John Armstrong: It may be good for Winston but what's in it for New Zealand First?

Winston Peters will have his reasons for wanting to be Foreign Minister. The problem is there do not seem to be very many good ones from his party's point of view - the point Doug Woolerton has made by resigning as party president.

Securing the plum job vividly demonstrates the leverage he exercised over Labour in post-election negotiations in a fashion everyone can understand.

Giving up the portfolio would have been a tremendous wrench for Labour. Foreign policy has long been the motivating force driving many of the party's activists.

But caving in to Mr Peters may have been the better option than losing control of a major domestic portfolio, especially as Helen Clark plays a major role in shaping foreign policy as Prime Minister anyway.

Becoming Foreign Minister is a personal triumph for Mr Peters - and a slap in the face for those who had written him off after his disappointing election.

But gaining the status and authority begs a question - to what end?

Foreign policy is not something of huge import to NZ First. Consequently, Mr Peters will have to fight the perception that he has taken a prestige job because it is a prestige job.

It has left him exposed to the charge that he has accepted the baubles of office, given he said during the election campaign he would not. That inconsistency is of minor importance, however.

By taking a portfolio of negligible electoral benefit and far removed from his party's core issues, he is showing all the signs of someone making a political swan-song.

That may be unfair. But again, he will have to ensure that perception does not take hold.

The obvious comparison is with Jim Anderton, who took the new job of Minister of Economic Development in 1999 because that was where the Alliance wanted to carve out a niche.

In contrast, Mr Peters has never displayed any great vision of New Zealand's place in the world beyond wanting to tighten its borders.

He is perfectly capable of being an effective Foreign Minister. And apart from opposing a free-trade agreement with China New Zealand First's foreign policy prescription does not clash with Labour's.

New Zealand First opposed the invasion of Iraq, supports Labour's troop deployments in Afghanistan and backs the anti-nuclear law.

However, Mr Peters will have to get acclimatised to the Prime Minister suddenly coming in over the top of him in the portfolio - and, if necessary overruling him. Playing second fiddle is not part of the Peters' repertoire.

Then there is the no small matter of travel. All up, the Foreign Minister spends about two months overseas each year.

That could take Mr Peters out of the country at the very times his party most needs him.

It would be hard to pick another portfolio more irrelevant to New Zealand First but which still has the effect of binding the party to the fortunes of the Labour-led Government.