It is the right of everyone and we discussed this yesterday to go to work and to be safe. We have evolved.
However, we are here today talking about the exploitation of animals for profit and a utilitarian approach in law to these animals.
Despite the desperate need in our community, the government is demanding efficiencies across government departments.
We cannot make legislation that will have a disproportionate impact, potentially, on people who are experiencing acute psychological distress.
Deputy Speaker, I thank the minister for bringing the bill on. It is unusual that I jump to speak at this point. The reason I am doing that is because I am proposing that we adjourn this bill today to debate it at another time, that other time being 10 September. I will explain my reasons.
Honourable Speaker, I support the comments of the member for Bass, Ms Rosol, but I make a couple of points from a local government perspective, having spent many years in local government making planning decisions on heritage properties.
The bill makes a number of amendments to the Historic Cultural Heritage Act 1995, intended to ensure the legislation remains aligned with the Land Use Planning and Approvals Act 1993.
Unquestionably, our farmers and primary producers are absolutely critical to Tasmania and they are facing a challenging time.
This is the Tasmanian parliament’s fourth opportunity to bring our Police Offences Act into the modern age.
The bill before us has been to this place and discussed on a number of occasions, this electoral amendment Bill and the Greens will be supporting this change to section 196 because we have long felt that it is constraining people's rights to speak freely and make political statements in an election period and that the explosion of social media and the changes in communications that have occurred since the act first was written in 2004 means that there is wide disparity between the intentions of what was trying to be achieved in 2004 and the reality of political campaigning in 2024.