    They’re unable and/or unwilling to present a coherent argument, and rely on prejudice and bigotry. I think those people’s opinions need to be discounted as invalid (like an informal vote in an election).

    Scotty did wish he could met me for a beer to discuss the issue. I declined the offer as I didn’t think he really wants to be buddies with me. I offered instead to share his views with the broader public instead. So there you have (at least some of) them.

  44. Robin Charles Halton

    May 6, 2018 at 10:36 pm

    #23 … Not necessary, now that Sue Hickey referees the entire Lower House.

    Will become Sue’s new Marti!

  45. Gordon Bradbury

    May 6, 2018 at 6:27 pm

    Yesterday Andrew said Tasmania needs a real ICAC. I think it needs much more than that. The decades of corruption and nepotism in Tasmania shows us that the political system itself needs changing. It’s not just the people.

    Our political system encourages and rewards bad behaviour. We need a system that encourages and rewards good behaviour.

    Better representation (a bigger Parliament) and accountability would certainly help. Any other ideas?

    Tasmania has become renown for World’s Best Practice Corruption.

    It’s time for some real change !!!

  46. Chris

    May 6, 2018 at 4:44 pm

    Richard condemns, and rightly so, the influx of tourists “investing” in our state. Why can some mainland Asians propose five high rise buildings adjacent to our property, and completely block our views, light and sunshine in a residential area and use their vast resources and money to fight any appeal?

    Will wee Will and his deputy gut Whiner allow this trend to continue after all 40 + students or more strain the non existent infrastructure of a suburban block? You betcha.

  47. Peter Bright

    May 6, 2018 at 3:36 pm

    Matt at #19 refers to [i] .. “The Mercury’s new political right wing bent .. “[/i]

    Oh dear, Matt.

    Delete “new” and you’ve got it.

  48. Snowy

    May 6, 2018 at 3:36 pm

    #19 … The Hobart City Council has called for tenders for an all-weather bus service up the mountain. Tenders are closing about now, I think

  49. matt

    May 6, 2018 at 3:20 pm

    Something has got to be done about the increasing traffic flow up the mountain. It’s wrecking it for everyone. I do not have a problem with a cable car in principle to sort that issue out – but it should have been open to a worldwide tender process. Alternatively, put a toll on the road giving free access to local residents, and put on snow-capable buses when the road gets icy/snowy to ease traffic congestion and improve access.

    I do not support the cable car on the entertainment/tourism magnet argument.

    As far as The Mercury’s new political right wing bent is concerned, it’s pretty sad. In the interests of transparency everyone should also know that all online comments in that newspaper ( and News Ltd papers ) are passed/filtered from a social media team in Los Angeles. I was told that this morning, but from their Adelaide call centre.

  50. TGC

    May 6, 2018 at 3:11 pm

    It’s marvellous that the mountain has been ‘saved’ – surely!

    No longer will Tasmanians when travelling overseas be confronted in eg Budapest – with ‘Oh, you’re from that place that wants to totally destroy a magnificent mountain’

    We can hold our heads high and say – “There will not be any further development in Tasmania because we love it as it is with absolutely no changes of any kind – and we are hoping Sue Hickey will be the enforcer.”

  51. Heather Donaldson

    May 6, 2018 at 2:07 pm

    To borrow from the Lorax … “we speak for the mountain, for the mountain has no tongue.”

  52. John Biggs

    May 6, 2018 at 1:03 pm

    What an amazing event! Congratulations to all involved. The speeches were all terrific and should be publicly available.

    Some grudging coverage was given in the Mercury to Bob Brown’s and Richard Flanagan’s terrific speeches, but none to Andrew Wilkie’s brilliant attack on the Hodgman government’s corruption in pinpointing the most glaring examples. The public should know about all that.

    Likewise, Anna Reynolds calmly and clearly pointed out how Hodgman is doing over the HCC and preventing it having any say over what is rightfully the Council’s guardianship over Mt Wellington.

    Hodgman will pay for that, I sincerely hope, when Sue Hickey prevents the Government from passing their atrocious mate’s deal – otherwise known as the legislation to do with approving the Cable Car.

  53. john hayward

    May 6, 2018 at 12:07 pm

    My #14 was posted with much of the haste and heedlessness of a Tassie planning approval.

    My intended question was whether “Cretan”was a misspelt descriptor.

    John Hayward

  54. john hayward

    May 6, 2018 at 11:32 am

    Is “Cretan” a misspelling of an appropriate adjective?

