THE government's heavily amended anti-protest legislation needs significant last-minute changes, the Law Society of Tasmania says. But the government has ruled out making any additional amendments to its legislation, which is now teetering on the brink of becoming law. The Workplace (Protection from Protesters) Bill will be brought before Parliament again this week, with the Legislative Council expected to deal with the legislation as early as tomorrow. The government had sought to tighten its proposed laws so they would only capture protests affecting the forestry, mining, agriculture, construction and manufacturing industries. But an amendment passed by Apsley independent MLC Tania Rattray expanded the legislation to apply outside the five sectors. Resources Minister Paul Harriss said the change made the laws far broader than the government intended. Law Society president Matthew Verney said the amendment was deeply troubling. "We were concerned by the scope of the bill even after the reduction to the five industries," Mr Verney said. "Now it goes far beyond what the government originally said it was planning and we're even more concerned with the legislation." Ms Rattray's amendment was largely intended to capture protests at businesses selling Tasmanian timber, such as Bunnings and Harvey Norman. But Mr Verney said the change was not needed. "All of our existing laws would most definitely apply to protests staged in that situation," he said. "There is no need for that broadened scope and our concern about unintended consequences is now even greater." Mr Verney also rebuked suggestions targeting protests affecting only the five industries could be discriminatory, which surfaced during briefings on the bill. "I don't think there's any legal basis for that view," he said. Mr Verney said the government must scrap the bill and start again or take action to rein in its scope. But Mr Harriss dismissed moving any new amendments. "The government made clear after the upper house vote that we didn't agree with all the changes that were made, but we respect the decisions of the upper house and suggest that others should do the same," he said.
THE government's heavily amended anti-protest legislation needs significant last-minute changes, the Law Society of Tasmania says.
But the government has ruled out making any additional amendments to its legislation, which is now teetering on the brink of becoming law.
The Workplace (Protection from Protesters) Bill will be brought before Parliament again this week, with the Legislative Council expected to deal with the legislation as early as tomorrow.
The government had sought to tighten its proposed laws so they would only capture protests affecting the forestry, mining, agriculture, construction and manufacturing industries.
But an amendment passed by Apsley independent MLC Tania Rattray expanded the legislation to apply outside the five sectors.
Resources Minister Paul Harriss said the change made the laws far broader than the government intended.
Law Society president Matthew Verney said the amendment was deeply troubling.
"We were concerned by the scope of the bill even after the reduction to the five industries," Mr Verney said.
"Now it goes far beyond what the government originally said it was planning and we're even more concerned with the legislation."
Ms Rattray's amendment was largely intended to capture protests at businesses selling Tasmanian timber, such as Bunnings and Harvey Norman.
But Mr Verney said the change was not needed.
"All of our existing laws would most definitely apply to protests staged in that situation," he said.
"There is no need for that broadened scope and our concern about unintended consequences is now even greater."
Mr Verney also rebuked suggestions targeting protests affecting only the five industries could be discriminatory, which surfaced during briefings on the bill.
"I don't think there's any legal basis for that view," he said.
Mr Verney said the government must scrap the bill and start again or take action to rein in its scope.
But Mr Harriss dismissed moving any new amendments.
"The government made clear after the upper house vote that we didn't agree with all the changes that were made, but we respect the decisions of the upper house and suggest that others should do the same," he said.
