Bob Brown
Tasmania’s forestry industry fears a “bizarre” High Court decision has opened a “Pandora’s box of militant protests” and is urging the state government to draft new laws urgently. Source: The Australian
Forest Industries Association of Tasmania chairman and major sawmiller Glenn Britton says this week’s court ruling quashing his state’s laws restricting anti-logging protests will make demonstrators “a law unto themselves”.
Mr Britton called on the state government yesterday to redraft the controversial laws to comply with the court’s ruling while avoiding giving a green light to protests.
“The state government has to revisit the situation,” he said. “This situation is not going to go away so it’s a matter of what can be achieved by tweaking some of these laws to make some of it enforceable.
“It opens up a Pandora’s box for militant protesters to take the law into their own hands, albeit in this instance with the support of the High Court.”
Brought by former Greens leader Bob Brown, who was arrested under the laws in a forest in the state’s northwest in January last year, the case may have national implications for state laws against forestry and mining protests, such as those flagged against the Adani coalmine in Queensland.
Mr Britton said the majority decision — ruling that elements of the law restricting protests at worksites and work access areas were unconstitutional as they infringed on the Constitution’s implied right to free political communication — was “disappointing” and “a bit bizarre”.
“It appears to me that so called freedom of speech allows someone like Brown and co to stop legitimate harvesting in what is a legally gazetted permanent timber production zone, and put livelihoods at risk,” he said.
Environmentalists and human rights advocates have hailed the ruling as a win for political freedoms.
The Hodgman Liberal government is awaiting detailed legal advice but has hinted it may redraft the laws to ensure forestry operations are not disrupted by protests.
Constitutional experts think redrafting could overcome the court’s concerns about the vague and overly broad nature of the state legislation, passed in 2014.
University of Melbourne professor of constitutional law Adrienne Stone said the decision did not mark a radical shift in the court’s approach to the implied freedom of political communication.
She said a law aimed at keeping protesters away from business premises was likely to be valid if properly drafted. The Tasmanian legislation, however, was “unclear” in the way it applied to forestry land.
The court had made it clear it would take a close look at the detail of any other legislation seeking to limit public protests.
