Human rights, death sentencing, freedom of the press - it's all linked.

I am unequivocally opposed to capital punishment. I don't care what the crime is or what the situation is. State sanctioned murder diminishes the humanity of us all.

The two Australian men currently on death row in Indonesia, part of the so-called Bali Nine, will apparently be murdered before the end of the month. The state will take a series of steps which amount to premeditation and will result in Andrew Chan and Myuran Sukumaran being shot by a firing squad.

I also believe that crime is bad and criminals should be punished. They should also be rehabilitated. In the event that their sentence will see them re-entering society, I want them to have the best chance to have options other than crime for their survival outside prison.

I want to be assured that inmates are treated as human beings while they are imprisoned. Poor treatment, institutionalisation and dehumanisation does not help criminals develop empathy for their victims or reduce the risk of recidivism.

This is my moral philosophy and I'm happy to declare it.

Last night's episode of 4 Corners took us inside the campaign to save the lives of Andrew Chan and Myuran Sukumaran. It struck me that these two men are getting on with their lives and are valuable members of their community within the prison. It's clear that they view their own actions of almost ten years ago as wrong and mistaken and that they are reformed. Their families and wider community outside prison have rallied around and would hold them accountable for future behaviour.

We saw inside Kerobokan Prison last night. We heard that even the head of the prison had pleaded for mercy on behalf of the two men. They're not asking to be released, just to be allowed to live.

I started to think about the Australian Government's representations and what support they may be offering to these men and their families. I wondered about the credibility of a Government arguing against the death penalty when they are running concentration camps, where they incarcerate innocent asylum seekers indefinitely.

Then it struck me that we have seen more of the "notorious" Kerobokan Prison than we have of our own immigration detention centres on Manus Island and Nauru. As critical as we can be of a country that carries out the death penalty, Indonesia seems to at least be committed to the concept of freedom of speech and the role of the media as the fourth estate.

I don't understand how the Abbott Government seems to have no central moral philosophy. On one hand they can advocate for a free press in the case of the unjust imprisonment in Egypt of journalist Peter Greste. At the same time, they can be denying the media access to immigration detention centres. UN investigators aren't likely to gain access either. This is all happening against a backdrop of the royal commission investigating institutional abuse where the themes of transparency and independent advocacy to ensure accountability are being shouted daily. They can plead for mercy from the imposition of the death penalty, yet can rob all hope from asylum seekers and leave them in ignorant despair. The stealing of hope is also a kind of death sentence.

It's all so complicated, yet it's also really clear. We either advocate for human rights and all the mechanisms that ensure they are upheld, or we don't. It's not something we can pick and choose about.

I really hope that Andrew Chan and Myuran Sukamaran are spared. They seem like they have turned into excellent young men and learned from the stupid, serious mistakes of youth.

#IStandForMercy

What do you think?

Union corruption inquiry - what's it really for?

Prime Minister Tony Abbott's announcement of a Royal Commission to investigate corruption in the union movement is hardly surprising. He can't very well legislate to bring down unions in the way the Howard Government's Work Choices was designed to do, so instead he's done something even more potent. The frame for discussion whenever unions or union officials is mentioned is that fundamentally both are corrupt and they have to prove that they are not. This is probably politically more effective than resurrecting the "dead, buried and cremated" Work Choices legislation.

As a former union official, I know the effort, dedication, sacrifice and commitment that I brought to my work. I also saw it in those around me. I didn't see corruption and believe that I would have stood up if I had. I hope so - I was never confronted with that situation, so it's hypothetical anyway.

Today I agreed with Tony Abbott when he said: ""Honest workers and honest unionists should not be ripped off by corrupt officials and honest businesses should be able to go about their work without fear of intimidation, corruption (and) standover tactics."

Listening to union leaders and Labor parliamentarians respond to news of the Royal Commission is less than inspiring; to me, they sound defensive. The only possible answer is to say "Yes! bring on the Royal Commission. We are confident about our governance. If you do find corruption then we'll say thank you because we are not corrupt. Fundamentally, we are good people doing noble work, ensuring workers have a voice." I suppose it's hard to answer that way when you know that there's an agenda to destroy you and the organisations of which you are a custodian.

The practical problem arising from the Royal Commission is the cost of being involved. There won't be financial assistance for unions required to give evidence, surrender records and be represented. These costs will come from members' dues as members' dues are the main income for most unions. While unions are busy complying with the directions of the Royal Commission they'll be stretched thin and distracted from the business of representing members, negotiating agreements, enforcing agreements and so on. Eventually, the whole thing makes them look self-interested.

It's also interesting to hear the Government rhetoric about breaches of trust and officials inappropriately using money given to them by the people they represent. Goodness me, but that's how I describe Liberal parliamentarians going to social events like friends' weddings and claiming tax payer funds in the form of travel allowance to cover their costs. I can only hear tumbleweeds when this is mentioned. I doubt we'll ever hear Prime Minister Abbott say that honest tax payers and honest citizens should not be ripped off by corrupt parliamentarians using funds to attend social events - especially if they're on his side of the House.

The worst thing is that corruption within the union movement has the ability to cause deep harm to people who are vulnerable. When Malcolm Turnbull used the term "workers" on ABC TV's Q and A last night, it sat very uncomfortably - they are not the party of the workers.  Unions are important in a just (Capitalist) society.

If I was leader of the union movement at the moment, I'd be organising two things: firstly, a coordinated plan to share the burden of the Royal Commission and secondly, buying SPC Ardmona at Shepparton and establishing it with workers as the shareholders (ie a cooperative). The first is practical and is probably happening; the second would be both brilliant PR and have a practical effect, keeping employment and opportunity in a regional town which relies on fruit growing and canning as the mainstay of its economy. It would be pretty hard to think unions are evil when they're the only ones who've done anything to save jobs.

I have a problem with governments handing gifts of money to large, overseas owned companies (in this case Coca-Cola Amatil). I don't think it should happen. However, if there's a flood of people onto the dole queue, then the $25 million sought by Coke will soon be overshadowed by the welfare bill, social costs and flow-on effects to other businesses in the region.

I'm not leader of the union movement, so I'll have to wait and see along with the rest of you. I'd be surprised if these these ideas are not being considered. In the meantime, I have changed the way I describe my past experience. I will now be describing myself as a "community campaign leader" as I see no benefit in carrying around the smelly baggage I've been lumped with as a former union official.