Successful referendums depend on trust in the government putting the proposal. But Australia's indigenous communities would be forgiven for doubting the government's commitment to constitutional change as a meaningful act of reconciliation when Brandis appears so dismissive about the role of law to prohibit divisive racist speech.

It is unclear just how the huge task of a referendum is assisted by Brandis, who will be at the centre of the case for constitutional change to acknowledge our first peoples. He will effectively be telling Peris, one of the few indigenous Australians ever to sit in the national Parliament, that his government is standing up for the right of bigots.

Let's start with the government's broader agenda. The Abbott government is committed to putting up a proposal in this term for the recognition of indigenous Australians in the constitution. The Prime Minister has signalled that this is a project to which he has a strong personal commitment.

Brandis' defence of free speech to the extent of bigotry was deeply problematic - both in the specific context of the purpose of 18C and the bigger picture of the government's position on race and free speech generally.

Likewise, the government appears conflicted over the importance it places on free speech generally. Brandis has repeatedly justified his plans to remove the protections of the Racial Discrimination Act by insisting that "our freedom and our democracy fundamentally depend upon the right to free speech". But how is the community to square the forcefulness with which he makes this claim with the substantial restrictions the government has placed on efforts by the media and public to access information about asylum seeker arrivals and conditions on Manus Island?

On section 18C, it is very clear that the government is making a choice as to whose rights it gives priority. Brandis presents his case as one of inviolable principle, yet we need only reflect on the circumstances of the notorious Bolt case to appreciate why free speech might justifiably be ceded to other interests. The reality is that some voices are louder than others in our democracy. Andrew Bolt communicates his views through a range of media platforms. The people about whom he made remarks and who brought their action under 18C have no equivalent capacity to respond. Indeed, until the outcome of their case, had the community heard the other side to what Bolt had written?

The Attorney-General's defence of the rights of bigots presumes that those who are targeted by their comments are just as capable of marshalling the media to defeat that bigotry. This imagined level playing field underpinned his full response to Peris. But that is obviously not always, or even often, going to be the case.

Law is an instrument through which a community's values and rights may be given effect. In Monday's debate, Brandis came down firmly on the side of those who would give voice to racially motivated insult and offence, over those who are targeted by such comments. In so doing, the Attorney-General presented his government as having a character that we might suspect caused some real discomfort in its ranks - and also, at the top.

The government may be hoping that the swiftly released proposals for amending the act will ameliorate this. Section 18C is to go but its protection of groups from intimidation is preserved. Additionally, a new offence of racial vilification, meaning the ''incitement of hatred against a person or a group of persons'' is to be created.