Indonesia is one of our closest neighbours but, occasionally, it does something that makes us realise how different it is to Australia. This week there have been two such events.
Indonesia's parliament has just passed a new criminal code which threatens some basic human rights, including banning sex outside of marriage.
Then on Wednesday the Indonesian government released convicted terrorist Umar Patek, one of the bomb makers in the 2002 Bali bombings, after he served less than 12 years of his 20-year sentence. This was despite an Australian request that he remain in jail.
Both of these events will strain the close relationship Australia has tried to build with Indonesia, especially under Joko Widodo, known as Jokowi, who has been president since 2014.
Prime Minister Anthony Albanese made Jakarta the destination for his first foreign visit this year and Australia is the only country to have signed a free-trade agreement with Indonesia. Malaysian-born Foreign Affairs Minister Penny Wong has expressed our message of friendship in fluent Bahasa.
The ban on extra-marital sex, however, underlines the increasing dominance of conservative Islam in Indonesian politics. The law is not as harsh as some Indonesian conservatives would have liked, since a charge can only be initiated after a complaint from a family member.
But to most Australians the ban will seem medieval – and some potential tourists might even feel hesitant about taking their next trip to Bali.
The ban is only one worrying aspect of the criminal code, which includes a vaguely defined crime of committing an "indecent act", which could target LGBTQI people.
Free speech advocates and journalists are most concerned about provisions which make it a crime to "insult" a public official or to disseminate fake and unverified news.
The early release of Patek also points to the role of conservative Islam, even tolerance of Islamist extremism, in some sections of Indonesian society.
Indonesia says Patek was released because he had successfully undergone "de-radicalisation coaching".
But the relatives of the 88 Australians killed in Bali must wonder whether Patek's early release sends the right message about terrorism. Albanese has described it as "abhorrent".
Australia is entirely within its rights to express to Indonesia its concern about both these developments. But it must exercise caution and avoid turning any grievances into major diplomatic incidents.
Both of the decisions this week are clearly domestic issues. If Australia lectures Indonesia about them it could easily backfire politically.
Many in Indonesia, who are already sceptical about the West's claims to moral superiority, will say this is just more hypocritical neo-colonial interference.
Australia should not abandon its principles but it cannot afford to needlessly antagonise a country of 276 million at a time of strategic tensions between China and the US.
This is not the first time Australia has found itself unsettled by the direction of Indonesian politics. Indonesia has, for example, refused to join Australia and our allies in condemning Russia's invasion of Ukraine.
With presidential elections looming in 2024, Indonesian politics is likely to be more volatile than usual and more tension could be on the way.
Jokowi is constitutionally forbidden to run for a third five-year term and the candidates to succeed him are likely to play populist politics, such as appealing to extreme social conservatives. The new criminal code and the early release of Patek should be seen in that context.
While this is happening, Australia must encourage Indonesia to uphold human rights and democracy. But it has to balance that against respect for Indonesia's independence and its increasing power.