Tasmanian Times

The individual has always had to struggle to keep from being overwhelmed by the tribe. If you try it, you will be lonely often, and sometimes frightened. No price is too high for the privilege of owning yourself. ~ Friedrich Nietzsche

The individual has always had to struggle to keep from being overwhelmed by the tribe. If you try it, you will be lonely often, and sometimes frightened. No price is too high for the privilege of owning yourself. ~ Friedrich Nietzsche

Article

The State Government fails to acknowledge majority community opposition to the proposed Cable Car after three public consultations … !

Mountain Mayday ... Rob Blakers' pic of the thousands who crammed into Cascade Gardens ...

More than three months after writing letters to Minister for State Growth Peter Gutwein concerning the proposed kunanyi/Mount Wellington cable car development, people who wrote these letters all recently received the same pro forma letter from the Minister dated 13 December 2018 stating that …

1) The Government has long been on the record of supporting a cable car on kunanyi/Mount Wellington and is of the view that there is wide community support for such a project to be realised; 2) The Cable Car Facilitation (kunanyi/Mount Wellington) Act 2017 was informed by the feedback received through an extensive consultation process; 3) The Government is satisfied that the project proposed by MWCC is financially viable and importantly, will not require Government support; 4) Furthermore, assessment and ultimate approval of this, or any cable car project will be under the auspices of the Hobart City Council.

This pro-forma letter that didn’t address any of the writers concerns or questions was another insult to an already aggrieved community.

The Government has consulted with the community three times about the Mount Wellington Cableway Company’s (MWCC) proposed development but has chosen to ignore the majority feedback that it has received from the community each time. During these three consultation processes the community has made it abundantly clear that it does not want a cable car development over the Organ Pipes and it does not want a commercial development on the summit of the Mountain.

In 2012, 89% of submissions opposed the Cable Car

In 2012 the Wellington Park Management Trust (the Trust) received 264 representations from the community, individuals, groups, councils and agencies in response to the plan. Of the 264 representations received, 226 raised the issue of a cable car and of those 226, 201 opposed a cable car with 25 in support.

Many of the representors opposing a cable car considered that it should be ‘prohibited’ in the Wellington Park Management Plan, and not subject to any assessment. The majority of representors also opposed major commercial development at The Pinnacle. While 89% of the representations made to the WPMT were opposed to the cable car the Trust chose to change the Wellington Park Management Plan to allow for a cable car.

In 2015, 61% of submissions opposed Amendment to Pinnacle Area

In 2015 the MWCC made a request to the Trust to increase the development zone on Mt Wellington’s summit. The Trust invited the public to comment on the Amendment to the Pinnacle Specific Area and received 551 representations. 334 or 60.6% were opposed to the amendment. On 4 November 2015 the Trust increased the development zone as requested. The independent Tasmanian Planning Commission found that the Trust ignored the bulk of representations. Despite this assessment, the Trust approved the amendment to facilitate the cable car project, contrary to the views expressed by the majority of representors.

In 2017, 70% of submissions opposed the Cable Car, 80% opposed the proposed legislation; and 93% were critical of this legislation

In 2017 The Tasmanian State Government prepared draft legislation to facilitate the assessment of a cable car proposal on kunanyi/Mount Wellington in Wellington Park and requested feedback on the draft Bill. The majority of the 725 submissions that addressed the proposed cable car were opposed to the proposed cable car (505 or 70%). Of the 501 submissions that addressed the draft Bill the overwhelming majority opposed the proposed legislation (399 or 80%).

While many submissions did not address specific details of the draft Bill, the vast majority of the 279 that did were critical of the proposed legislation (259 or 93%). A large number of the submissions that clearly addressed specific details of the legislation raised concerns about abuse of process or lack of process, and a large number of the submissions that addressed the draft legislation did not propose changes, they simply recommended that the draft Bill be abandoned.

 Over a period of six years the MWCC and the State Liberal Government have not listened to the community regarding the proposed Cable Car

In addition to the abundantly clear message sent to the Government during these three consultation processes that the community does not want a cable car development over the Organ Pipes and does not want a commercial development on the summit of the Mountain, in May this year over 5,000 people gathered in Cascade Gardens in South Hobart to demonstrate their opposition to the MWCC’s proposal to build a cable car development on kunanyi/Mount Wellington.

