Anti-protest laws spark debate

QUESTIONS around whether tourism operations will be included in the list of protected workplaces under the state government’s latest iteration of anti-protest legislation have gone unanswered, as it has a third go at introducing the controversial laws.

During budget estimates hearings on Thursday, Resources Minister Guy Barnett was questioned about a 2019 letter from then Department of Primary Industries secretary John Whittington to Kathrine Morgan-Wicks, who was the secretary of the Department of Justice at the time.

In the letter, Mr Whittington

asked for clarification around powers to “manage protesters on land associated with leases and licenses”, including Wellington Park, during construction and operation.

He also asked how “nuisance activities” on land to nearby business premises could be managed to ensure tourism operators weren’t disturbed.

“I also recommend that the ‘tourism’ industry be included in the definition of ‘business premises’ in part 5 of the current Act. This would have the effect of protecting the interests of this industry on reserved land, as well as at other locations across the state,” Mr Whittington said in the letter.

Mr Barnett was asked by

Greens leader O’Connor to clarify whether the latest Bill intended to include tourism businesses, with concerns it could affect cable car protesters down the line. “Is it your intent to have legislation in place that would protect workers from the Mount Wellington Cableway Company should they be building it?” she said.

“Can you confirm for example if a group of anglers or bushwalkers who protested at Lake Malbena, that this antiprotest law would capture those protesters?”

Mr Barnett did not specify whether tourism businesses would be included but said its proposed laws supported freedom of speech.