There are three things which have been dominating the Australian news in the last weeks and months, and these things all have the same underlying theme. At the centre of these issues is a questioning of what we, both as individuals and a society, consider fundamental rights. Now, we here in Australia do not currently have a "Bill of Rights", and so, aside from any international law protections, have no constitutional protection on issues such as privacy. This means that, by and large, we are at the mercy of the incumbant government of the time.

The first of the three issues is, as with most of the rest of the world, terrorism. More specifically, how to combat terrorism and prevent terrorist attacks. I have mentioned recent events previously here and here. The proposed new counter-terrorism laws currently being debated in the Senate very clearly attack several fundamental principles - both habeas corpus (the right against wrongful imprisonment and to face your accusers in a court of law) and "innocent until proven guilty" are threatened via the proposal for control orders (pre-emptive detention); the right to free association is threatened as it becomes a crime to associate with suspected "terrorists", or to be a member of a "terrorist group" as defined by the government; and finally the right to free speech is threatened through the re-introduction of archaic sedition laws. This, as well as some questionable issues regarding right to privacy, and a definite risk of these laws being selectively enforced with racial and religious profiling (particularly of middle eastern and muslim individuals).

As I mentioned previously, the successful raid of suspected "terrorists" recently in Sydney and Melbourne, coupled with existing laws which already make it a crime to incite violence or terrorism, and that is is a crime to have build or attempt to make a bomb, only serve to make it clear to me that our police already have sufficient laws in place to assist with countering terrorism. Let us not forget that in reality it is almost impossible to prevent an act of terrorism, just as it is almost impossible to prevent any other act of murder or violence, without a great deal of luck - community support (tips), and of course, having enough police working where it matters.

The second issue dominating the news is the proposed Industrial Relations laws - which remove almost all the workers rights which have been established over the course of the last hundred years. These proposed laws make us question how we fundamentally feel about the balance between work and private life. It also brings to light the battle between corporations and individuals - and where the power should lie. The scariest (in my opinion) rights being removed in these proposed laws are the ability for a corporation to be forced to collectively bargin with it's employees (even if the majority of employees want this), effectively removing any power of unions. Now, I'm not necessarily a huge fan of unions, and have not been a member for a long time, but I do recognise their importance in many industries. This, along with the removal of the Industrial Relations Commission to determine minimum wages, and the removal of unfair dismissal laws for a large portion of the working population will leave powerless the most vunerable members of our workforce - the young, the near-retirement, and the uneducated, who will have very little ability to effectively negotiate with their employers to protect their rights.

The third isssue is the impending execution of Nguyen Tuong Van in Singapore. State-sanctioned murder (capital punishment) has been outlawed in Australia for decades, but we are suddenly thrust back into the capital punishment debate because Nguyen (an Australian citizen) is scheduled to be executed this coming Friday. Yes, Nguyen committed a terrible crime (drug trafficking), but to me (and to many people), murder is never a justifiable action. Imprisonment at least allows for the possibility of redemption (if not rehabilitation). The concept that a life is sacrosanct in every major religion, as well as in most countries.

Interesting to me is that across all three debates the Australian Government is working against the will of the Australian people in each and every case. Although the majority of people want strict terrorist laws, most do not want to get rid of the basic rights outlined above, and feel there must be a balance between preventing crime and preserving civil liberties. An overwhelming number of Australians (as seen in many polls) are against the proposed IR reforms - except of course, for business and corporation leaders. Finally, the public has been tireless in it's demands that the Australian Government do more to try to prevent the execution of Nguyen Tuong Van.

We can only hope that eventually the government will realise the will of the people, listen and act.