Instead of listening to community feedback over the past six years, the MWCC still plans to build a cable car over the Organ Pipes and the company has chosen to label a critical mass of people representing a broad cross section of Hobart’s community as ‘protesters, naysayers, greenies, extremists, selfish do-gooders, corporate terrorists and a minority’. The company has not listened to the community and has dismissed the community’s many legitimate concerns about a single development as ‘anti-everything’ and ‘anti-capitalism’ in a concerted attempt to mislead and divide the community.

Mr Guwein’s recent letter stating that the Government is of the view that there is ‘wide community support’ for the cable car development on kunanyi/Mt Wellington shows that the State Liberal Government continues to ignore the community and has instead accepted the misleading rhetoric of the MWCC.

Mr Gutwein’s statement that the Cable Car Facilitation Act 2017 was informed by feedback from the community is bewildering when the Government ignored 80% of the submissions that were opposed to the legislation and many of the 93% of the submissions that were critical of the legislation recommended that the bill simply be abandoned.

When the Government has already introduced legislation that gives rights and privileges to the MWCC that are not available to anybody else and that enables the State Government to compulsorily acquire public park land on behalf of the MWCC, Mr Gutwein’s statement that the development ‘will not require Government support’ is ludicrous.

Curiously, on the same day that Mr Gutwein wrote his letter to members of the community who have voiced concerns about MWCC’s proposed cable car development, a piece by Matt Malone was published in The Examiner stating that Planning Minister Roger Jaensch plans to introduce major projects legislation in Parliament next year.

Will the Government allow the cable car project to be assessed and approved by the Hobart City Council as Mr Gutwein states in his letter, or will the State Government again intervene to further enable this divisive development that is clearly unwanted by a significant portion of the community?

EARLIER on Tasmanian Times …

The School Strike for Climate Action on Parliament Lawns

Dr Geoff Holloway was State Secretary of the United Tasmania Group (UTG) 1974-77 and again since revival of UTG two years ago. Geoff has a PhD (sociology), specialising in social movements, health and research methods; poet (4 books published); climber; traveller – two years in Chilean & Argentinean Patagonia, but also Colombia, Ecuador and Brasil, twice recently to Cabo Verde and Lisbon, fluent in Spanish, understands written Portuguese; focus over past 20 years on children with disabilities, child protection and youth justice issues.

Ben Jones has lived in Hobart for eighteen years and is a member of Residents Opposed to the Cable Car and Respect the Mountain. He is a geologist and has over 25 years’ experience working with culturally diverse groups of people in cities and remote regions around the world.

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

55 Comments

  1. Geoff Holloway

    January 11, 2019 at 3:58 pm

    I would like to thank all 941 people to date who are clearly concerned about the proposed cable car on kunanyi, and the State Government’s refusal to acknowledge widespread opposition to this proposal!

  2. Geoff Holloway

    January 3, 2019 at 12:13 pm

    Note to Moderator: Posting off-topic comments is a typical strategy of trolls. It’s designed to divert attention from the issues raised in an article.

    This article refers to the failure of the State Government to acknowledge majority community opposition to the proposed cable car on kunanyi.

    We specifically refer to the off-topic comments of MjF, Russell and Realist.

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    Geoff, you are well supported in your annoyance with off-topic comments.

    Offenders, please be warned.

    — Moderator

  3. Mjf

    December 28, 2018 at 12:14 pm

    Some points of order, Mr Langfield …

    “This is the Tasmanian Government’s endangered species list”. Er, no it’s not. Tasmania has a threatened species list.

    No mention of the threatened invertebrates apart from the GFC ?

    “Nowhere else have so many species been made extinct in such a short time by humans just for ‘fun’, greed and spite.” This rubbish appears to be a direct reference to Van Diemans Land.

    Prove what you say.

    Do the relevant comparisons with all European resettled island states and/or countries (which should show similar development behaviours). Otherwise your claim is baseless.

    Copying entries from the Tasmanian list of threatened species is not a comparison of ‘everywhere else’. Nor are all your itemised species endangered under Tasmanian legislation. Some are either vulnerable, or rare.

