Government responds to backlash by moving amendments to ensure the bill only protects industries ‘vulnerable to protest action’

This article is more than 5 years old

This article is more than 5 years old

The Tasmanian government is moving to amend controversial anti-protest laws to more specifically target anti-forestry and mining activists.

The Protection from Protesters bill, which passed Tasmania’s lower house in June, proposed fining demonstrators who “prevent, hinder, or obstruct the carrying out of a business activity” up to $10,000. Second and repeat offenders would face mandatory jail terms of up to two years.

But after a backlash from unions, civil libertarians, the farmers’ lobby and a UN rapporteur who called the bill “shocking”, the state government is moving amendments to avoid what the state’s resources minister, Paul Harriss, has called “unintended consequences”.

Under the proposed amendments, the anti-protest laws would not apply to demonstrations on public roads and footpaths – provided they do not block access to a business.

It also removes references to protests against shops, markets, warehouses or offices, ensuring “the bill only covers those industries that have been identified as vulnerable to protest action namely: mining, forestry, agriculture, construction and manufacturing”.

The amendments also propose to “protect mum and dad type protesters” by allowing police to give demonstrators a warning before they issue fines or make arrests.

It caps the maximum infringement fine that can be issued at $280 for individuals and $1,400 for organisations. Police prosecutors will also be given discretion to charge protesters with a lesser offence that does not carry a mandatory jail term.

University of New South Wales law professor George Williams told Guardian Australia that even with the amendments, the bill remains “susceptible to challenge in the high court”.

Williams said the changes “don’t fix the central problem: that is, that [the bill] applies large fines and jail to protesting activity, including the possibility of a mandatory minimum jail term”.

Another constitutional law expert, professor Adrienne Stone, said the narrowing of the bill to specifically target opponents of the mining, agriculture and forestry industry “will provide an additional argument for those who wish to challenge the law”.

“A law that limits political communication, which this has the capacity to do, has to pursue a legitimate end, and it has to do so reasonably.

“And I think the fact this only targets some industries and not others might give rise to argument that it’s not really directed to a legitimate end … that it’s really directed to favouring the government,” Stone said.

The Hodgman government has argued the harsh new measures are necessary because “existing laws have proved inadequate”.

“In many ways the bill is comparable to roads laws; people are allowed to drive their cars but they must obey speed limits and stay on the right side of the road so as not to hurt others,” it said in a briefing, currently being circulated to upper house MPs.

The Greens justice spokesman, Nick McKim, said the amendments were aimed at “appeasing” critics of the bill in the legal and farming industries. “The government’s tried pretty hard to polish the cowpat, but it’s still a cowpat,” he said.

The Tasmanian upper house is expected to debate the bill on Thursday.