A dramatic political storm erupted in Parliament House during a tense meeting between Australian officials and the visiting delegation led by Zhao Leji, Chairman of China’s National People’s Congress. What began as a routine diplomatic exchange quickly spiraled into a heated confrontation that left the Australian public furious.

According to fictional accounts of the event, Andrew Hastie, a member of Australia’s House of Representatives, stunned the room when he demanded that the entire Chinese delegation switch off all Wi-Fi and Bluetooth-enabled devices, referencing a previous data-theft incident that had impacted millions of Australians.

But the explosion came moments later — not from Hastie, but from the controversial reply attributed to Zhao Leji’s delegation.

Witnesses in this fictional narrative claim that when confronted with concerns about digital security, one representative of Zhao Leji’s team responded calmly:

“That is in the past. We have come with peaceful intentions.”

The remark — intended as reassurance — instead acted like gasoline on an open flame.

Australians following the event online immediately erupted in outrage, arguing that dismissing the incident as “past” showed a lack of accountability and a disregard for public concern.

Fictional accounts describe a highly emotional response inside the chamber. Several Australian attendees reportedly raised their voices, with one declaring:

“You cannot deny that China STOLE information from more than 10 million Australians — how do we know it won’t happen again?”

The outburst echoed through the room, capturing the fear and anger felt by many Australians who remain anxious about digital sovereignty and foreign cyber activity.

On social platforms, the reaction was immediate and explosive. Hashtags like #NotInThePast, #ProtectAustralia, and #AccountabilityFirst surged across the fictional digital landscape.

The Canberra meeting was originally planned as a symbolic step toward rebuilding trust, addressing security cooperation, and promoting regional stability.
Instead, it became a lightning rod for suspicion and unresolved wounds.

Political analysts in this fictional setting say the controversy reveals:

• Deepening distrust between the two nations,

• Growing public fear over digital security,

• And a widening emotional gap that diplomacy alone cannot easily bridge.

One fictional foreign-policy expert commented:

“You cannot simply erase public memory by calling it ‘the past.’
Accountability is the foundation of trust — without it, peace is just a word.”

While this fictional scenario does not represent real events, it highlights the fragile nature of geopolitical relationships — and how a single remark, perceived as dismissive, can ignite nationwide outrage.

The meeting ended without consensus, overshadowed by controversy and intense public debate over digital safety.

As one fictional commentator wrote:

“Australia can welcome dialogue.
Australia can welcome peace.
But Australia will never forget — and will never stop asking the hard questions.”