    Endangered, vulnerable and rare does not equate to ‘presumed extinct’. The lazy and ignorant will of course, attempt to make that connection, either by inference or deceptive presentation.

    What was happening with all the listed species numbers prior to European settlement, recording and monitoring ? Is there 20,000 year old indigenous data on species numbers, distribution and densities which will stand up to scientific scrutiny ?

    Are we to believe all species were thriving and adequately represented without any evidence ?

    I wonder how the Pedra Blanca skink was holding up to seabird predation prior to the bastard Europeans bringing their rats over here ? Perhaps the species was already in decline 1800, 1700 or 1600 ? We’ll never know.

    • Geoff Holloway

      December 28, 2018 at 3:45 pm

      Note to Moderator: How is all this relevant to the proposed cable car?

      ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

      It’s not.

      Martin, please take note of Geoff’s implied (and valid) rebuke.

      — Moderator

      • Mjf

        December 29, 2018 at 8:16 am

        True, it’s unrelated to this pathetic NIMBY argument re cable cars but everything to do with a ridiculous claim from poster Langfield who can never actually make a case but bizarrely claims to “rest his case” when he doesn’t construct any.

        I say again to Langfield, prove your claim.

        • Russell

          December 30, 2018 at 6:18 am

          Endangered, threatened, vulnerable .. they all mean pretty much the same thing and are headed in the same direction due to habitat loss.

          They are all in that position because of industries like the one that employs you, Mr Fitch.

          In fact, if they weren’t endangered you would be out of a job.

    • Russell

      December 29, 2018 at 6:28 am

      This is a typical response from one who is employed by the main cause (de-forestation) of all these species’ decimation.

  4. Russell

    December 24, 2018 at 7:43 am

    ““Nowhere else have so many species been made extinct in such a short time by humans just for ‘fun’, greed and spite.’” I rest my case.”

    Let’s take a quick look at Tasmania’s extinction record since european invasion in 1803/4:
    King Island Fur Seals and Southern Elephant Seals were exploited to local extinction in the mid-1820s.
    King Island Emu – 1822 (18 years survival). Extinction through hunting. Two captive birds that died in 1822 were the last of their kind.
    Tasmanian Emu – 1850 (47 years survival). Extinction due to hunting.
    Thylacine, Tasmanian Tiger – 1936. Extinction due to hunting.
    Lake Pedder Earthworm – Probably extinct in 1972, confirmed in 1996.

    Then there’s the “Black War” between the mid 1820s and 1832 which culminated in late 1830 massive six-week military offensive known as the Black Line where settlers tried to completely wipe out the Indigenous Tasmanian race.

    And the pattern continues. More recently we have, via the state’s forestry, aquaculture and farming sectors, the endangered:
    Tasmanian giant freshwater Crayfish.
    Swift Parrot.
    White bellied Sea Eagle.
    Long-nosed Fur Seal (previously known as New Zealand Fur Seal).
    Subantarctic Fur Seal.
    Spotted-tailed Quoll.
    Eastern Quoll.
    Eastern-barred Bandicoot.
    New Holland Mouse.
    Tasmanian Devil.
    Common Wombat (Bass Strait).
    Brown Thornbill (King Island).
    Scrubtit (King Island).
    Grey Goshawk.
    Wedge-tailed Eagle.
    Australasian Bittern.
    Curlew Sandpiper.
    Tasmanian Azure Kingfisher.
    Macquarie Island Parakeet.
    Wandering Albatross.
    Macquarie Island Rail.
    Blue Petrel.
    Macquarie Island Shag.
    Southern Giant Petrel.
    Northern Giant Petrel.
    Orange-bellied Parrot.
    Eastern Curlew.
    Wilson’s Storm Petrel.
    Fairy Prion southern sub-species.
    Forty-spotted Pardalote.
    Sooty Albatross.
    King Island Green Rosella.
    Great Crested Grebe.
    Grey Petrel.
    White-headed Petrel.
    Soft-plumaged Petrel.
    White-fronted Tern.
    Antarctic Tern.
    Little Tern.
    Fairy Tern.
    Black Currawong (King Island).
    Shy Albatross.
    Grey-headed Albatross.
    Black-browed Albatross.
    Masked Owl.
    Hooded Plover (Eastern).
    Green and Gold Frog.
    Striped Marsh Frog.
    Loggerhead Turtle.
    Green Turtle.
    Leathery Turtle.
    Hawksbill Turtle.
    Pedra Branca Skink.
    Tussock Skink.
    Glossy Grass Skink.
    Spotted Handfish.
    ​Ziebell’s Handfish.
    Great White Shark.
    Golden Galaxias.
    Swan Galaxias.
    Clarence Galaxias.
    Swamp Galaxias.
    Pedder Galaxias.
    Saddled Galaxias.
    Dwarf Galaxias.
    Shannon Paragalaxias.
    Great Lake Paragalaxias.
    Western Paragalaxias.
    Arthurs Paragalaxias.
    Australian Grayling.
    Red Handfish.
    Port Davey Skate.

