After ushering a Workplace Protection Bill through the Lower House, Labor will seek the support of the Legislative Council for amendments after the bill included provisions to make "public annoyance" an offence.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
The bill was passed by the Lower House on Wednesday, with bipartisan support, in a move that was described as a "shameless betrayal" of democracy by protesters.
However, the bill was hailed by the mining sector, that said they would finally have legislation that would support the workers from harm as they go about their business of work.
Labor Workplace Relations spokeswoman Sarah Lovell on Thursday said the party would seek to amend the bill to remove public annoyance provisions and include protection for workers engaged in industrial action, disputes or campaigns.
"Disgracefully, last night, the government again used its numbers to unnecessarily guillotine the debate on this significant issue," Ms Lovell said.
"Labor will continue to pursue its amendments in the Legislative Council where the Rockliff-Ferguson Government can't shut down debate."
However, Minister Guy Barnett said the government did not seek to make protesting a criminal offence, and respected Tasmanians' right to protest.
READ MORE: Tasmanian budget to tackle housing crisis
Rather, the bill was created in response to protesting that would do physical or emotional harm to a worker.
"We have listened to the needs of business and we have seen the impact of unlawful protests on businesses and their employees. It costs money, it creates risk, and it can cause stress for the workers. In some cases there is potential for physical harm, Mr Barnett said.
The bill made it an offence to hinder or obstruct the carrying out of a business activity on a business premises or business access area. It gave broad powers to police to ask a protester to leave the area and imposed large fines for not doing so.
It also extends the offence of public annoyance to include unreasonably obstructing the use of a street, with increased penalties. It also creates three types of aggravated trespass: trespass which obstructs a business activity; trespass which risks the safety of a person; and trespass which obstructs a business activity by a corporate body.
Tasmanian Minerals, Manufacturing and Energy Council chair Ray Mostogl.
IMAGE
Tasmanian Minerals, Manufacturing and Energy Council chair Ray Mostogl said the amendment to the bill would "bring balance to the frontiers of change in Tasmania".
"The balance permitted by the amendment will provide a respectful and safer environment for our hard-working Tasmanian resource workers going about their lawful work and the groups of people who want to have their perspectives considered as part of the overall socialisation of developments occurring in Tasmania," he said.
Mr Mostogl said the amendment would not cause protesters to be neutralised and anybody concerned free speech has been lost underestimate the many channels of communication which exist in the twenty first century.
However, that sentiment was not shared by the Bob Brown Foundation.
"What a dark day for democracy. In what could have been a day for progressive Tasmanian parliament after Premier Rockliff announced increasing parliament members to 35. However, it's been overtaken Premier Rockliff legislating draconian anti-protest laws - unamended - through House of Assembly," Bob Brown Foundation spokesperson Jenny Weber said.
"We shall continue to protest for planet Earth. From Australia's largest temperate rainforests threatened by mining, logging and a heavy metals tailings waste dump to Tasmania's stunning coastlines and oceans being polluted by the toxic salmon industry. To the climate heroes, the native forests that are critical carbon storehouses and home to critically endangered wildlife," Jenny Weber said.
"This legislation was for nature's destroyers, not the citizens who stand up to defend it with a proud history of non-violence and peace."
The bill will need to pass the Legislative Council to make it into law, and it appears it will now need the support of Independents to ensure that it passes in its entirety.
What do you think? Send us a letter to the editor: