Australia’s Parliament has recently passed the toughest federal hate speech laws in the nation’s history.

At the heart of the legislation is a provision to criminalise the promotion or incitement of racial hatred.

The laws give powers to the federal government to list so-called hate groups, more easily deport or cancel the visas of individuals associated with hate groups, increase penalties for hate crime offences, and create new aggravated penalties for hate preachers and leaders who advocate violence.

Hate groups are defined in the legislation as organisations that publicly incite hatred or communal violence against a person or group due to their race or national or ethnic origin.

To be designated as such, the Minister for Home Affairs must be satisfied that the group has engaged in, prepared, planned or assisted in a hate crime, which is now defined as conduct that would “cause a reasonable person … to be intimidated, to fear harassment or violence, or fear for their safety”.

But the minister cannot act without advice from the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation (ASIO) director-general.

Before recommending a group be listed, ASIO must be satisfied that the group has engaged in activities that would likely increase the risk of politically motivated or communal violence or advocated for such violence, including in the future.

The government has said the changes are primarily intended to capture groups like Neo-Nazi-aligned National Socialist Network and radical Islamist group Hizb ut-Tahrir, whose actions have so far fallen below the legal threshold of criminal conduct.

The Greens, who voted against the legislation in the Senate, described these changes as a “chilling” attack on political debate, protest and civil rights.

They say that people calling out Israel’s actions in Gaza could be caught up in the legislation.

Foreign Minister Penny Wong has said the legislation was “very clear about trying to crack down on those who are seeking to incite criminal behaviour motivated by hatred”.

“It is not legislation which is designed to prevent differences of views and freedom of speech,” she said.

But critics protest organisations could be captured under the laws if ASIO deems they meet the criteria of “inciting hatred” or causing a reasonable person to be intimidated.

Constitutional expert Prof Anne Twomey said ambiguity about the laws, including over the conduct that would be covered, risked having a chilling effect on free speech.

Another criticism of the laws is that the director-general of ASIO and the home affairs minister will not need to observe procedural fairness in either providing advice or listing a hate group, which means groups will not have the right to dispute allegations against them before they are listed as a hate group.

Yet another key change in the legislation is the introduction of a new aggravated offence for adults who seek to radicalise children.