    Not to mention all the plants. This is the Tasmanian Government’s endangered species list, NOT some “Green propaganda”. Real FACTS, not common pub-talk.

    Such a proud 5th generation heritage you have there.

    I rest my case, Government stooge.

    • Realist

      December 24, 2018 at 11:30 am

      Wow, only five species extinct since European settlement! Three of those are sub species and the Thylacine, which became extinct on the mainland before European settlement, was more than likely heading that way anyway.

      The emus only had very isolated pockets due to indigenous hunting, so they were nearly on the way out as well,and were supposed to be the biggest villains around. Its called evolution, Russell.

      Species have been going extinct since time began. Remember the dinosaurs? And new ones are still being found today.

      Anyhow, maybe you should have a dig at one of your messiahs, Vica Bayley. He’s a seventh generation Tasmanian.

      • Russell

        December 26, 2018 at 7:10 am

        “Three of those are sub species”. So they don’t count as a species in their own right?

        “Thylacine, which became extinct on the mainland before European settlement”. So that’s a good reason to wipe out those on Tasmania?

        “The emus only had very isolated pockets due to indigenous hunting”. Bullshit. Read the journals. They and thylacines would only be found in open plains because that’s what their build dictates. How come so many places are named Emu after them?

        No smart-arse answer for the attempted indigenous genocide?

        “Species have been going extinct since time began.” Hopefully government stooges will be next.

        Ever heard of or understood biodiversity?

      • Russell

        December 26, 2018 at 8:20 am

        Also, the Tasmanian extinctions (bar one) came within 47 years of European invasion, NOT over thousands of years or due to meteorite hits or mega-eruptions.

        ALL the endangered species on that list are due to ignorant European abuse of the Tasmanian environment. That’s NOT evolution.

      • Russell

        December 27, 2018 at 6:33 am

        ALL those species existed and THRIVED alongside the Tasmanian indigenous population for over 1,200 years since the oceans rose at the end of the last Ice Age separating the Tasmanian islands from the Australian mainland.

        The King Island seals and emus were wiped out within 22 years of Europeans landing at the bottom end of Tasmania. The Thylacine was extinct within 33 years, and the Tasmania emu survived only 47 years.

        What a disgraceful record and heritage.

        • Russell

          December 28, 2018 at 9:23 am

          Sorry – 12,000 years.

  5. Ben Jones

    December 22, 2018 at 12:36 pm

    Christopher Eastman-Nagle’s reference to the Mercury opt-in poll does not support his claim that “the majority of electors who think it is a good idea and no big deal”. This and other opt-in polls the MWCC and its supporters have used to claim majority support for the company’s proposal are statistically meaningless and used to manipulate not measure public opinion. Two more meaningful ReachTell polls have been conducted. MWCC’s 2017 ReachTELL poll showed 47.6% of the residents of Denison in support and 40.3% opposed to a cable car on kunanyi/Mt Wellington. Although 47.6% is greater than 40.3% it is less than half the population surveyed and therefore a plurality not a majority. More recent ReachTELL polling commissioned by ROCC in May 2018 showed 44.6% of the residents of Denison oppose a cable car on kunanyi/Mt Wellington and 42.2 % support a cable car, representing a 5.4% swing away from support and a 4.3% swing to oppose. The truth is that MWCC’s proposed development is a long way from gathering widespread support from the greater community, and the Aboriginal community has stated that it is vehemently opposed to this kind of development on kunanyi/Mt Wellington. The point that the article makes is that the community has been given the opportunity to voice its opinion about a cable car three times. The large majority of submissions/representations received by the Government in all three consultation processes were opposed to: 1) a cable car to be allowed within the Wellington Park; 2) for the pinnacle specific area to be extended to allow for the MWCC’s proposed commercial pinnacle centre development, 3) to the MWCC’s proposed development and for the Government to legislate to enable the MWCC’s proposed development. In all three cases the Government has ignored the majority feedback that it has received.

