Anti-protest laws
1. The 2014 Tasmanian anti-protest legislation allowed for on-the-spot fines, bans and even jail time for offenders. It prohibited all protests that limited access to business premises or disrupted the conduct of business, singling out industries including forestry, agriculture and mining.
2. Mr Brown launched a High Court challenge on the basis of the implied freedom of political speech in the Australian Constitution, saying that, “I know that a challenge in the High Court can be a very expensive thing but I also know that a lot of people are worried about this legislation and the spread of it in other states.”
3. The NSW Government joined the action on the side of Tasmania, as an ‘intervener’; they joined Victoria, which had already intervened. In October 2016, NSW had introduced its own new anti-protest and pro-mining laws, making it an offence to “interfere” with “mining and other businesses or undertakings,” and Victoria had already passed strict anti-protest legislation. Both states are concerned that a win by Brown and Hoyt will put their own laws in jeopardy.
4. Brown’s challenge was successful, with the High Court finding that the Tasmanian laws were ‘unbalancedand unreasonable’ with respect to the freedom of political communication. However, the Court did not invalidate the power of parliaments to target protesterswho interfered with legitimate business operations in general. The Tasmanian Government draftednew laws that took into account the reasons of the Court. The Workplaces (Protection fromProtestors) Amendment Bill 2019 passed the lower housein November 2019.