My question is to the Attorney-General, Senator Brandis. I refer to the Attorney-General's decision to weaken the Racial Discrimination Act. Can the Attorney-General confirm that representatives of the Institute of Public Affairs provided a briefing to coalition members prior to the Attorney-General's announcement yesterday? And can the Attorney-General also confirm that the IPA gave the government's draft legislation a glowing review, while the Prime Minister is yet to name a single ethnic or community organisation which supports it?

Thank you very much, Senator Singh, for your question. Might I remind you, Senator Singh, that there is a fundamental difference between those on your side of the chamber and those on my side of the chamber.

Come in spinner! And those on my—

Honourable senators interjecting—

When there is silence, I will call Senator Brandis. I need to hear Senator Brandis's answer.

Thank you, Mr President. There is a fundamental difference in approach between those on your side of the chamber, Senator Singh, and those on my side of the chamber when it comes to this issue, because, Senator Singh, you are the party of political censorship and we are the party of tolerance. We are the party of tolerance.

Opposition senators interjecting—

When there is silence on my left, we will proceed.

And might I say, Mr President, something that those on Senator Singh's side of the chamber never seem to be able to grasp: if you are the party of tolerance, if you believe in tolerance, you have to tolerate listening to the views of those whose views you may find offensive or disgusting, but you do not politically censor them. Now, Senator—

Honourable senators interjecting—

Order on both sides! When there is silence on both sides, I will call Senator Brandis. He is entitled to be heard in silence from both sides.

I come now to Senator Singh's more immediate question about the Institute of Public Affairs. I can tell you, Senator Singh, that I had a cup of tea with the Chairman of the Institute of Public Affairs, the very distinguished emeritus senator Rod Kemp, in my chambers only an hour ago. I am pleased to tell you that Senator Kemp is in very good form.

Honourable senators interjecting—

Order! Senator Brandis, just resume your seat. Those interjections are completely disorderly. On my left, when there is silence, we will proceed.

Those who remember him fondly, as I know Senator Conroy does, will be pleased to know that Senator Kemp is in rude good health. But I can also tell you—

Order! Senator Brandis, resume your seat, as Senator Moore has risen to her feet.

Mr President, I rise on a point of order on relevance. I am really pleased to hear that Senator Kemp is in good health, but, in terms of process, the question is about a briefing to the coalition members from the IPA and issues of response. We have not got to that question yet.

I believe that the minister needs to come back to the question and address it. The minister still has 15 seconds remaining.

I am aware that officers of the IPA did have a briefing with the government backbench committee on Monday evening. I did not attend that briefing. In fact, I had no meetings with the IPA prior to Tuesday when the matter went to the cabinet— (Time expired)

Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. I refer to the Attorney-General's proposed get-out clause for his new racial vilification and intimidation provisions. Is Chris Berg from the Institute of Public Affairs correct when he says:

The new exemption makes clear the fundamental importance of free discussion on any matter of public interest, no matter how extreme that discussion is.

I have not actually read Mr Berg's remarks, but I do know Mr Berg. I know him to be a person—like those of us on this side of the chamber—who understands that, in a free country, the way to deal with social problems is not through political censorship. Senator Singh, I accept your good faith on this issue. I understand that you are as profoundly committed to opposing racism as every other member of this chamber. But the best way to deal with a social problem is to focus on the core vice—that is, racial vilification—which our amendments do, for the first time, and not try to deal with it through political censorship, which is the way section 18C has operated hitherto.

Mr President, I ask a further supplementary question. Why is the Attorney-General taking advice from conservative think tanks instead of listening to more than 150 ethnic and community organisations who all oppose the repeal of section 18C? Is it because he would rather be the first law officer for vested interests instead of the first law officer for Australia?

Order! When there is silence on my left we will proceed.

Senator Singh, you can do better than that—you really can do better than that. In fact, as I said in answer to the primary—

Senator Fifield interjecting—

Yes, she can, Senator Fifield. Don't be so unkind! You are being unchivalrous. As I said in my answer to the primary question, in fact I had no meetings with anyone from the IPA or, for that matter, with representatives of any conservative think tank from the start of the consultation process, shortly after the federal election, until I took a submission to cabinet on Monday evening. I did, however, have numerous meetings with a variety of representatives from different ethnic community groups who have been good enough to acknowledge the exhaustiveness of the process of consultation which I undertook. That process of consultation continues, with the publication of an exposure draft to which all members of the community—including you, Senator Singh—are welcome to contribute. (Time expired)