Mark Dreyfus has taken a big step in the right direction with federal hate-speech laws that target the most serious threat confronting the Jewish community.

And he has done so while avoiding over-reach and eliminating a get-out-of-jail card for hate preachers that lies at the heart of the Commonwealth Criminal Code.

The changes Dreyfus unveiled on Thursday still need careful scrutiny, but the overall approach marks a turning point for a body of law that has been shown to be useless in the face of surging racial hatred.

This scheme shows the Attorney-General intends to attack the core of the anti-semitic sickness that has taken hold in this country since Hamas attacked Israel on October 7.

Dreyfus has focused on the most serious end of the spectrum of hate speech: language that recklessly incites violence against people because of their race, religion and a range of other factors.

If approved by parliament, these changes will be a direct threat to those who have been inciting violence against Jews from the streets of our cities and, regrettably, from some places of worship.

Until now, these anti-semites have been spewing their bile with impunity because federal laws against inciting violence – like their state counterparts – were not fit for purpose.

Dreyfus has designed a package that gives federal Labor something it desperately needs: tangible evidence that the Albanese government is prepared to change the law to protect Jews from the threat of violence.

And as part of the package, the same protection will be extended to other groups who are targeted for violence because of their gender and similar characteristics.

This package is outlined in the Commonwealth Criminal Code Amendment (Hate Crimes) Bill which Dreyfus expects will be subjected to an inquiry in the senate.

It has been developed in parallel with a similar reform project in NSW that has been overseen by Tom Bathurst, the state’s former Chief Justice, and the NSW Law Reform Commission.

While the Bathurst project has not yet reported, the new federal package is intended to be available to all police – state, territory and federal.

The main changes in the Dreyfus scheme address long-standing weaknesses in key provisions of the Commonwealth Criminal Code: sections 80.2A and 80.2B.

These sections were intended to impose jail terms of seven years on anyone who urges violence against groups and individuals on several grounds including race, religion and nationality.

But I made the point in this newspaper on May 10 that while those provisions might sound robust, the scales of justice had been rigged.

In order to secure convictions, prosecutors faced an impossible battle.

They needed to prove not one but two separate mental elements beyond reasonable doubt – that the accused person intentionally urged another to use violence, and that the accused person intended violence to occur.

The Dreyfus package will simplify that.

Instead of requiring prosecutors to present a court with evidence of what was going on inside the head of some irrational bigot, the new fault element will be lowered to recklessness – which should have been the case in the first place.

This bill means that urging violence against individuals and groups without regard to the consequences will be enough to secure a conviction and serious jail time.

The other important change is the removal of the ridiculous “good faith” defence in section 80.3 of the Commonwealth Criminal Code.

This provision could accurately be described as a free kick for hate preachers with grievances about the Middle East.

It has had the outrageous effect of providing a complete defence for those who incite racial or religious violence against Jews, who intend to do so and who intend for violence to take place.

This should never have been included in the statute book.

It means the Commonwealth Criminal Code gives effect to the ludicrous idea that inciting racial and religious violence is fine if it is done in good faith.

Dreyfus was right when he told parliament: “There are no circumstances in which urging force or violence against a targeted group or its members can be done in good faith.”

The final report from Bathurst’s inquiry in NSW is yet to be unveiled but early signs suggest it might seek even broader changes to the equivalent provisions of the NSW Crimes Act.

One option would be to broaden section 93Z of the Crimes Act so it catches hate speech that currently avoids liability for inciting violence yet still has the same practical effect.

That would not mean criminalising speech at the bottom end of the spectrum that merely offends.

But it might mean expanding the reach of the law at the top end of the spectrum to catch those who do not only incite violence, but who promote, advocate, glorify or even stir up violence based on race, religion and other factors.

The result would be entirely appropriate. NSW, where the wave of anti-semitism began, would have even tougher laws on hate speech than those outlined by Dreyfus.

The reformed federal scheme would become the minimum national standard but the states would be free to impose their own tougher standards depending on the scale of the problem.

These changes need to be made without further delay.

Dreyfus has shown the way forward. His packaged will give police and prosecutiors a law that, unlike its predecessor, is capable of being enforced.

Next month will be a year since an anti-Jewish mob disgraced Australia outside the Opera House on October 9.

Since then, reported incidents of anti-semitism have increased by more than 700 per cent.