Independent Madeleine Ogilvie undecided on protest laws, rejects talk of a deal

UPDATE: Uncertainty remains around the Government’s proposed anti-protest laws as politicians continue to debate the legislation.

UPDATED: DEBATE was continuing late on Wednesday night into the Tasmanian Government’s controversial anti-protest laws.

The Liberal Party has introduced the Workplaces (Protection from Protesters) Amendment Bill 2019 into Parliament in a bid to fix problems with its 2014 attempt — which was ruled invalid by the High Court three years later.

The new laws, announced just two weeks ago, include heavy penalties and jail terms of up to four years for people who interfere with business operations — or even threaten to do so.

A petition of more than 2500 signatures opposing the Bill was tabled in State Parliament yesterday after a rally of hundreds of people on Parliament Lawns on Monday.

Opponents have described the Bill as an unacceptable crackdown on freedom of democratic expression. Debate began early yesterday afternoon and continued late last night. A final vote may not take place until today.

“The Government has now been elected twice with policies designed to further protect the rights of workers and to deal with unlawful interference with workplaces,” said Liberal Minister Guy Barnett.

“This Bill fulfils the Government’s commitment to amend the Act to protect the rights of workers.

“The Bill gives effect to a fundamental principle: that our laws should protect people who are undertaking lawful business activities.

“This means that people should be able to earn a living without trespassers interfering with their work, threats being made in an effort to shut down their businesses, or the roads they use being obstructed in order to stop their business operations.”

An anti-protest laws rally on Parliament Lawns. Picture: NIKKI DAVIS-JONES

But Labor deputy leader Michelle O’Byrne said the law was no improvement on the Government’s previous attempt.

“This Bill undeniably impacts on the rights of workers and the members of our community to have their voice heard,” she said.

“It absolutely infringes the rights to free speech. It does not deal with the concerns raised by the High Court.”

Ms O’Byrne said Mr Barnett wasn’t so troubled about protesters obstructing businesses when he picketed her electorate office over abortion.

“If you had a genuine bone in your body you would withdraw this Bill,” she said.

Key independent Madeleine Ogilvie earlier said she had not decided whether to support the anti-protest legislation, and denied having done a deal to back the Liberal Government.

Ms Ogilvie, the member for Clark, came under fire for supporting a mandatory sentencing Bill which passed the House of Assembly by a single vote on Tuesday night.

She said that despite her support for the Government on that issue, she remained independent and rejected accusations of a deal.

“That’s hilarious. What sort of deal could I do? I think they’re barking up the wrong tree,” she said of claims by the Greens.

EARLIER: KEY independent Madeleine Ogilvie says she has not yet decided whether to support controversial anti-protest legislation and denies having done a deal to back the Liberal Government.

Ms Ogilvie, the member for Clark, came under fire for supporting a mandatory sentencing bill which passed the House of Assembly by a single vote on Tuesday night.

She says that despite her support for the Government on that issue, she remains independent and has rejected accusations of a deal.

Madeleine Ogilvie in Question Time. Picture: RICHARD JUPE

“That’s hilarious. What sort of deal could I do? I think they’re barking up the wrong tree,” she said of claims by the Greens.

Despite “leaning towards” a certain position, she said she had not made up her mind whether to support the anti-protest laws which are due to be debated later today.

A petition of more than 2500 signatures opposing the bill was tabled in state parliament today.

Ms Ogilvie said she would listen to the debate before deciding how to cast her vote.

“I think I have a duty and responsibility to all of the voters of Tasmania — because it is a parliament for all of Tasmania,” Ms Ogilvie said.

“The decision making process or the hierarchy goes something like: being a parliamentarian for all Tasmanians, then what is good for my electorate and then what my personal views may be.

“I will apply this framework to each of these scenarios going forward.

“I know we have a hot potato bill today. And I will try and do the same thing in applying that framework of thinking.”

PROTESTERS CONDEMN PROPOSED ANTI-PROTEST LAWS

Ms Ogilvie said her arrival as an independent had changed the makeup of parliament.

Where previously opposition parties could defeat the Government with the support of Speaker Sue Hickey, that was no longer necessarily case.

“Having the casting vote, it’s not necessarily something that you’d always want, it’s not something you ask for but these things happen and that really was the first time,” she said.

“It’s a new environment, it’s new context for people and as I said in my contribution, we’re going to have to get used to it.”