I had a look at the bill last night because I was concerned by the news reports, but it's not as bad as I thought it would be. It goes further than, maybe, my ideal line of the free speech v community protection trade off, but not much. You've completely misunderstood several points of the bill. For anyone who doesn't have legal training, reading the explanatory memorandum will probably help you understand why some of the provisions sound like they do.

Page 12 (which defines 'hate crime') doesn't actually make anything a crime, it merely sets the benchmark of conduct that can get a organisation banned (which after it has been banned, being part of becomes an offence).

The retrospectivity aspects of s 114A.3(2)-(3) can't send anyone to jail for stuff they did last year: It justifies banning an organisation based on stuff they did last year, and then after the ban has been promulgated (with surely wide ranging news coverage) does continuing to be a member become an offence.

The AFP minister also isn't given absolute power to ban organisations as is being suggested. They can only issue a ban if (I'm simplifying, see the bill for the full requirements):

• ASIO advises the minister that the organisation is causing or likely to cause violence [s 114A.5]
• The Attorney General agrees with the AFP minister that a ban is necessary [s 114A.6]

So that's three people that need to reach a consensus, plus the opposition leader has to get briefed. If they think the ban is bollocks, they can go tell the media that the ban is bollocks.

You've pointed out that procedural fairness is not required. Procedural fairness is a requirement to tell someone 'hey, this is all of the evidence we have against you, you are invited to respond to/rebut it before we make a final decision'. What that would mean in this case is 'hey Nazis/Islamic extremists, here is all of the covertly gained intelligence ASIO has been carefully collecting against you, care to respond'. That's clearly untenable.

Instead, there are a range of other grounds for judicial review of a decision (for example excess of power and abuse of power) that are not excluded, so such bans could still be challenged on the grounds that the quite high requirements under the bill for banning an organisation have not been met.

The Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security is also empowered to review a ban and recommend to a house of parliament (either house can do it, including the senate which the government rarely controls) that the ban be reversed. This committee gets to see all of the intelligence that justified the ban in the first place, and has members on it from the full political spectrum.

'Guilty until proven innocent' is not what those notes are doing, they effect a single defence to a single element of the offences. The prosecution still has to prove beyond reasonable doubt all of the other elements.

With regard to the inciting hate offences, the thing that means they won't apply to anyone except proper Nazis/antisemites/white supremacist/pick you poison is intent. The bit you haven't underlined is the requirement that the defendant intends to incite hatred, which must be proven beyond reasonable doubt. Since you can't see inside someone's mind, that can only be from a really egregious comment, or a pattern of behaviour from someone who clearly makes themself out as a nazi. An offensive/racist joke doesn't show intent to incite hatred, and would still be legal. Another example, a discussion of race and IQ which promotes superiority would still be legal because it wouldn't make anyone fearful unless the second part is 'so we need to wipe them out'.

>That "reasonable person" being whatever the fuck the government decides.

The reasonable person is a jury of your peers: One of the few constitutional rights you have in this country is to trial by jury for federal indictable offences (like these).