Crikey readers discuss the government's proposed anti-corruption body and the Ruddock review into religious freedom.
The push for legislative protection of religious freedom could be a way to achieve a bill of rights that Australia so desperately needs.
Our political system is failing to protect our basic rights. A different approach is needed, one that doesn't rely on hacks like Daniel Andrews.
Libertarian and physicist Peter Rohde explains why enshrining a Bill of Rights into Australia's constitution would be a dangerous move, shifting power from elected representatives to an unpredictable and unaccountable judiciary.
Emotional, fear-mongering and ill-informed comments about a human rights charter do not make for robust, reasoned, logical debate, writes Mark Blumer.
Is the government backing away from introducing a bill of rights? In the absence of any serious negatives, we should expect a human rights act within this parliamentary term, writes Susan Ryan, chair of the Australian Human Rights Group.
The human rights ball is now with the government, with the core message of the Brennan Committee's report on human rights indicating that Australians want better human rights protection.
It now seems the Brennan committee report will not recommend an Australian bill of rights. How did such a good idea get bogged down in the fallacy that judges would abuse their power? asks Richard Ackland.
Let's call a spade a spade: the debate over Australia's Bill of Rights is really a debate on how government power should be limited, says Timothy Brown.