Minister for Primary Industries Guy Barnett has confirmed the Solicitor General advised him the government's anti-protest bill was constitutional.
A previous anti-protest bill passed by the Tasmanian government was struck down by the High Court in 2017, and on Thursday Mr Barnett would not answer whether or not the Solicitor General had told him the new law would survive a court challenge.
But on Sunday he said unequivocally the Solicitor General, Michael O'Farrell SC, had advised him the laws were constitutional.
"The government is confident in the constitutionally of the bill," he said.
"Any views to the contrary by the Labor Party are a smokescreen to avoid the importance of this legislation to protect businesses to be safe from infringement on law-abiding workers."
IN OTHER NEWS:
He said the government would "absolutely" defend the bill in court if another challenge is mounted.
The laws in the bill impose 18 months' jail for a first offence, up to 4 years' jail for a second offence, and up to 21 years for the most serious offences.
Offences include impeding business when protesting by: interfering with workers or business vehicles in a public place, obstructing a public thoroughfare, protesting on private land including agriculture and forestry land, or threatening to do any of those things.
The bill - called the Workplaces (Protection from Protesters) Amendment Bill 2019 - passed the House of Assembly on Thursday.
It must still pass the Legislative Council, which doesn't sit until March 2020.
If it passes the Legislative Council, it may still be subject to a court challenge, on the grounds that it does not comply with Australians' constitutional right to political communication, spokesperson for the Australian Lawyers Alliance Greg Barns said.
Mr Barns urged the Legislative Council to reject the bill: "The Legislative Council has shown itself much more concerned with ensuring the rule of law is maintained in Tasmania... this government has a history of using so-called law reform as a political plaything and a political tactic," he said.
He said the public should be sceptical of the legal advice the government was receiving, as it was receiving the same advice when it introduced the first laws which were stuck down.