Given the emphasis the government has placed on its anti-protest laws, given the impact it could have on civil liberties in Tasmania, and given it cost $335,000 for the government to lose in the High Court last time, the opaque way in which it was handled in Parliament last week was far from convincing.
First, Primary Industries Minister Guy Barnett dodged questions about the constitutional basis of the laws. Then the laws were called "urgent" and debate was suspended, despite it being at least four months before the upper house debates the bill.
It's hard not to be left wondering: what is the government's real intention here?
Government ministers struggled to name a recent instance when the laws would take effect. Activists breaching farms? That's still trespass. Bob Brown's Tarkine tree sit? The police already removed protesters, only for back-ups to take their place. Extinction Rebellion traffic disruptions? Nine members faced court in Launceston last week.
The Tasmanian Law Reform Institute picked holes in the legislation, largely based on overlap like this. But the broad nature of the laws - and the unknown implications - was a particular concern.
It's also hard to see a deterrent. Increased, or mandatory, penalties wouldn't have stopped any of these incidents. The penalties are a badge of honour for those who see it as their duty to take a moral stand.
Perhaps the government has an eye on the short-term future. There's growing opposition to privatising wilderness areas, there's revisiting the logging moratorium in 400,000 hectares of native forests in April, and there's a decision on pokies licences until 2043 - all causes that could see disruptive protest.
But rather than outline the purpose of broadening police powers against protesters, and how this differs from existing laws, the government's statements have a similar theme: wedging Labor as an opponent to workers, and for voting with the Greens.
Across the world, when the public has no power in the face of governments and powerful business interests, the scarred landscapes from mining, logging and development are irreversible. Surely this is more important than political games.