Foreign Affairs

Parliament’s odd couple on China: ‘We have our deeply-held positions’

The MP whose bill legalised gay marriage and a former trainee Catholic priest seem unlikely partners – but Louisa Wall and Simon O'Connor are jointly pushing for greater action against China's human rights abuses

Parliament's reputation for political acrimony can sometimes be overstated.

For all the fireworks during Question Time and in front of the media, it isn't uncommon for politicians of opposing stripes to get on behind the scenes and work together on shared passions.

That is demonstrated no more clearly than in the unlikely team of Labour MP Louisa Wall and National MP Simon O'Connor.

What do you think? Click here to comment.

O’Connor and Wall are New Zealand co-chairs for the Inter-Parliamentary Alliance on China, which describes itself as “an international cross-party group of legislators working towards reform on how democratic countries approach China”.

Together, the pair have pushed the Government to rule out the extradition of any New Zealanders to China over concerns about the country’s justice system, set up a ‘lifeboat’ visa scheme for vulnerable young Hongkongers, and help lead an investigation into the alleged genocide of Uyghurs in China’s Xinjiang province.

Wall’s interest in China was shaped by a visit to Hong Kong in 2019, at a time when Hongkongers were taking to the streets to protest controversial plans for a new extradition law.

She confesses her initial concern was about how the unrest would affect her onward travel to Japan for the Rugby World Cup, but conversations with the territory’s legislators about the deteriorating situation gave her a greater understanding of what was at stake.

“When you’re aware, you can't just sit back and do nothing, you have to react – and I think what we've attempted to do is to help educate our peers, and in educating our peers to obviously educate the public.”

For his part, O’Connor was particularly struck by one briefing during the last term of Parliament in which China was described as “a malicious actor” and the importance of politicians leading from the front was made plain.

“When you have your allied countries in particular saying to you, ‘Why does New Zealand not have modern slavery laws, why does it not have Magnitsky-type laws, do you really think you're exempt from the interferences we're experiencing?’, we sit there and go, of course we're not."
– Simon O'Connor

“Various arms or agencies of New Zealand's government aren't prepared to speak out or lead the conversation without political leadership, and that for me had quite an influence…

“Ministers in their own right when they make their statements, or the Prime Minister, need to keep speaking out and then our various agencies and officials, they can come in and help provide the evidence and supporting material – but they don't want to be the leaders on this, which is understandable.”

Both Wall and O’Connor have previously chaired Parliament’s foreign affairs, defence and trade committee, with China a common topic of discussion both during meetings and at informal dinners with diplomats.

“When you have your allied countries in particular saying to you, ‘Why does New Zealand not have modern slavery laws, why does it not have Magnitsky-type laws, do you really think you're exempt from the interferences we're experiencing?’, we sit there, if I can use 'we', and go, of course we're not,” O’Connor says.

Along with overlapping areas of interest, including modern slavery legislation, autonomous sanctions and the human rights situation in Xinjiang, each has particular topics they are passionate about.

For Wall, that includes China’s supposed debt-trap diplomacy and alleged organ harvesting of Falun Gong practitioners: it was an interview on the latter topic for RNZ’s Red Line podcast which recently created a political storm.

'Chats' with the embassy and abuse from keyboard warriors

Blowback is inevitable when it comes to a polarising topic like the Asian superpower.

Both have copped their fair share of abuse from “keyboard warriors” as Wall puts it, while O'Connor recalls being contacted by the Chinese embassy "for a chat" just hours after signing a letter related to Hong Kong.

The Inter-Parliamentary Alliance also warned its members earlier in the year about the prospect of a cyber attack against them, a threat that has added resonance after the Government formally identified state-sponsored actors from China as being involved in malicious digital activity here.

“We’re adults, and we’re mature, and we’re professionals ... we have our own positions, and they are really deeply-held positions.”
– Louisa Wall

That sort of attention can be unsettling for family, friends and staff, O’Connor says, particularly given the fear amongst other New Zealanders of being watched by Chinese agents during protests and commemorations.

But the stories the pair hear from others both at home and abroad also helps to put things in context, he says.

“It's nothing compared to what others go through, when we've got the full protection of the state around us and the Parliament in terms of our cybersecurity and everything.

“A lot of the others don't, and it's the fear: it's the emails that you get, it's the little notes in the letterbox from someone who doesn’t want to be tracked.

“It has a perverse response in me, which means I'm more committed and more supportive of the rights of New Zealand residents and some citizens who are advocating for their families,” Wall says of the criticism.

O’Connor senses the public mood is also shifting towards them when it comes to concern about China’s actions, albeit with some pushback from those who prefer to focus on the country’s economic value to New Zealand.

