The elusive behaviour of messaging and payments app, WeChat, has sparked controversy.

The company snubbed a parliamentary inquiry on foreign interference, which has only added to speculation about its censorship practices and connections to the Chinese Communist Party (CCP).

The Chinese-owned platform, boasting around 1 million Australian users, claimed it could not attend the hearing on 11th July due to a lack of Australian-based staff. 

However, its competitors managed to offer overseas-based executives via video link, adding to the app's perceived evasiveness.

“We remain committed to providing responsive information to the committee in writing and remain open to hearing the committee’s views and questions,” said WeChat owner Tencent's head of corporate legal, Elizabeth Byun. 

This assurance did not satisfy opposition spokesman for home affairs, James Paterson, who has reportedly written to WeChat asking for answers to 51 tough questions about its data handling, ownership, and potential leverage by the CCP.

One of the most concerning questions involves whether WeChat actively censors content that exposes human rights violations against Uyghur Muslims in China's Xinjiang region. 

Additionally, the inquiry sought clarity on whether WeChat employees also hold positions within Chinese state media organisations, raising concerns about potential conflicts of interest.

Adding to the scrutiny of WeChat in Australia, reports say that a number of government departments have blocked or banned the app on work-issued devices. 

Australian cybersecurity firm Internet 2.0 conducted an analysis of WeChat last year, revealing Chinese government procurement records indicating at least 10 contracts between 2016 and 2019 involving Tencent platforms. 

These contracts, totaling just over ¥2.3 million ($500,000), were linked to the CCP's propaganda department and awarded to Tencent-owned subsidiaries or companies controlled by Tencent's CEO and chairman, Ma Huateng.

“WeChat’s operations normalised Chinese state surveillance and censorship in Australia,” says Robert Potter, co-chief executive of Internet 2.0.

“It allows a monopoly over Chinese language media we would never grant to a single company.”