Opinions divided over MP's scuffle with Chinese delegation

Russel Norman is grabbed by members of Chinese vice-president's entourage. Photo / Mark Mitchell

An MP's scuffle with a visiting Chinese government delegation has split nzherald.co.nz readers as to who was the greater embarrassment - Russel Norman for his "attention-seeking stunt" or John Key for his "brown-nosing" apology.

International relations experts have also expressed mixed views, with some saying an apology from the Prime Minister without an inquiry "sends the wrong signal", while others say it was necessary to save face after the Green Party co-leader's "intimidating" protest for Tibetans.

"I view whatshisname Norman as a loony, left wing, sort of clichéd political pantomime actor in a suit ... In this instance, however, I think the embarrassment is with the Government who placed the rights and freedoms enjoyed by all New Zealand behind the interests to kissing up to the Chinese," said Odette on nzherald.co.nz's Your Views.

Others shared similar sentiments in defence of New Zealand's freedom of speech.

"Above anything we need to show that we have freedom in our country. Especially when it comes to voicing it over a country that has had theirs taken. Instead we are man-handled and apologise for the indignity," said Forward Thinker, from Auckland.

"I'm slightly disturbed at the ease with which the police conveniently decided there was no case to answer - and the speed at which the PM decided an MP protesting at Parliament was something to be embarrassed about," said Paekakariki's KiwiOverseas.

"It's not complicated - the New Zealand Government is simply scared of a bigger, tougher Government," said Charles.

Others, however, criticised Dr Norman for his rudeness.

"No, John Key should not have to apologise to the Chinese delegation, but Russel Norman should - on his hands and knees," said zuxian.

"Of course Key was right to apologise ... China is the only reason why New Zealand, and Australia, are not going through the current economic and social travails of Greece and Spain," said Wayne Lo, from Auckland's Mt Albert.

"Yes, of course he should have apologised. Russel Norman was a total embarrassment," said Paula Wagstaff.

"Does he know the freedom of speech is a privilege, not an excuse?" asked Ken Liu.

Kaitaia's Don Saunders replied: "Freedom of speech in this country is a right not a privilege. What you are advocating is silencing dissention using privilege as an excuse, exactly what China does."

The Prime Minister apologised to visiting Chinese Vice President Xi Jinping's delegation after Green Party co-leader Russel Norman waved a Tibetan flag to the delegation as they arrived at Parliament.

Dr Norman was pushed and the flag pulled from his hands by members of the Chinese delegation, leading him to attest that his freedom of speech had been suppressed.

"The Chinese have a tradition of resisting public pressure, not to mention public humiliation," said Auckland University's Dr Jian Yang, an expert in China's foreign relations.

The incident might not only dissuade Chinese leaders from visiting in the future, but it could also be counterproductive to promoting Tibetan interests, Dr Yang said.

"True, Dr Norman has his right to protest and move around within the parliamentary precinct. But to move chanting towards someone only a metre or two away must be intimidating. For that reason, it was appropriate for Mr John Key to apologise to the Chinese delegation," he said.

"The Chinese delegation must have felt rather disappointed with what had happened. They will try to understand that New Zealand is a Western democracy.

"[But] given that the New Zealand government had invited Mr Xi to pay a visit to New Zealand, it had the responsibility to make sure that Mr Xi was not intimidated," Dr Yang said.

Dr Henry Chung, a Senior Lecturer at Massey University, said Mr Key's apology would have been an appropriate face-saving gesture.

"Among my research there is a finding constantly appeared to be important - 'face saving' or 'guanxi'," Dr Chung said.

"There is an old Chinese saying: 'full of happiness when a friend visits from far away'. The host will be losing face if they cannot warrant a happy visit of their important guests."

But Canterbury University Political Science Associate Professor Dr Anne-Marie Brady said Mr Key should not have apologised without a complete inquiry.

"I was very surprised to learn that Prime Minister Key had apologised to the Chinese delegation, even before the police inquiry into Mr Norman's allegations of assault had been completed. This sends the wrong signal, both to the Chinese government and the New Zealand people," Dr Brady said.

Dr Brady's research has included China's domestic and foreign policy and New Zealand-China relations.

"Mr Norman's act of protest was a minor event, which Xi Jinping's delegation have turned into an international incident," she said.

Dr Brady said we would never know for sure who should have apologised because Chinese officials refused to co-operate with New Zealand police investigations.

"I don't think such behaviour would be tolerated if a similar situation had occurred in China," she said.

The New Zealand China Trade Association said it was confident that the incident would not have a detrimental effect on China-NZ trade or overall relations.

Both Dr Norman's protest and Mr Key's apology have drawn comment from politicians, with Labour Party leader Phil Goff saying the scuffle "should never have happened".

"We expect people to be respectful to our visitors, but we also retain the right to protest peacefully," Mr Goff said.

Foreign Minister Murray McCully, meanwhile, called Dr Norman's protest "massively disappointing" and said it had been calculated to offend.

Dr Norman said Mr Key's apology was "degrading", while Mr Key defended it that "it's unacceptable that a dignatory of that level can't enter the building without their integrity being compromised".