“Those MPs that are more on the trade side would say, there's nothing we can do, so why would we rage against the storm a bit like King Lear, and nothing's gonna be achieved. So it's not that there's irrational arguments for silence – it's just not the argument that I go for.”
– Simon O'Connor

“I’ve met with various people involved with serious New Zealand businesses and trade who say ‘Look, basically, shut up’, and they're welcome to say that, but I think by and large, the ordinary Kiwi on the street, certainly within my electorate ... are very much of the view sovereignty and national security come first.”

That feeling is at least partly supported by the Asia New Zealand Foundation’s most recent Perceptions of Asia survey from 2020, which found 36 percent of Kiwis perceived China to be threatening – a significant increase from 22 percent the year before.

But the topic of China is still a sensitive one for our politicians, as demonstrated by the watering down of a parliamentary motion that would have condemned the human rights situation in Xinjiang as a genocide.

Wall believes political sentiment is changing too, noting the Government’s work on the idea of modern slavery legislation, but there is still some reluctance to push human rights concerns too hard, as O’Connor notes.

“Those that are more on the trade side would say, there's nothing we can do, so why would we rage against the storm a bit like King Lear, and nothing's gonna be achieved. So it's not that there's irrational arguments for silence – it's just not the argument that I go for.”

Both believe the political debate may be hindered by the relatively limited access to intelligence that Kiwi MPs have, with Parliament’s intelligence and security committee a relatively closed shop compared to other countries like Australia.

Wall says much of the pair’s confidence to speak out on China issues has been bolstered through intelligence from other jurisdictions – although she sees that as less an indictment of the New Zealand system and more an endorsement of collective action across parliaments.

The Inter-Parliamentary Alliance makes a point of seeking politicians from each side of the aisle to act as a country’s co-chairs, given the value of a bipartisan approach.

But even by that standard, it would seem difficult to find two more unlikely bedfellows than the steadfast conservative once set to join the Catholic priesthood, and the liberal lesbian who played a crucial role in the legalisation of gay marriage (“What?”, O’Connor exclaims in mock astonishment).

According to the Parliamentary Library, there have been 22 conscience votes on first, second or third readings of legislation during O’Connor and Wall’s time together in Parliament, running the gamut from gay marriage to gambling, drugs to alcohol, abortion to euthanasia.

"We can disagree: it's a bit like when you're playing rugby – and I'm sorry, I always default to analogies – but on the field you compete, but when the whistle blows you can shake each other's hand and have a beer and there's a level of respect.”
– Louisa Wall

The number of times they’ve voted the same way? Just once (against legislation that would have allowed Waitaki retailers to trade on Good Friday and Easter Sunday).

But the pair say their vastly different viewpoints on a number of issues has never acted as an obstacle to working together.

“We’re adults, and we’re mature, and we’re professionals ... we have our own positions, and they are really deeply-held positions,” Wall says.

“Fundamentally that's why it does work, because we can disagree: it's a bit like when you're playing rugby – and I'm sorry, I always default to analogies – but on the field you compete, but when the whistle blows you can shake each other's hand and have a beer and there's a level of respect.”

O’Connor has his own analogy, of two intersecting lines heading off in their own different directions but converging at one particular point.

“Personally I don't actually care about promotions in and of themselves ... I know that when I leave this place, regardless of the roles I've had, I'll know that I did the job honestly."
– Simon O'Connor

“One of the things I admire, and why I can easily work with Louisa, is she's consistent – so consistently different to my views, but I can respect that consistency…

“It's much harder with a colleague or someone who just vacillates, you don't know where they stand on something and it’s very frustrating. It's actually remarkably easy to work with someone who's in some ways completely different to you, because it's very clear.”

As well as a shared belief in the rule of law and human rights, it is that focus on consistency and conviction which helps explain why the two aren’t so different after all.

Another similarity? Neither has ever won a spot on their party’s front bench or a ministerial role, despite Wall and O’Connor having been in Parliament since 2008 and 2011 respectively.

That can’t be attributed entirely to their China views, but is that same sense of principle, perhaps verging on stubbornness, to blame?

“Personally I don't actually care about promotions in and of themselves,” O’Connor says. "Hopefully this is not going to get me in trouble in the future, but I know that when I leave this place, regardless of the roles I've had, I'll know that I did the job honestly."

Wall adds: “I think for both of us, we both would have loved to have been ministers, and Simon may and, who knows," she says with a laugh.

“But in lieu of that, we've chaired select committees and we sit in this establishment and are able to join groups like the Inter-Parliamentary Alliance and continue to contribute.”