Get ready to hear a lot about Tasmania's "project of state significance" process.
Rogue MPs Lara Alexander and John Tucker have locked the government into it over Hobart's AFL stadium.
And a lot rides on this: the $715 million stadium, the state's own AFL team, and the Liberal government's political future.
So what is a project of state significance?
It's another of Tasmania's rarely used planning processes designed to speed things up by, in this case, avoiding council approvals and having no legal rights of appeal.
After Premier Jeremy Rockliff recommends to the governor that the stadium project be declared a project of state significance, parliament then votes on whether to confirm this declaration.
At that stage, it's still unclear what detail will be known about the stadium.
If approved, the Tasmanian Planning Commission (TPC) must carry out an integrated assessment of it.
The guidelines for this process are also unknown — and could be set by the premier before the first vote — but the assessment must include Hobart City Council, and all agencies which would be relevant to the project.
These could include environmental, heritage, Aboriginal, energy and planning bodies.
The TPC then puts out a draft report, and the public gets to have a say with submissions, and possibly public hearings.
After that, the TPC gives its final report to Mr Rockliff with recommendations about whether the stadium proceeds, and on what conditions.
Does parliament get one vote, or two?
The first vote is guaranteed to happen.
But if Mr Rockliff is satisfied with the final TPC report — and accepts all the conditions — he can decide that the stadium proceeds, without a second vote.
If he wants to change the conditions, it then needs to be voted on again by the parliament.
Will it survive the first vote and why is Labor's position important?
The government has the numbers in the lower house after this process was agreed to by rebel MPs Lara Alexander and John Tucker.
However, they might still try to somehow bind Mr Rockliff to having a second vote.
The upper house is far trickier.
The government will need seven out of 14 votes.
They have four already with their own MPs and they could convince three of the seven independents to support it.
However, most are either sceptical of the stadium or outright opposed, or represent north or north-west areas — a long way from Hobart and where constituents might not see the point of having a stadium in the south.
The other option is Labor's three votes.
Labor has been circulating "no stadium" stickers, but leader Rebecca White said they could not say if they would reject a project of state significance assessment yet because there is not even anything to consider.
The government wants to paint Labor as "killing the dream" for an AFL team. Labor sees the stadium as deeply unpopular and unnecessary.
But if it's pitched to them as a "transparent" approval process — with more plans released prior to the first vote — could Labor be tempted to let the TPC look into it?
What happens if it doesn't get past the first vote?
At the weekend, Leader of Government Business Nic Street said the government had not turned its mind to this possibility yet.
The government initially wanted to push it through via the major projects laws — a more fast-tracked process — but this was seen as lacking transparency, and resulted in Ms Alexander and Mr Tucker quitting the party.
If it does not get through parliament, and the government reverts to major project laws, it runs the risk of losing the confidence of Ms Alexander and Mr Tucker.
An early election could loom large.
How long will the process take?
The government is calling this process fully independent and transparent.
It hopes it can, eventually, increase the stadium's popularity as more detail comes out and time goes on, with the public becoming accustomed to the idea of its own AFL team in a new stadium.
Construction is meant to start in 2025, meaning this must fully play out in 18 to 24 months.
But these tight time frames have caused concern already, with the government locked into paying the Tasmanian AFL club $4.5 million for missing a construction deadline in 2027, and progressively from 2028.
Political interference in the projects of state significance process is not unheard of. It happened with the Gunns pulp mill — one of the only other times these laws were used.
Has 'project of state significance' been used before?
Two of Tasmania's most contentious projects were put through this process — the Gunns pulp mill in the Tamar Valley, and the Ralphs Bay housing and marina development near Hobart.
They both failed.
Former Greens leader Peg Putt said the then-TPC handled the pulp mill adequately, but it was what occurred outside of this process that brought it undone.
"We found the government had started a pulp mill task force to promote it, and they had posted material online that cast aspersions on some experts," she said.
"I took those matters to the preliminary hearing and said there was an apprehension of bias here."
The process had to start again, but the pulp mill proposal started to fall apart — mainly through a failure to handle liquid effluent management, and then the ultimate collapse of Gunns — and the project was never fully assessed by the TPC.
The TPC rejected Ralphs Bay due to it being "unsustainable" to build a residential estate on tidal flats, and the impact on endangered species.
At the time, the TPC was praised for its independence from political interference.
What level of detail will be known when parliament votes?
As it stands, the law doesn't specify how much detail parliamentarians will have on the stadium before the first vote.
When the pulp mill's first vote occurred, it was described in general detail with short dot points that only described it as a "proposal" for the "development and operation of a bleached kraft pulp mill".
The same occurred with Ralphs Bay, with short dot points including the reclamation of land, subdivision, construction of dwellings and marina, off-site habitat creation, and so on.
It doesn't mean more detail can't be provided outside of parliament, however, should the government try to sure up some votes.
Are voters still likely to have their say on the stadium at an election?
The next election is scheduled for 2025, when the lower house expands to 35, with seven MPs in the five electorates.
That will change the political dynamic — with more independents a possibility — but the stadium will almost certainly overshadow all else.
An early election could occur if the stadium falls over prior to, or during, the project of state significance process, and the government remains committed to it.
Even if parliament goes full term, the stadium construction is likely to have only just started, should everything stay on schedule.
Labor might still want to cancel it.
The campaign could be more ferocious than the anti-pokies debate of 2018.
Are Lara Alexander and John Tucker still important?
They triggered all of this — and got a more transparent stadium process – but have they expended all of their political capital already?
The two independents have locked the government into the project of state significance, and if Mr Rockliff tries to deviate, he risks losing their support.
But if Labor still opposes the stadium vote, then the stadium is likely finished. If this was the intention of Ms Alexander and Mr Tucker, then mission accomplished.
The pair could still wield their power in other ways, dragging the government to the right or left in various policy areas — housing, Marinus Link and so on.
They also face losing their seats in an election. Ms Alexander was elected for the Liberals heavily on preferences in Bass. She could have lost a lot of the Liberal base with her move.
Mr Tucker was far more popular in Lyons — and could still enjoy local popularity — but angering some in the Liberals wouldn't have helped.
