From the ABC

Beazley poised to back anti-terrorism laws
Federal Opposition Leader Kim Beazley says he stands ready to support the Government's counter-terrorism bill, but he wants to see the legislation first.
Divisions have developed within the ALP after Labor's Left faction passed a resolution raising human rights concerns with the bills.
They are concerned about changes to the sedition laws and the retrospectivity of control orders.
Mr Beazley says he wants to ensure there are "proper safeguards" in the legislation.

GusNews: Hey Kim, why don't you trust the most trustworthy PM Orstralya ever never had on these terrorising laws? And lend him your jackhammer while your at it...

Okay STOP PUSSYFOOTING! Reject the new laws. They won't help anybody and won't stop terrorism... What are proper safeguards? The only safeguards are not to have the laws in the first place..

Charles Richardson says it all in today's Crikey .....

Kim Beazley joins the anti-free speech crusade  

Charles Richardson writes:  

The competing priorities of our two major newspaper chains are on display this morning. Both focus on the anti-terrorism legislation, but The Age headlines with "PM faces pressure on terror law," while The Australian has "Beazley's terror law turmoil."  

They're both right, but Kim Beazley's predicament is more embarrassing. Just as the terrorism debate was starting to look messy for the government, he leaps into the breach with a half-baked proposal of his own, dividing his supporters and diverting attention away from Howard's problems.  

Beazley's idea is a national racial and religious vilification law, which, he says, would outlaw "hate books and violent preaching." The details haven't appeared on his website yet, but according to yesterday's Age he called for "tighter national laws that elevate inciting religious violence to a criminal offence."  

Racial and religious vilification laws have traditionally been an ALP project. Although Beazley seemed to recognise that existing laws are objectionable because they "do not protect peaceful religious preaching," he confirmed that Labor, just as much as the government, is fixed on banning words rather than deeds.  

Howard's reaction was spot on: "Last week I thought the problem with these laws was that they trampled on people's rights. Now he's saying they're not tough enough. I'm confused and I think the public is confused." John North, president of the NSW Law Council, added that "we should not be legislating on the run for something as important as freedom of speech."  

Howard was even mischievous enough to say, "You can't graft racial vilification laws into the law relating to sedition," although it appears that is just what his own proposals try to do. According to the Stanhope draft, the proposed section 80.2(5) would make it an offence to "urge a group or groups (whether distinguished by race, religion, nationality or political opinion) to use force or violence against another group or other groups (as so distinguished)."  

But the fact that Howard can make even this implausible claim to be a defender of free speech shows the magnitude of Beazley's ineptitude. Patrick Walters, in this morning's Australian, says that Beazley's plans "risk blunting what should be Labor's clear political message to John Howard." But perhaps more seriously, they raise again the general question of whether anyone cares what Kim Beazley says about anything. (emphasis added)

From the New York Times:

“

From HREOC sees police state under terrorism laws
[...] "The executive power is not in any realistic sense subject to review on the merits," Mr Van Doussa said. He says the Government is seeking to enact extraordinary powers to deprive people of their liberty while asking to be trusted not to abuse that authority. "The difficulty of that approach is as experience has shown not only in places like South Africa but here in Australia is that reality turns out otherwise," he said. "Revelation of the Palmer report demonstrates how abuses of power can occur where there is no acceptable and realistic way that people can question what is happening to them." [...]

In this media release of Oct 27th, Mr Van Doussa wrote:
[...] “As others have pointed out, the issue of the right to a fair hearing is also a concern under the currently proposed bill. If a control order is made against you or a member of your family on the basis of mistaken facts, you should have a proper opportunity to contest this. But you may not be in a position to point out a very obvious mistake (for example - there are two John Smiths in your apartment block and the authorities have grabbed the wrong one) if you do not know the basis for the control order.