But at the same time we must be careful about the facts, avoid dangerous generalisations and pay due attention to the complexities of Chinese history and culture. Hong Kong-born Ms Liu, the new member for the Victorian marginal seat of Chisholm, had a bad week after it emerged she was a member of organisations that are part of the Chinese Communist Party’s propaganda machine. She reportedly never disclosed this membership to the Liberal Party. Asked about her past in an interview on Monday, she made things worse by repeated lapses of memory on what she had done. She also gave a very garbled response to a question about whether China’s militarisation of the South China Sea was legal. Ms Liu had already come under fire for her role in attracting hundreds of thousands of dollars of donations to the Liberal Party from Chinese businesses with close links to the CCP. Indeed, it has been reported that the Victorian Liberals returned $300,000 to Chinese donors whom Ms Liu cultivated. Given the Coalition’s attack on ex-Senator Sam Dastyari’s relationship with Chinese businessman Huang Xiangmo, it was only to be expected that the ALP would put the blowtorch on Ms Liu.

They even said that if she could not explain her ties to the CCP she would not be a fit and proper to sit as an MP. Loading This provoked Prime Minister Scott Morrison’s righteous anger. He said the ALP was "casting a smear on Chinese Australians." "He should have a good hard look at the 1.2 million Australians who will see exactly what he is doing to Australians of Chinese descent." It is far from clear that the ALP (or anyone else) can show that Ms Liu crossed any lines in her relations with CCP operatives or that her behaviour was in the same league as Mr Dasytari’s.

But whether Ms Liu’s behaviour is better or worse than Mr Dastyari’s, in either case these are matters that deserve to be raised on the floor of Parliament. Loading Australians need to know if MPs are potentially subject to CCP pressure. Other than raising Ms Liu’s case, there was no evidence that the ALP was guilty of playing specifically on Ms Liu’s Chinese origins in a xenophobic way. She was not singled out because she was Chinese but because she is in a powerful position and has ties to the CCP which she seemed reluctant to explain in full. Despite what Mr Morrison says, these are very different circumstances to those of the other 1.2 million Australians of Chinese descent. If there was dog whistling in the debate, it pales in comparison with other examples that have been common in Australia concerning the dangers of African migrants or refugees.

For example, Mr Morrison on Friday was forced to defend his description of Mr Dastyari as “Shanghai Sam”. Some would argue that phrase evokes a 1930s Charlie Chan comic. Australia is now in the process of working out what it considers an acceptable way to deal with China - and it is a delicate balance. Until a few years ago, Australian politicians of both sides were delighted to cultivate Chinese businesses, attract unlimited numbers of Chinese students and accept political donations. The risk is that now we will switch too far in the opposite direction. There will be politicians within Parliament who advocate more dovish policies towards China, but this does not mean they are part of a fifth column. As Mr Morrison himself said recently, dealing with China is not a “modern form of appeasement”.

Voters have a right to expect, however, that politicians will talk as openly as possible about their ties with China and certainly comply with campaign finance and disclosure laws. The debate must continue, but without a McCarthyist obsession that all contact with China is bad. The Herald's editor Lisa Davies writes a weekly newsletter exclusively for subscribers. To have it delivered to your inbox, please sign up here