Weak defence for inept effort

They were simpler times back in 1999 when, to spare visiting Chinese President Jiang Zemin the upset of any glimpse of nearby protesters, police in Christchurch inserted a bus between them. Or maybe they weren’t. If anything, plonk-a-bus tactics start to look like an exquisitely delicate diplomatic solution compared to the thuddingly wrongheaded, faintly sinister, and now abandoned move by Labour MPs to block an academic specialist on China, Anne-Marie Brady, from speaking to the justice select committee inquiry on possible foreign interference in New Zealand.

Sense showed up late in the piece as committee chairman and Labour MP Raymond Huo, upon reflection, decided he didn’t want to be quite so easily portrayed as the man with his finger in his ears going la-la-la when someone had something unwelcome to say. To have contended, as he had, that the initial decision was a ‘‘purely procedural’’ matter was a desperately narrow and weak defence. You’d struggle even to call it trivially true.

The University of Canterbury professor had made her application to speak only after Justice Minister Andrew Little’s decision to widen the scope of the committee’s work to assess the resilience of our electoral system against foreign interference. Brady has unassailable status in this issue, having published warnings about political interference from China, and been subjected to intimidations and break-ins at her office, and has reported dangerous interference with her car.

Yes, her presence before the committee at a time of great sensitivity in relations between the two countries would be a provocation to China. But her absence from it will be a greater provocation to New Zealanders, who tend to recognise kowtowing when they see it.

The way things were looking, not a single other member of the public would have been heard among the chorus of the Government’s own agencies – the Security Intelligence Service and the Government Communications Security Bureau – that are due to speak to the committee in April.

Both Huo, who has himself been subject to pointed scrutiny from Brady, and Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern’s office, initially pronounced themselves satisfied the agencies would keep the committee well informed about any issues of foreign interference that may arise. That is the sort of defence you would expect to hear from only the most autocratic of states: if it’s worth hearing, our officials will tell us.

Little wonder they backtracked. Though the primary concern here was that the rebuff was democratically troubling, the secondary issue was the sheer political ineptitude of it all. In what world was this call not going to be met with howls of disapproval? Old hands like National MP Nick Smith were well positioned to bang this issue like a cheap drum.

If Brady had not been heard, she would hardly have been silenced, or even sidelined. She might not have had the committee’s ear, but she would have had the public’s. Her voice would have been distant, but greatly amplified.

It still will be. Surely the mishandling of this matter has meant that, when Brady does speak to the committee, many who would otherwise have been less than attentive will now be leaning forward to learn just what she has to say.

That is the sort of defence you would expect to hear from only the most autocratic of states: if it’s worth hearing, our officials will tell us.