KIM Beazley faces an internal Labor Party revolt on two fronts today over failing to argue against "draconian" anti-terrorism legislation and unveiling his own proposal to ban books that promote hate and violence.
A meeting of the ALP's national Left faction passed a motion yesterday warning state premiers and Mr Beazley that proposed anti-terrorism laws could breach the ALP's platform.
The meeting, attended by numerous state and federal MPs, including Julia Gillard, Kim Carr and deputy leader Jenny Macklin, demanded that "all ALP state premiers, chief ministers and members of the federal parliamentary Labor Party act consistently with the ALP's platform and Australia's international law obligations".
Senior ALP figures were also exasperated by Mr Beazley's decision to announce his own vilification laws yesterday, saying he was "mangling the message".
The proposal to link the terrorism laws with his separate reforms to ban racial and religious vilification also angered colleagues because the confusing laws had not been discussed with the front bench.
"Getting up and suggesting the Jewish community of Australia should be wiped off the face of the earth would be illegal, absolutely," Mr Beazley said in Canberra yesterday. "There would be appropriate fines and, if severe enough, appropriate incarceration."
As revealed by The Weekend Australian on Saturday, John Howard had agreed to a compromise with the states to ensure greater judicial review of terror suspects held without charge, to allow prisoners to seek legal remedy including compensation and a five-year review of the legislation.
The Prime Minister is waiting on a response from the all-Labor premiers today before introducing the counter-terrorism laws into the parliament by the end of the week.
However, Mr Beazley had called for a watering down of the terror legislation to ensure greater judicial review of the proposed control and detention orders, although he now supports new penalties - including jail - for "hate books and violent preaching".
"The thing I have in mind is the sort of things that appear in the hate books, that it is a good thing to kill Jews or Christians or Muslims," Mr Beazley said.
Mr Howard quickly dismissed the plans as "confusing".
"You can't graft racial vilification laws into the law relating to sedition," Mr Howard said on the Nine Network's Sunday program.
"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."
NSW Law Council president John North, a critic of the Howard Government's anti-terrorism laws, said Mr Beazley's proposal was "ridiculous".
"There are existing vilification laws and we should not be legislating on the run for something as important as freedom of speech in this country," he said.
"You can't ban the books; we can't go there. Mr Beazley must know he is opening a can of worms if he wants to start banning books with suspect ideology."
NSW Labor MP Daryl Melham said he remained concerned that people could be held under the new control orders on the grounds that they trained with a terrorist organisation even though it may not have been officially listed or regarded as such at the time.
"What we are having here is the states sanctioning their agencies to terrorise their citizens," he said.
"I just think it's unacceptable. We didn't outlaw some of these (organisations) until recent years. This is a terrorising of people who engaged in behaviour that was not illegal at the time in Australia."
Prominent Labor frontbencher Peter Garrett also raised concerns that the "dog's breakfast" of laws could be used to target writers and artists.
"Our bedrock rights to free speech, to due process under law, to confidence that the separation of the judiciary from the executive will stand against the arbitrary exercise of power are all in danger of being swept away by this Government," he said.
However, Victorian Labor MP Michael Danby said support for tougher terror laws was widespread in the community, including in his own inner-city electorate. "Melbourne Ports has lost three people to suicide bombers," he said.
"Even in small-l liberal, inner-city Melbourne, people want to be secure from terrorism. But the federal opposition and the Labor premiers will only agree if there are appropriate safeguards on police use of lethal force and control orders."
Opposition homeland security spokesman Arch Bevis said that the ALP had already agreed to a statement of principles that would include strong legal safeguards.
"There has to be a genuine judicial review, not rubber stamping by courts," he said.
"It's the prospect that Martin Luther King and Mahatma Gandhi could be found guilty of sedition under these laws."
Tasmanian Labor MP Duncan Kerr said he had sent a submission to all state attorneys-general and senior Labor frontbenchers over his concerns.
Mr Howard said he wasn't wedded to introducing the bill on Melbourne Cup day, but he did want to get the bill through parliament before the end of year and certainly effective by the March Games in Melbourne.
He was backed by NSW Attorney-General Bob Debus, who said the laws should be in place for the Games, but not so quickly as to get it wrong.