  6. Realist

    December 21, 2018 at 6:42 pm

    Submissions, submissions, submissions. Normally enacted by those opposed and those for ‘go with the flow’.

    Sorry Geoff, but your biased figures are meaningless in the grand scale of things.

    • Russell

      December 22, 2018 at 7:13 am

      You’re a government stooge, aren’t you?

      • Realist

        December 22, 2018 at 6:23 pm

        Nope, just a 5th generation Tasmanian seeing reality for what it is.

        What about you, Russell?

        • Russell

          December 23, 2018 at 6:39 am

          5th generation .. that explains a lot. That means you most likely are a government stooge.

          Tasmania was born with alcohol as its currency and corruption as its mandate by a rabble of incestuous criminals. A place where theft, drunkenness and abuse is seen as the norm.

          Reality was the government-sanctioned systematic slaughter of its inhabitants, the theft of their land, and the destruction of the environment ever since. Nowhere else have so many species been made extinct in such a short time by humans just for ‘fun’, greed and spite.

          • Realist

            December 23, 2018 at 6:08 pm

            No Russell.

            I’m just one, like many others, who can see through the Green propaganda and doesn’t take its alarmism seriously. “Nowhere else have so many species been made extinct in such a short time by humans just for ‘fun’, greed and spite.'” I rest my case.

          • Russell

            January 6, 2019 at 6:10 am

            I am about as “green” as you are realistic. Four human-caused extinctions within 47 years is a disgraceful and utterly shameful record.

            ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

            Russell, this is way off the Cable Car topic, and off topic comments really irritate some readers .. who really let TT know it.

            — Moderator

  7. Rob Halton

    December 21, 2018 at 8:16 am

    Yippee, Yahoo, a zip line for Mt Coot-tha at only 287 meters ASL, an exciting venture and I can see those mouth watering young Chinese honeys with skirts flying high taking the plunge heading down hill screaming with joy all the way. It would give me a thrill just to watch them really enjoying themselves outside their normal comfort zone for the first time away from their too disciplined lives.
    I reckon that I could even pluck up the courage to join the the young thrill seekers and come alive again myself!

    As a comparison Mt Nelson is a bit higher at 352 meters ASL and that gives me the idea of a zip line down to the Cartwright Ck parking area on the old Channel highway at Taroona. Wouldnt that idea create a local Green performance so uh uh, oops I should move on!

    Given that MFNP HQ and grounds are somewhat constrained for excitement being located in a valley with no outlook, apart from the Russell Falls and a walk around the Lake Dobson, other day walks to points of interest may be a bit too much for the Chinese!

    So how about a zip line down from Abbotts Lookout ex Eagles Eerie now as a mountain bike destination, a zip line system would be an exciting alternative for the tourist visiting the area, as the rail line trolley setup nearby is rather dull and boring alongside the Tyenna River/Gordon River road

    The Mt Field_- Maydena including the Lake Pedder area has to do far better to attract better flow of tourists apart from bushwalkers who frequent the areas down near Scotts Peak who essentially target Mt Anne and the Western Arthurs walking trails!

    Canoeing on Lake Pedder from Teds Beach maybe a possibility when weather conditions during summer are suitable, but it is a bloody long stretch from Hobart on what is a good road but tiring to drive on a return journey in one day!

    Being a bit more venturesome there would be suitable zipline systems access closer to Hobart, perhaps some parts of Mt Wellington or Mt Dromedary falling towards the Derwent River above Boyer near Pulpit Rock that would qualify !

