In the coming months, Australia will have a polarising debate on the federal government's decision to amend section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act, one that will test the government's working relationship with indigenous people and other minority groups.

The government believes the law goes too far in limiting free expression. Its decision was triggered by the censure of Andrew Bolt for articles suggesting ''fair-skinned'' people of mixed indigenous and non-indigenous descent could not genuinely identify as indigenous, should not take part in indigenous arts and cultural awards and chose to identify as indigenous for personal gain. Bolt described these individuals as ''the white face of a new black race - the political Aborigine''.

"Indigenous people are also from tribal nations, with membership based on kinship and descent"...Not merely a "black race". Credit:Andrew Meares

All political traditions limit free speech; conservatives support censorship on moral and national security grounds, for example. The government's job is to balance individual freedoms with legitimate restrictions to protect people from harm. Balance is achieved through consistent, principled reasoning, not reacting to single events. I'm concerned this is not happening here and I question whether the government would take similar action over other groups.

Take, for example, British National Party chairman Nick Griffin's statements that black people cannot be British. Griffin believes British people of African or Asian descent are ''racial foreigners''; that British-born people of Pakistani descent are not British but remain of ''Pakistani stock''. Griffin has been convicted of inciting racial hatred. In 1998, the Howard government denied him entry to Australia.