Diplomatic immunity is not impunity

Anna Wallis PHOTO/FILE

It is still a bit confusing about what happened over diplomatic immunity being waived in an alleged sexual assault case, but allegations such as this are nothing to be diplomatic about.

Plain speaking is needed. Malaysian diplomat Muhammad Rizalman bin Ismail should have remained in New Zealand until an investigation into the claim was concluded.

There are good reasons why diplomatic immunity exists.

But this was not an allegation of spying and it's not the Cold War. Nor is New Zealand known for corruption or playing fast and loose with diplomatic rights.

So immunity can be waived, and Foreign Affairs chief executive John Allen is on record as saying: "It is the long-standing policy of the New Zealand government to formally request the waiver of diplomatic immunity in such cases."

Short of killing someone, it's hard to think of something more serious, and therefore difficult to know why Malaysia could have received mixed messages from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs about the diplomat's status.

Malaysia is always clear that it will prosecute aberrant behaviour within its boundaries and for visitors to stick to its rules. We should be too.

Apparently the Malaysians were under the impression New Zealand had been comfortable with allowing Mr Rizalman to face a military court in Malaysia.

The Malaysian government can sort this matter out quickly by making Muhammad Rizalman bin Ismail return to New Zealand.

For the New Zealand government, it must always be more important to protect its own citizens and ensure crimes against them will be investigated, prosecuted and, if need be, punished than maintain a set of rules.

If that doesn't happen, the rules are archaic and need an overhaul. Diplomatic immunity is not the same as impunity.