Ms Armitage (Launceston) - Mr President, I am not going to get into the case of whether this cable car should be built or not because I do not think that is the bill before us. We have had many representations on both sides. I see the bill before us as an enabling bill to allow the planning process to commence. I appreciate the opportunity from the Government of the briefings yesterday from all sides, including the Hobart City Council. It was good and enlightening to hear where the process has gone and why this bill is before us.

As with many proposed developments of this type, there are those for and against. They will all have the opportunity to put their views forward when the planning process commences. It was interesting yesterday hearing from the first group their reasons for being opposed to the bill before us. It is good to hear from all sides. It makes such a difference. You can receive emails and have representations on the phone, but it is great to have people there you can ask questions of and hear the answers. It makes things clearer. I am sure all members appreciate the fact that while sometimes we feel we are over-briefed, at other times it is useful to hear from these people.

With some of the areas raised yesterday, it was felt that the bill was unnecessary and redundant legislation, and that it sets a dangerous precedent for a grab of council land by the Government.

It was also mentioned that the Hobart City Council and the Tasmanian Aboriginals did not support the legislation, and that it distorted the Land Acquisition Act. There have been petitions but, as I said, I choose not to go into that discussion.

I also note from the proponents that their first request was in late 2012 to do with the Wellington Park Management Plan when it was going through its first review. Hobart City Council, at that stage, was unable to grant land tenure until some changes were made.

It appears that the proponents chose not to go back to the Hobart City Council, having already had their application refused previously, and chose to take a different path.

I also note from some of the discussions that they were asked for a financial plan. Having been a deputy mayor on a council in the past, I do not ever remember a planning situation where people were asked to provide information like that for planning, so I can see both sides here.

Like many honourable members in this House who have been on a council, I have a fair understanding of the planning process. For that reason, I really do not have a problem with this bill. I see it simply as an enabling bill and it still has to go through all the planning processes.

Everyone will have an opportunity. The cable car may get up or it may not. I note the comments from the Acting Leader that this has been around for 100 years. I would hate to think what a cable car might have looked like 100 years ago and I am very pleased that it is proposed now.

Mrs Hiscutt - In the circles that I move in, some people call this 'No Gobart' because nothing seems to happen.

Ms Armitage - Coming from the north of the state, we feel that everything happens in Hobart.

Members laughing.

Ms Armitage - I appreciated the briefing from the Hobart City Council. It certainly is not an easy thing for councils. They have rules and processes they have to follow, and I understand that.

There is a situation whereby they have now discovered that the general manager can give consent of land ownership. Sometimes things are found out through these issues. It has certainly made it a lot clearer for Hobart City Council processes to go down in the future. I appreciated their facts. As it says in the final page of the council's submission, the council supports the fact that if this bill passes as written, the cable car project will be assessed through the normal planning process.

I see that as the crux of the bill. This is simply a facilitating bill to enable the planning process to happen. People from both sides, whether they are for or against, can then have their say. I support the bill.