CLINT Eastwood, as Dirty Harry, famously said that a man's got to know his limitations.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
State Resources Minister Paul "Dirty" Harriss seems to have reached the same conclusion this week.
After months of criticism from as far afield as the UN, the government finally looks set to give ground on the mandatory sentencing provisions of its anti-protest laws.
The legislation was a pre-election commitment from the Liberals, who were keen to put an end to costly and dangerous protests from hard-line environmental groups.
The laws originally imposed hefty minimum fines for disruptive workplace protests, as well as compulsory jail time for repeat offenders.
The dramatic step was the Liberals' way of demonstrating they would do all they could to help the forestry industry, including helping insulate the sector from its environmental critics.
The government copped an avalanche of criticism from the Greens, Labor, lawyers, judges, civil liberties groups, and even the United Nations Human Rights Council.
But "Dirty" Harriss was not to be intimidated and fired back with plenty of shots of his own.
That is of course, until he stared down the Legislative Council, when he put his guns away.
In a somewhat more conciliatory mood, "Dirty" Harriss last week amended the laws to significantly reduce the mandatory penalties.
MLCs have slowly warmed to the laws, after they were privately fuming about the way that the government had handled the debate.
The council this week voted nine to five in favour of the principles of the bill, but Launceston independent Rosemary Armitage and Elwick's Adriana Taylor continue to voice concerns about the harsh penalties.
The Examiner understands the government will now drop the mandatory sentencing provisions to get the laws through, and put tougher penalties on the books for workplace protests.
This would allow the laws to be in place before the end of the year, when the so-called "fly-in, fly-out" protesters arrive from interstate to join their Tasmanian environmental comrades.
The backdown also shows the government is willing to compromise with the upper house when necessary, which it was steadfastly refusing to do during the pay freeze debate.
Currently, the state does not have mandatory sentences for any crime, and it would be perverse for the state to crack down harder on protesters than it does on violent criminals, or dangerous drivers involved in fatal crashes.
The laws, if passed, will increase the available penalties to courts for workplace protests, and are a not-so-subtle message to the judiciary that the government and the Legislative Council want harsher penalties for protesters who repeatedly disrupt workplaces.
And if there's a series of protesters who escape with small fines for chaining themselves to machinery or putting workers in harm's way, then expect "Dirty" Harriss to bring the big guns back out.
But despite the politics, the legislation could still be subject to a High Court challenge, which will make the first person charged under the laws a very interesting case study.
For the protesters, it'll be soon time to ask themselves a question: "do I feel lucky?"