This inquiry received 700 submissions. You can read only 150 of them

Legal experts and stakeholders have questioned whether a parliamentary committee on new laws to ban “hateful” slogans will be able to make recommendations that are not immediately subject to a constitutional challenge, after holding no public hearings and keeping hundreds of its received submissions secret.

The committee considering how to implement Premier Chris Minns’ plan to ban a list of phrases, including pro-Palestine chant “globalise the intifada”, has held two meetings since it was referred on December 22. Several sources not authorised to speak publicly confirmed that the committee had not held any meetings since public submissions were received.

The Labor-controlled law and safety committee will next meet on Thursday, when a draft report with recommendations will be deliberated. It is due to present its report to state parliament at the end of this week.

But legal experts, political and religious groups have raised concerns about the short time frame to consider such complex constitutional matters.

The committee was asked to consider how the state government could ban phrases such as “globalise the intifada” without infringing on the implied freedom of political communication. The deadline for written submissions to its inquiry was January 12.

“For such a big issue, it seems extraordinary that there is no public hearing, or even meetings to discuss the submissions,” Nationals MP and committee member Paul Toole said when asked about the committee’s schedule.

The Herald contacted several committee members for comment, including Greens MP Tamara Smith, who declined to comment, and independent Philip Donato, who couldn’t be reached by the time of publication.

Of the 700 submissions received by the committee, just 150 were published on the state parliament website – providing the public’s only insight into which information the committee was considering.

The committee’s deputy chair, Labor MP Hugh McDermott, said the decision to publish only select submissions was consistent with other inquiries, noting some submission authors asked for their views to remain confidential while others raised legal or privilege issues.

“The committee met formally twice, with significant work also occurring between meetings through correspondence and consultation involving the chair, committee members, the Legislative Assembly clerk and the committee secretariat,” he said.

McDermott said the inquiry was “on track to report” by Saturday, allowing its findings to be considered as soon as parliament returns on Tuesday.

“This approach reflects both the seriousness of the issues under consideration and the need to act responsibly and promptly in the interests of community safety,” he said.

Leading constitutional expert Professor Anne Twomey warned in her submission that banning specific political slogans, even those that offend or damage social cohesion, would probably burden the implied freedom of political communication, and would be therefore likely to be struck down in the courts.

“It is unrealistic to expect a parliamentary committee, in such a very short time over the Christmas holiday break, with no oral hearings and presumably few submissions by experts in the field, to come up with the desired constitutionally challenge-proof law,” she said.

Multiple legal groups, including Legal Aid and the Aboriginal Legal Service, also questioned the ability of the inquiry to make useful recommendations given the short time period.

“Over 700 submissions have been received and hundreds have been withheld from publication. The committee simply cannot genuinely consider such a large volume of advice on complex constitutional and criminal law in such a short time frame,” Greens justice spokeswoman Sue Higginson said.

Controversial Islamic group Hizb ut-Tahrir, which Home Affairs Minister Tony Burke has suggested could be designated a hate group if federal reforms pass parliament, was one of the 150 submissions the inquiry chose to make public.

“The NSW government risks inflaming tensions, suppressing freedoms, further dividing the public, and political polarisation by introducing legislation that targets ideology and speech, rather than violent conduct, and linking non-violent political movements and speech to terror incidents,” a lawyer acting on behalf of the group, Zaid Hamdan El Madi, said.

While some Christian and Muslim groups cited freedom of religious speech concerns and cautioned against any bans on political slogans, Jewish groups were broadly supportive of efforts to ban specific phrases, such as “globalise the intifada”.

The Jewish Board of Deputies called for a new offence for using a hateful phrase in public without reasonable excuse, which would make it a crime to join in a slew of chants, including multiple “intifada” chants, “death to the IDF”, “from the river to the sea” and “resistance by any means necessary”.

In the view of the Jewish Board of Deputies, the proposed offence may not be considered unconstitutional as political chants that do not call for violence, such as “sanction Israel”, would still be permitted.

Cut through the noise of federal politics with news and analysis. Subscribers can sign up to our weekly Inside Politics newsletter.