    I would suggest Tourism Tasmania and local councils in those areas sharpen their wit look closer at natural settings for suitable venues in the south within reach of a day trip from the city.

    MJF, I think that you have basically nailed it this time my son!

    • Mjf

      December 21, 2018 at 10:07 am

      What about a bungee off the Tasman Bridge RCH, just dipping the heads of riders in the Derwent’s radioactive waters at the end of the stretch ?

      Surely that thrill ride wouldn’t upset the touchy Hobartian denizens too much ? And no trees to murder (especially no OG). Just a bit of traffic management to sort.

  8. Christopher Eastman-Nagle

    December 19, 2018 at 12:13 pm

    All that Geoff and Ben have proved is that there is a very determined and activist minority constituency against this project which is determined to try and stop it, whether it is through submissions or public meetings.

    The majority of electors who think it is a good idea and no big deal seem to be content to let the government and the proponent just get on with it, I would have thought.

    And if this minoritarian constituency wants a more sympathetic hearing, try not to let the activist dickheads in the Greens and ALP do something quite as stupid as clutching defeat out of the jaws of victory by the full frontal attacking of a powerful and wealthy constituency like the gambling lobby, without having a long term plan.

    • Geoff Holloway

      December 19, 2018 at 4:29 pm

      Christopher, where is your evidence that “The majority of electors who think it is a good idea and no big deal seem to be content to let the government and the proponent just get on with it”?

      By the way Christopher, do you live in Hobart? I think not.

    • spikey

      December 20, 2018 at 7:28 am

      All that Christopher has proven is that he’d rather believe the ludicrous spin of an out-of-control government and the spindoctors of a proven dishonest and unwanted commercial enterprise, than the reality of majority local opposition.

      Perhaps, as a non-Tasmanian and a recent, prolific commentator on TT, he missed the Nathan Carswell episodes.

      Perhaps …

  9. Christopher Eastman-Nagle

    December 19, 2018 at 11:25 am

    All this article proves is that most of the people who were moved to make a submission were against the project. That tells us nothing about general community support. All it confirms is that there is a cast iron rule of thumb that any development at all, whether it be a proposed double storey extension to your house or a fifty storey skyscraper, most of the submissions will be objections.

    Then it is up to some authority to determine whether the objections have some planning substance rather than a knee jerk NIMBY reaction to the status quo.

    Ditto for ‘community’ meetings. All those with a negative agenda turn up. Everyone else who thinks whatever is being proposed is OK, and so they doesn’t bother to come and make a scene about what a fantastic project it is how much they love it. All they are interested in is seeing the thing go up.

    It isn’t even a matter of deliberate oppositional stacking (although the passionate activist opponents do passionately pressure their friends, acquaintances and virtual friends to beef up the crowd). Negative agenda always gets the numbers, unless the matter has become a very polarized issue, which the skyrail obviously hasn’t

    If one wants to see a similar pattern of objection to a project type very similar in its ecological footprint to the skyrail, check out the written objections to wind farms. They will give the reader an insight into what a pain in the arse waste-of-time reading exercise they really are.

  10. Michael Hughes

    December 18, 2018 at 9:40 am

    Interesting figures and unsubstantiated … all polls from a variety of sources averaged from 70% plus support for a cable car over the past year. But ignoring the polls, personally as a resident of the Hobart area, among all the people I know or meet around the city, that support pretty much mirrors those polls so I would treat the figures of this article as very suspect and more an attempt to derail a cable car proposal than to indicate any actual community position on it.

  11. Rob Halton

    December 18, 2018 at 7:38 am

    As an exemplar of protection of natural landscapes I also dont want to see the usual Disneyland tourism contraptions to be struck across Mt Wellington’s prominent face especially alongside the Organ Pipes that will exposed as a part of the seen area for the Skylift cable car carrier.

    Loads of the familiar bland featured Chines tourists can instead to shunted off to parts of the state nearby where at least They get the opportunity to exercise and to observe the States natural features.

    Airwalk when the weather is suitable, Mt Field national park at least visit the Russell Falls, with a bit of expert guidance to find the access to the Styx Valley Tall Tree Reserve in gratitude to former managers Forestry Tasmania who developed the walking trails an signage and for those who want to venture further into the SW with its unique landscapes would be a jaunt to Lake Pedder out to Strathgordon with a trip on the lake or visit the Gordon dam.

