The amendments would mean fines for people who even threaten to impede the activity of a business on its property, with those who carry out the act facing up to four years in prison.

They come amid a wave of nationwide climate and farm protests over the past year - matched with pushes by federal and state governments to stymie them.

The Queensland parliament in October passed controversial laws to ban the use of what the government had called "dangerous" locking devices, used to make the task of removing protesters more difficult.

MPs from the opposition Liberal National Party had floated even more extreme measures including mandatory sentences for second offences and the offence of "unlawful gatherings" of groups of three or more causing disruption.

Forestry activity has sparked its fair share of protest activity within Tasmania. With ongoing protest camps in the takayna/Tarkine and a moratorium on the logging of old growth forests due to expire in April next year, the new laws - if passed - could have significant consequences.

Under the proposed laws, those who trespass on a business premise, or interfere with a business vehicle, could face 18 months jail and a fine of up to $10,000 for the first offence - with a potential four years imprisonment if they are charged under the act again.

Corporations that contravene the laws would face fines of up to $100,000.

There are carve-outs for union activity - an issue raised by unions in their submission to the draft laws - and protests that have been granted police permits.

In their submission, Community Legal Centres Tasmania warned that even people attending a training workshop to oppose the kunanyi/Mt Wellington cable car could fall foul of the laws.

Only nine people were ever charged under the existing laws - arrested at a Lapoinya logging site in 2016. One of the nine was former Australian Greens leader Bob Brown, who subsequently challenged the laws in the High Court.

The High Court sided with Brown, ruling on his challenge found the laws "impermissibly" burdened the implied freedom of political speech within the constitution.

The state of Tasmania was ordered to pay costs of $355,000.

Since then, the Hodgman government had pledged to go back to the drawing board. It released the draft bill in January.

Lawyers had raised concerns about the laws when they were first introduced in 2014, with the Law Society of Tasmania circulating a letter to MLCs warning they remained "deeply flawed".

That's a question being posed by a number of people and groups, who point to existing laws and police powers around trespassing that largely overlap with the proposed changes.

In statements on Thursday, environment and civil liberties groups, along with lawyers and the Greens, echoed concerns raised in the submissions - also released Thursday.

These include a chilling effect on the ability to protest in the state and erosion of constitutional and civil rights.

A submission from the Gilbert + Tobin Centre of Public Law and the UNSW Centre for Crime, Law and Justice suggest the new draft laws could still "remain in breach" of the constitution.

MORE ON THE GOVERNMENT'S LATEST ANTI-PROTEST LAW PUSH:

The government argues the laws are necessary to protect the state's businesses and workers, a claim echoed by the business community.

Primary Industries Minister Guy Barnett said this week the updated legislation had addressed the issues raised by the High Court, noting it had been drafted to "apply to all people" and only actions that "affect or have the potential to affect the lawful rights of others".

The Tasmanian Farmers and Graziers pointed to farm invasions carried out across the country earlier this year, while conceding there had been none they were aware of in the state.

Tasmanian Chamber of Commerce and Industry chief executive Michael Bailey claimed in January there had been incidents where people had been "chaining themselves to equipment ... [and] hiding in equipment".

The bill will now have to pass through the both houses of parliament. On Thursday, Greens leader Cassy O'Connor called for the House of Assembly to divide on whether the legislation should even be tabled.

Both Labor and government members voted in the affirmative.

Without Labor's support in the lower house, the government would have to rely on newly returned independent (but formerly Labor) MP Madeleine Ogilvie or their often independent Speaker, Sue Hickey.

While you're with us, you can now sign up to receive breaking news updates and daily headlines direct to your inbox. Sign up here.