Hodgman accused of backflip after changing anti-protest laws
The Tasmanian Government has been accused of an embarrassing backdown after softening its anti-protest bill with a raft of amendments.
The Government was making changes to its bill that it said would remove ambiguities and unintended consequences.
The legislation, which imposed mandatory fines and jail terms for people who repeatedly trespassed on workplaces, was before the Upper House.
Resources Minister Paul Harriss said the Government would move amendments to protect the rights of people who were involved in "regular" protests.
But he said the amendments did not amount to a backflip.
"These amendments will ensure that the bill continues to reflect the policy the Liberal Party took to the election, and for which a clear majority of Tasmanians voted in favour of, while addressing community concerns about unintended consequences," he said.
The proposed laws were criticised by Tasmania's opposition parties, civil liberties advocates, environmental activists, lawyers and unions.
Premier Will Hodgman said the amendments proved that the Government was listening.
"We are very keen to ensure that the intent of the legislation is preserved but if there are ambiguities if there are unintended consequences then it's appropriate for us to work through those," he said.
Resources Minister should resign: Opposition
Tasmanian Opposition leader Bryan Green said Mr Harriss should resign over proposed changes, which he described as a backdown.
"Under the circumstances, he ought to resign," he declared.
"This is two bills that he's put through now that have been flawed: The forestry bill was unrecognisable when it came back; and now we've got a situation where his own incompetence means that he's got to amend his own bill."
Ben Bartl from Community Legal Centres Tasmania welcomed the move but said the changes did not go far enough.
"It's fantastic that the Government has been prepared to look at this bill; unfortunately the time and place to discuss the bill was prior to it being introduced," he said
Peg Putt from environmental activist group Markets for Change said the Government should start again.
"They simply should withdraw the bill now they've made it clear they understand that it is not feasible or acceptable in its current form," she said.
Mr Hodgman said the intent of the bill to protect for workers from workplace invasions was maintained despite the changes.
"If we make a judgement or an assessment that we can do more to remove any perceived any perceived ambiguities or to remove any unintended consequences, then that's a positive thing," he said.
