The government foreshadowed a reduction of proposed penalities under its anti-protest bill as debate started in the Legislative Council on Wednesday.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
In opening the debate, Leader of Government Business in the Legislative Council, Leonie Hiscutt, said the bill followed moves in other states to more effectively protect workers from invasion of workplaces by protesters.
She said Resources Minister Guy Barnett had written to members to propose amendments to the bill to placate concerns over the sharp proposed rise in penalties for a committing a public annoyance and clarify protections around unionised industrial action.
Labor's workplace spokeswoman Sarah Lovell said she held significant concerns about parts of the bill, some of which could be dealt with through amendments and some which should be struck out completely.
She said she was opposed to the bill's public annoyance clause, even if it was to be amended.
"This is a sanitising of protest," Ms Lovell said.
"What they are really saying is that we support your right to protest, but only on our terms - only if it doesn't get in the way.
"How many protests have achieved social change by being careful not to get in the way?"
Murchison independent MLC Ruth Forrest noted Unions Tasmania's opposition towards the government's bill.
"If you are not going to protect the workers the unions represent to attend to their workplace safely with laws such as this then how do you do it?" she said.
Ms Forrest also said she was concerned with the public annoyance clause in the bill.
"I do recognise there needs to be some mechanism that can deal with people deliberately, willfully obstructing a worksite entrance that is not the door of the business effectively," she said.
Earlier in the day, Australian Lawyers Alliance spokesman Fabiano Cangelosi said there were ample existing powers under the Police Offences Act to deal with trespass as well as obstruction of streets and public places.
He said the bill reversed the onus of proof and forced the defendant to prove they had a reasonable excuse for entering land or a premises.
"Although better drafted than previous attempts at this legislation, the Bill will lead to injustice and to extended hearings because of the vagueness of definitions," Mr Cangelosi said.
Our journalists work hard to provide local, up-to-date news to the community. This is how you can continue to access our trusted content:
- Bookmark www.examiner.com.au
- Make sure you are signed up for our breaking and regular headlines newsletters
- Follow us on Twitter: @examineronline
- Follow us on Instagram: @examineronline
- Follow us on Google News: The Examiner