Anti-protest laws have passed Tasmania's Lower House after debate was guillotined last night.

Under the new laws, people who disrupt workplaces face $10,000 spot fines, with three-month mandatory jail sentences for repeat offenders.

The move has been criticised by opposition parties, civil liberties advocates, environmental activists, lawyers and unions.

Proposed laws: Protesters may not cause or threaten damage to a business

Protesters may not cause or threaten damage to a business Police can direct protesters to leave a business or "business access area"

Police can direct protesters to leave a business or "business access area" Police can remove any obstructions to a business and people may not prevent them doing so

Police can remove any obstructions to a business and people may not prevent them doing so Inciting any of these acts is an offence

Inciting any of these acts is an offence Police can demand proof of identity

Police can demand proof of identity Police can arrest without warrant and remove people from a business

Police can arrest without warrant and remove people from a business Officers can use necessary force to perform these powers

Debate started on Thursday morning and the Leader of Government Business, Michael Ferguson, drew howls of outrage when he sought to guillotine it about 10pm.

"This bill will be debated nine hours, approximately the fourth longest debate. All this faux anger is actually just pretend," he told the House.

Opposition Leader Bryan Green accused the Government of gagging debate.

"This is a sad day for Tasmania," he told Parliament.

The Government used its numbers to pass the bill after 11pm.

The Greens unsuccessfully tried to move dissent from a Speaker's ruling after the vote with Parliament adjourning after midnight.

The bill will now be considered by the independent-dominated Upper House.

Laws compared with Nazi Germany

During debate, the Treasurer expressed outrage that the proposed laws had been compared to those of Nazi Germany.

Greens leader Kim Booth accused the Government of fascism and likened the legislation to that of the Nazis.

Peter Gutwein told Parliament he found the claim highly inappropriate.

"Fascism had its roots with Mussolini, it was carried on by the Nazis. You are so outrageous in the language you use in this place," he said.

Greens MP Nick McKim accused the Government of anti-democratic laziness by guillotining debate and had a swipe at Premier Will Hodgman: "Old pyjama premier, getting a bit of a reputation?"

Resources Minister Paul Harriss had a reply ready: "You talk about pyjama premier? Mankini McKim."

Labor has compared Mr Hodgman to former Queensland leader Joh Bjelke-Petersen.

The party has also accused the Government of misusing parliamentary process to hide its proposed protest laws from proper scrutiny.

Shadow Attorney-General Lara Giddings said the Government's use of its numbers to gag parliamentary debate was indefensible.

"What you do is you use the gag in very unique circumstances when you have to get legislation through," she said.

Warning laws may not stand up in court

Professor Adrienne Stone, a constitutional law expert from the University of Melbourne, said she was not convinced the legislation would stand up in court.

She said the protests could be seen as a protected form of expression and the legislation might not be constitutional.

"It focuses really clearly on certain types of workplaces, mining workplaces, forestry workplace, agriculture and food producers," she said.

"It seems to raise a question in my mind about whether this is absolutely targeted towards the environmental movement and, if the court took that view, it might view it as an unreasonable discrimination amongst protesters."

Parliament resumes in mid-August.