Ms BURNET question to MINISTER for BUSINESS, INDUSTRY and DEVELOPMENT, Mr ABETZ
In 2021, the Mount Wellington Cable Car Company proposal was comprehensively rejected by the Hobart City Council through a rigorous established planning process, hearing thousands of concerns raised by Tasmanian Aboriginal people, the community, and experts. That decision was upheld by the independent TASCAT in 2022, on the grounds that it would damage the special values of the mountain.
Your review’s terms of reference will have an unelected State Growth-led committee report to you as minister for – of all things – Business, Industry and Resources. Even with community engagement – and numerous statements that this government is in favour of a cable car – how can the public have any faith that their voices will be heard and that your government will protect the natural values of kunanyi, rather than the commercial interests of cable‑car developers? Should parliament expect further legislation for a cable car?
The SPEAKER – The time for the question had expired. I am not sure whether that last part has made it in time, but if the minister can address that, that could be easier.
ANSWER
Honourable Speaker, a point that needs to be made is that the 18,000 hectares of the Wellington precinct is a Tasmanian asset. It is not the plaything of Hobart City Council. With great respect to Hobart City Council, which has a genuine interest in it as a part-owner and is expending considerable amount of money on it, it is an asset that belongs to all the people of Tasmania. Whilst Hobart City Council might express views from time to time, they are, potentially, not necessarily reflective of the broader Tasmanian community.
What the Department of State Growth is undertaking at the moment is a comprehensive review to ascertain what can be done to ensure that the values – and I stress that one of the three points in relation to the review is to maintain the values of the mountain. However, locking it up, keeping people from not being able to enjoy the precinct is not –
Dr Woodruff – The most visited place in Tasmania. You just said it yourself.
The SPEAKER – Thank you, Leader of the Greens.
Mr ABETZ – Yes, and that is why seeking to deny other people access to it is not an appropriate course of action. We want as many people as possible to enjoy the precinct without damaging its values. That is why, as part of the three‑pronged review, values is up there in lights. It is there in the terms of reference for everybody to see. Should they wish, people can start to make submissions now. I would encourage them to potentially wait for the release of the discussion paper to inform themselves of all the considerations in that paper, and then every single Tasmanian who wants to can make a submission to the review. It is open to each and every one of our fellow Tasmanians, and that is what we designed it to do. That is what we want it to do, because we want to hear, with respect to the former Hobart City councillor, the view of all Tasmanians and not just Hobart City Council.
SUPPLEMENTARY QUESTION
Ms BURNET – A supplementary question, Speaker.
The SPEAKER – I will hear the supplementary question.
Ms BURNET – I did not quite hear the minister’s answer about protecting the natural values of kunanyi.
The SPEAKER – Was that the last sentence of the question?
Ms BURNET – No, it was previous to the last thing, the natural values of kunanyi, and he should have heard that.
The SPEAKER – The minister probably has. He may wish to add to that, but I will also remind you that his title is Minister for Business, Industry and Resources, in case that is just an error, not a deliberate thing. I do believe that the natural assets were addressed by the minister, but I am happy to hear another question. Do you have another question?
Ms BURNET – In that point of order or the supplementary question?
The SPEAKER – Mmember for Clark, on what you are rising? Do you have a point of order?
Ms BURNET – The point of order is that it was the natural values. It was misunderstood.
The SPEAKER – If the member could resume her seat. Supplementary questions are a new feature of this House and I have been incredibly flexible about their usage. It is very much a call for me. You can move dissent to my ruling, if you like, but at this stage, I do not know that the minister has strayed so far from the content of the question for that not to have been considered an answer. You do have an opportunity for another question.