    • MjF

      December 18, 2018 at 4:25 pm

      Robin Halton …
      You inexplicably missed the Richmond mazes. Salamanca and the tea rooms at Oatlands are ‘must do’ visiting Celestials activities.

      I would think it a no-brainer that they would eagerly pile into MWCC gondolas for a soaring and inspiring experience up and over the rocky ramparts of Mt Whatever.

      Mt Field and Strathgordon as drawcards – are you serious ?

      • Geoff Holloway

        December 18, 2018 at 5:46 pm

        MjF – yes, what Rob Halton says is true regarding Mt Field. Research conducted by the Tourism Research and Education Network (TRENd) at the University of Tasmania shows that Mt Field National Park is one of the most popular destinations for tourists, particularly for day-trips by Chinese tourists who have very limited time to spend. They like to be in natural settings, without the incumbrences of cable cars etc. I do not have the actual figures or percentages, but I am sure that the Tourism Research and Education Network (TRENd) could provide them for you. Incidentally, when Mt Field National Park was created just over 100 years ago it was precisely with tourism purposes in the mind for one of the co-founders of the Park, E.T. Emmett, but conversely quite the opposite reason for the other co-founder, William Crooke, who wanted the Park created for its own sake. For more information see Kevin Kiernan’s book, ‘Eroding the Edges of Nature, Mount Field and the Florentine Valley: Tasmania’s First National Park and a Century of Lessons’ (2018). Interestingly, the conservation battles that were being fought back then are still being fought today.

        • Mjf

          December 19, 2018 at 7:45 am

          Most interesting Geoff Holloway, however doesn’t change my view that tourists (and particularly Asians in small mobs) will absolutely flock to a cable car and probably in preference to a Mt Field excursion when ‘time is limited’. While I agree Chinese like to be in natural settings, my observations are they also expect and need close by associated infrastructure and servicing.

          We should be guided by Tourism Tasmania who will have all the latest statistics and trends on where tourists are keen to invest their time and money.

          We aren’t doing this to entertain the locals are we ?

          I personally cannot get over the mirrored campaign being presently waged in Brisbane by the anti zipline fraternity opposing this BCC backed project on Mt Coot-tha. Values, impacts and proposed losses of the people amenity etc etc are identical claims and issues to MWCC proposal. The expected screaming, thrill seeking customers are not wanted as they will disrupt someone’s quiet and reflective perambulation in the forested surrounds amongst a plethora of communication towers. You know how it goes.

          https://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/national/queensland/controversial-mt-coot-tha-project-gets-state-s-zip-of-approval-20181212-p50lv0.html

          Would you be amenable to expanding the deal by incorporating a zipline in parallel with a cable car but perhaps for a reduced distance ? Now there’s a vision. I know Halton will be onside now, being a bit of an old daredevil himself.

  12. Ron

    December 17, 2018 at 6:02 pm

    Corrupt, arrogant, money hungry, wreck the environment at all costs, developer whores. What do you expect?

    Someone voted for these idiots and I am sure they’ll overrule a negative response from the HCC if it has the guts to say No!

    Lets have an EVEN BIGGER protest!

  13. MjF

    December 17, 2018 at 5:58 pm

    Hasn’t this facility been built yet ?

    For heaven’s sake get on with it. The government must do all it can to expedite progress. If the HCC can’t come up with a favourable decision, then sack the whole damned mob and put in a pre-aligned administrator.

    Thats how ya get things done in this can’t-suggest-anything and gun-shy backwater.

    • Kris

      December 18, 2018 at 8:23 am

      “If the HCC can’t come up with a favourable decision …”

      I trust you are aware that the HCC, like the rest of the world, is waiting for a Development Application from the proponent .. a D.A. which, we are told, is coming “soon” .. but has been coming “soon” for several years.

      The pretty PR spin and promises of rainbows can then be scrutinised for facts.

      • MJF

        December 18, 2018 at 3:41 pm

        A piddly D/A ?

        Surely a project of state significance. This is a stone-wasting step the government could decisively over-rule for starters.

