Editorial: Peters unfit as global face of NZ

Opinion

Since when did the post of Foreign Minister become a bone to be thrown to a minor party leader in coalition negotiations? A Foreign Minister is second only to a country's head of government in representing its interests and image abroad. The chosen person should not only be interested in foreign and global affairs but should be capable of faithfully representing a Government's view. Winston Peters fails on both counts.

His only apparent interest in things foreign has been to oppose the levels of foreign investment, trade and immigration - especially immigration - that successive governments have welcomed to this country. He does not regard himself as a member of Helen Clark's third-term Government or even a coalition partner. He has taken the portfolio of Foreign Affairs because it carries the status he expects and it is one of the few roles he believes can be handled outside the Cabinet.

New Zealand takes seriously its international citizenship. That means contributing intelligently and conscientiously to international affairs. This Government has probably done better than most of its predecessors in that respect. Helen Clark has had an abiding interest in foreign policy since she arrived in Parliament and maintains that interest as Prime Minister. She travels frequently, meets foreign ministers and heads of government and after six years in office she is probably well respected for her grasp of global issues and insights to the politics and leading personalities of other places.

Her Foreign Minister of the past six years, Phil Goff, possesses much the same qualities. He has proven highly competent with all portfolios handed to him and presumably he wanted a change. The Prime Minister believes her attention to foreign relations will enable her to cover for Mr Peters. But does that mean she will correct him publicly if he does not properly represent the Government's position? What impression would that give to the foreign country concerned, and what would it do for the stability of the Government at home?

To be fair, Mr Peters will probably conform to diplomatic expectations. The New Zealand First leader has taken a role of this sort once before. As "Treasurer" in a National-led Government he dutifully espoused an economic policy he had long opposed, and his public utterances on issues within that portfolio were unfailingly responsible. But they lacked conviction and made him ineffective as a Finance Minister speaking in corporate circles.

He is unlikely to be better as a Foreign Minister. He leads the country's most insular party after the Greens. He might now turn himself into an internationalist, spouting the slogans of trade liberalisation and courting foreign investment. But he would be no more convincing than he was in finance. We are to be represented in international circles by someone who will seem a lightweight, an amiable man with much personal charm but little else to offer.

A few weeks ago Labour was said to be proposing the post of Attorney-General to Mr Peters. That would be a job closer to his interests and talents, particularly if it was combined with oversight of one or two law enforcement agencies such as the Serious Fraud Office. Attorney-General is also a post that could benefit by being moved out of the Cabinet. But foreign policy will not benefit from such detachment.

Mr Peters thinly veiled attacks on Asian immigration over the years have attracted attention in Asia and done untold damage to our image there. Likewise was his typically over-wrought outburst against Muslim immigrants in his build-up for the latest election campaign. When he visits these regions as our Foreign Minister, these remarks will come back to haunt him and us.