Labor and the government have again clashed over the easing of COVID-19 restrictions in Tasmania.
During Parliament Question Time on Wednesday, Labor leader Rebecca White questioned why Tasmania was not looking at adopting a one person per two square metres rule for venues, following the lead of Western Australia.
In Tasmania venues must adhere to a one person per four square metres rule.
"Western Australia has clear Public Health advice that supports the two square metre rule which allows double the amount of people in venues that we do here," Ms White said.
Premier Peter Gutwein said the government would step out of its COVID restrictions at the pace it had set and he would announce on Wednesday afternoon where the state was heading with Stage 3 of easing restrictions.
"The world is burning at the moment - more than nine million cases, more than half a million deaths. This disease is not over," he said.
Mr Gutwein said Tasmania was providing support to Victoria as it sought to contain a recent spike in COVID-19 cases.
He said in response to a request for help by Victorian Premier Dan Andrews the previous evening Tasmania would be processing up to a couple of hundred of COVID-19 tests per day on their behalf.
In other news:
Meanwhile, the government has stood firm on its choice of site for the new Northern prison, a block about five kilometres from Westbury's centre.
Greens environment spokeswoman Rosalie Woodruff questioned why the prison was being built on a site which was a haven for rare endemic species such as wedge-tailed eagles, masked owls and Tasmanian devils.
Greens leader Cassy O'Connor said the block had been set aside in the the Tasmanian Regional Forest Agreement and was part of the national reserve system.
Ms O'Connor asked the government to reconsider putting the new prison in a repurposed Ashley Youth Detention Center at Deloraine instead.
Mr Gutwein said there had been "unfortunate mistruths" spread about the site and it was a bush block.
"The site does not contain the values it was originally purchased for," Mr Gutwein said.
"The site was originally purchased from the original landowner because it was believed to contain a specific forest type which has been significantly reduced by agricultural development and was not well-preserved because of that fact.
"However, subsequent investigation revealed the site did not contain this forest type but a similar, but not threatened, forest type.
"The site does not contain pristine forest but shows evidence of a long history of timber harvesting and more recently illegal firewood collection, stock grazing, rubbish dumping and shooting."
Mr Gutwein said the site had not been actively managed by the Crown and it was not the responsibly of DPIPWE's private land conservation program.