    • Russell

      December 18, 2018 at 8:40 am

      “If the HCC can’t come up with a favourable decision, then sack the whole damned mob and put in a pre-aligned administrator.”

      Yeah, that’s the way it’s done down here in the deep dark south isn’t it, Martin? You’d know with your first hand experience of it.

      Money is God.

      • MjF

        December 18, 2018 at 3:45 pm

        How’s that scrap metal run you were gunna start up Langers – is it performing ?

        • Russell

          December 19, 2018 at 6:21 am

          Huh?

  14. Kelvin markham

    December 17, 2018 at 12:45 pm

    The cable car is supported by almost all international visitors, most interstate visitors, and 80% of Tasmanians. By contrast, the weasels of South Hobart lie about the project 99% of the time!

    • Geoff Holloway

      December 17, 2018 at 2:09 pm

      Kelvin, where is your evidence that ‘almost all international visitors’ support the cable car? Where is your evidence that ‘80% of Tasmanians’ support it as well? Why do you have to resort to personal abuse of people as ‘weasels of South Hobart’? and that they ‘lie about the project 99% of the time’? If you cannot argue rationally with facts I suggest that you desist from abusive, irresponsible and unsubstantiated comments.

      The 5,000+ people* who attended the rally depicted in the photo above did not come from just South Hobart, and it was the biggest rally since the Franklin River and Lake Pedder campaigns.

      *my cross-grid counting shows many more – 5,000 is a conservative estimate.

    • Russell

      December 18, 2018 at 8:35 am

      Where has there ever been a vote taken to come to your 80%?

      You do know there is a road which goes all the way up to the top, don’t you, Kelvin? It’s not as if it isn’t accessible, is it?

  15. Louise Sales

    December 17, 2018 at 12:15 pm

    Let’s not forget the recent council election result either – and the landslide victories to Anna Reynolds and Helen Burnett. That was a clear vote for development that respects kunanyi/Mt Wellington and our local environment.

  16. Mike Seabrook

    December 17, 2018 at 9:31 am

    still no assurances on zero restrictions on road access and parking ( and costs/tolls etc.) without which the cable car would not be viable what about subsidies, non repayable loans, guarantees and special deals

    • Rob

      December 17, 2018 at 5:14 pm

      This has been clarified many, many times.

      Choosing to ignore or not believe it does not mean there have been no assurances.

  17. Rob

    December 17, 2018 at 8:42 am

    Any links to validate these percentages?

    • Geoff Holloway

      December 17, 2018 at 10:07 am

      Rob, a detailed analysis from Respect the Mountain, called Submissions Analysis, was conducted by Ben Jones and sent to the Dept of State Growth on 31 August 2017. Apart from being an economics geologist, Ben has majors in physics and chemistry. I can assure you that his analysis is scientifically accurate.

      • Rob

        December 17, 2018 at 5:09 pm

        It may be “scientifically”accurate in that the majority of respondents are against.

        However, based on the very small number of respondents, it is not accurate to say the majority of the community are against

        Two complete different things.

        I also doubt the independence of the report. RTM are hardly likely to release anything that speaks against their goal. In fact, to be bluntly honest, I am yet to see much from RTM that is based on actual fact.

        Shame they don’t respect the intelligence of the general community as much as they claim to respect the mountain.

        • Geoff Holloway

          December 17, 2018 at 6:38 pm

          Shame you do not show your full name, Rob!

          Here is the complete analysis for you. Please stop abusing people and organisations who you know nothing about. Shame that you have to be so abusive, but that is something we have come to expect from the MWCC lobby .. including threatening phones calls that I have experienced myself. If you would like to see the full 19 page analysis just send me your email address.

      • Russell

        December 18, 2018 at 8:44 am

        What the heck is an economics geologist? And “Submissions” from who?

        Why can’t our stupid Government set up an online voting system where all registered voters can login and vote on all these proposals? That would mean more transparency and more democracy.

        I guess governments don’t like those attributes though.

  18. John Biggs

    December 17, 2018 at 7:38 am

    Gutwein’s outright lying about public support for a cable car (and especially this cable car that has been proposed with minimal detail) is an utter disgrace. Thankyou Geoff, for outing him.

Leave a Reply

To Top