KEVIN Rudd made a significant break with the past by going to Beijing to criticise publicly as well as privately China's dreadful record on human rights.

Not only was he much more forthright than the Howard government, he went further than most other Western leaders in pursuing the issue publicly during an official visit.

Perhaps we should not be surprised, given, as the Chinese would see it, the terrible influences he came under in his youth. The supervisor of his honours thesis at the Australian National University was Pierre Ryckmans, the distinguished China scholar, author and critic of China under Mao Zedong. The subject of his thesis was Chinese dissident and democracy campaigner Wei Jingsheng.

In 1979, Rudd went to Taiwan to work on his Mandarin and, as he told author Robert Macklin, found digs at the wondrously titled Republic of China on Taiwan Anti-Communist Recover the Mainland Youth Activities Centre.

Rudd has come a long way since those days. He has learned the art of diplomacy, as well as of political compromise. His Beijing visit demonstrated courage and a sureness of diplomatic touch. He balanced his criticism with an acknowledgment of Chinese sovereignty over Tibet and opposition to a boycott of the Olympics. But he also disposed of the conservative criticism that he is Australia's Manchurian candidate.

It was the Howard government that became well versed in the kowtow. Its attitude was that raising Chinese human rights issues publicly was counterproductive: that we would offend the Chinese, harm the relationship and it would make no difference to human rights. Implicit was the fear that China would retaliate and we would be naive to provoke a country of its size and power.

It is a view reflected in comments this week by Opposition Leader Brendan Nelson. When asked whether Rudd's stand would harm trade relations with China, he replied that the Prime Minister needed to express concerns about human rights abuses forcefully but "I don't know whether it's wise to have broadcast it as publicly as he seems to be doing".

The Howard government was prepared to go to extraordinary lengths to avoid offending China. It went further than other Western governments in placing restrictions on Falun Gong practitioners holding their peaceful protests outside the Chinese embassy and consulates. In 2005, it even excluded Falun Gong representatives from talks the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade holds with non-government organisations on human rights in China.

When Premier Wen Jiabao visited Australia the following year, police parked a big bus in front of protesters to block his view of their banners. Small actions in themselves, they betrayed a larger government attitude.

One perspective on Rudd's human rights criticisms is that it was mere symbolism and grandstanding on the issue du jour. Rudd said his talks with Wen on Thursday ran a half hour over time largely to accommodate discussions about Tibet. But he conceded that Wen had not departed from the Chinese Government's public position, which is that Rudd's claims are "totally unfounded" and that human rights in Tibet are wonderful.

But then it is not as though anyone seriously expected the Chinese Government to buckle under the force of Rudd's representations. The question is whether a more forthright stand by governments, including in public, will make a difference in the long run.

The starting point is that, in terms of the effect on China's human rights practices, it cannot do worse than the softly, softly approach. In 1997, China persuaded Western countries, including Australia, to stop sponsoring the annual resolution against China in the UN Human Rights Commission in return for a series of bilateral human rights dialogues. According to Australian National University college of law visiting fellow Ann Kent, "these have been secretive, non-transparent, unaccountable and totally ineffective".

Some argue this is an overstatement. Former DFAT head and now ANU professor of international relations Stuart Harris says an initiative to establish a court appeals process involving Australian Attorney-General's Department officials has had some success. "It is still very mixed because a lot depends on the local governments but there has been quite a significant increase in appeals allowed and a number have been successful."

But, overall, the results from efforts on multiple fronts seem marginal at best. In 2001, Beijing Olympic bid vice-president Liu Jingmin said: "By allowing Beijing to host the games, you will help the development of human rights." Eighteen months ago, Amnesty International reported there had been some progress in reforming the death penalty system but in other crucial areas the Government's human rights record had deteriorated.

Tibet is only one example of Chinese repression of its citizens and it is not the worst. The 2006 report of UN special rapporteur Manfred Nowak found that two-thirds of the victims of alleged torture and ill-treatment were Falun Gong practitioners, 11 per cent Uighurs (Muslims from the same group implicated in the terrorist plot against the Olympics the Chinese claim to have uncovered this week), 8 per cent sex workers and 6per cent Tibetans.

China demonises Falun Gong as an "evil cult", though most of its followers do nothing more than practise ancient meditation and exercise programs. The Government cracked down on them after more than 10,000 staged a silent protest in Tiananmen Square in 1999. Harris says the huge overreaction by the authorities was triggered by a fear of counter-revolution, particularly following the pro-democracy student demonstrations in the same place 10 years earlier.

There is no sign that Rudd raised the treatment of Falun Gong practitioners with the Chinese, although he is well aware of how they are persecuted. When he was Opposition foreign affairs spokesman, he read a report containing horrific allegations about organs being harvested from thousands of healthy Falun Gong members for the lucrative organ transplant trade.

He said in 2006 that he was deeply disturbed by the claims, had talked to one of the authors of the report, former Canadian MP David Kilgour, and supported the Howard government's request for an independent investigation, something the Chinese rejected. But he also remained to be convinced of the truth of the allegations.

Since then, two other reports have concluded organ harvesting of Falun Gong members has occurred. But the evidence is circumstantial and none of the leading human rights groups have reached a definite conclusion. At the very least, we should keep pressing the Chinese on the issue.

Kent dismisses the notion that we will suffer economic retaliation for raising human rights. Not only does China need Australian resources, she argues, but its bid for a stake in BHP Billiton requires Australian government approval. "The press is undermining our national interest by querying whether we should be standing up to a country like China," Kent says. "This is the only way we are going to gain respect from the Chinese."

She adds that the international community has more leverage against China than many realise. "What matters to China in its international relations is face, status, sovereignty and international reputation," Kent says. "The exception in its generally impressive record of international compliance has been human rights because human rights are seen to impact on China's sovereignty and internal security."

Kent argues for a degree of public shaming of China but not humiliation. While opposing a boycott of the Olympics, she says people must be able to express their opinion on human rights issues.

"The Games do not belong to China; they belong to the world. It is international values that are at stake here."