    John Hayward

  55. Anne

    May 6, 2018 at 7:52 am

    The Hodgman government and the Tourism department really do need to take a long hard look at why it is people want to visit Tasmania. Whether they are wealthy folk or backpackers holidaying on a shoestring , they all come here to experience Tasmania’s unique wilderness and natural beauty. Emphasis on natural and unspoiled. The very fact this proposal has been shrouded in secrecy and a lack of consultation immediately raises suspicion. Rightly so it would seem, so looks like we are gearing up for another environmental campaign. You’d think the government would have learned the lesson from the pulp mill saga, and realise that a community’s determination to oppose a project it absolutely disagrees with, is not to be messed about with, because it will never, ever give up.

  56. Simon Warriner

    May 6, 2018 at 1:49 am

    re #8, not sure the bankers had crooked conflicts of interest. That seems to have been entirely the province of the politicians who wrote the laws the bankers operated under, and who appointed the emasculated overseers at ASIC, the ACCC and other faux rules enforcers.

    The bankers simply did what crooks always do, and took a mile when an inch was on offer. What they offered the pollies is where our attention should be focused, and how that offer conflicted the pollies duty to our common good with their own political creed of greed.

  57. ugly reality

    May 6, 2018 at 1:30 am

    #4 sums up the current situation perfectly.

    Thanks to everyone who attended today’s rally – an excellent turnout with great speeches from Andrew Wilkie, Bob Brown and Richard Flanagan.

  58. john hayward

    May 6, 2018 at 1:19 am

    Politicians of the intellectual capacity of Tasmania’s must be forgiven for presuming that the laws on conflicts of interest do not apply in this state. Our present Premier publicly stated that investors of large amounts of dosh in public projects were entitled to expect a return.

    And there is no law against crassness of any degree.

    John Hayward

  59. Ron

    May 6, 2018 at 1:02 am

    The Liberals said there was no public objection to this stupid plan, just as there is no objection to the gambling mafia ruling this state. The only way to stop the bastards is to face them down.

    If we do not stop brainless development and corrupt political parties then we’ll end up just a third rate tourist trap like Queensland has become.

    Its time to stand up to these bastards and remind them Tasmania belongs to Tasmanians, not developers after a quick buck.

  60. mike seabrook

    May 6, 2018 at 12:17 am

    #5 … The royal commission is now currently belatedly catching up with the banksters and their crooked conflicts of interest – class actions anyone ?

  61. mike seabrook

    May 6, 2018 at 12:13 am

    make mt wellington a national park – what and fine everyone who has no parks pass and has not paid the access fee. get real !!!!!!

  62. mike seabrook

    May 6, 2018 at 12:08 am

    need a monopoly – get the monopoly rights from the pollies and sit on them/land bank them for 20 or 50 years ( like those who have monopoly rights to the springs on hold developments).

    then restrict road access and charge tolls and carparking to eliminate the freeloaders going to the mountain and avoiding their monopolies to make the investment profitable

    look at vancouver, queenstown in new zealand etc. etc.

  63. Simon Warriner

    May 5, 2018 at 10:47 pm

    Of course Hodgman won’t do anything about Cretan’s obvious and unacceptable conflict of interest. Hodgman is a party politician and as such has already demonstrated his inability to understand the concept.

    All is not lost though. Those objecting should draw some cheer from the likely failure of the Hodgman govt to recognise that their federal govt mates are going hell for leather to piss the Chinese off at the behest of their imperial US masters and that if successful the flow of Chinese tourists will stop overnite at some point shortly thereafter.

    That is the sort of thing that happens when you don’t understand conflicted interest.

  64. Michael Anderson

    May 5, 2018 at 10:10 pm

    Having been a tourist there in 2016 while visiting my daughter, and being totally enamoured by the island, the ONLY thing I could say the mountain needs is better guardrails on the road. But that may have had something to do with it being my first experience driving on the left!

    Development benefits no one except the racketeers promoting it. Gen. Smedley Butler put it this way almost 90 years ago:

    “A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of the people. Only a small ‘inside’ group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few, at the expense of the very many.”

  65. Peter Bright

    May 5, 2018 at 9:30 pm

    It’s all about money! They could not care less about the environment.

  66. Geoff Holloway

    May 5, 2018 at 8:14 pm

    The Tasmanian Way – corrupt to their bootstraps!

  67. TGC

    May 5, 2018 at 7:46 pm

    In the light of this Meeting it would be appropriate to treat Mt Wellington (I cannot use the sacred name) as ‘Ayers Rock’ is treated and keep everyone, and everything, off it and remove all built items and fill in the road.

You must be logged in to post a comment Login

Receive Our Weekly Tas Roundup

Copyright © Tasmanian Times. Site by Pixel Key

To Top