However, Agriculture Minister Adam Marshall said the Right to Farm bill's definitions were "very explicit", and would not interfere with lawful peaceful protests.

The laws are yet to pass through the NSW parliament and propose tough new penalties for anyone who enters inclosed lands without permission and hinders a business.

Nature NSW spokesperson Jack Gough said the wording of the bill was either clumsily legislation or a covert attempt to crack down on all forms of protesting.

READ ALSO

"The definition of inclosed land is anything with an identifiable boundary, public or private land, that includes any building or even a state forest with a fence," Mr Gough said.

"The term hinder is also extremely broad.

"The advice we have is that something as simple as a sit in at a government building with a cafe, could hinder customers to that business, and protesters could therefore be charged with the tougher penalties."

Mr Gough said it was only three years ago the government increased the fine for the same offence from $550 to $5500, with the direct aim of stopping coal seam gas protests near Narrabri.

"The new penalties are wildly disproportionate - a $22,000 fine and up to three years in jail," he said.

"If the government's intention is to merely target people breaking in to farms, they've used a bulldozer instead of a scalpel."

Want to have you say? Click here to write a letter to the editor

Mr Marshall said the bill would have no impact on lawful peaceful protests.

"The definitions are very explicit," Mr Marshall said.

"It only pertains to those who are already trespassing, already committing an offence.

"The right to peacefully protest does not extend to trespassing to conduct a protest, that's already illegal."

Mr Marshall said the term hinder was defined in the bill as things such as herding stock, releasing animals and cutting fences.

"If the Knitting Nannas are sitting there knitting quietly, they will not trigger any of the new offences," he said.

Mr Marshall also pointed out the term inclosed land was already defined in the bill, and had been so for more than a century.

"This bill does nothing to change that definition," he said.