The more that emerges in the story we broke last Sunday the more disturbing it becomes that diplomatic immunity should be so badly handled. Both Foreign Minister Murray McCully and the head of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade say they knew nothing of the incident until the Herald on Sunday approached the minister. If that is so, he and the ministry chief, John Allen, need to get a better grip on the organisation.
When a foreign diplomat is accused of a crime and claims immunity from prosecution, the issue should not be dealt with on a protocol desk and concluded as quietly as possible. It is a matter of public interest. In fact, the public interest is going to be greater than in most of the work the ministry chooses to tell us about. As a representative of another country, the accused person and the disgraced country should be known.
Read also: Diplomat's return in doubt
Immunity may mean a person escapes criminal punishment, it should not mean he or she is sheltered from the shame of public exposure. Yet that is exactly what happened until we reported last Sunday that a diplomat accused of a sexual crime had been expelled several weeks earlier. It took legal action by our news organisation and other media before his name and his country could be published.
At that point the incident went from bad to worse. McCully insisted the ministry had asked Malaysia to waive immunity so Muhammad Rizalman bin Ismail could be tried in this country. Malaysia's foreign minister, Anifah Aman, said New Zealand had wanted him out. McCully released letters to show Aman was wrong. Too late, McCully learned his officials were putting one message on paper but giving a different message to the Malaysians face to face.
