Peters' New Role

Peters’ New Role Winston Peter’s foreign affairs appointment in the new Government has been ridiculed by many political commentators in the mainstream media. Most pundits seem to believe that the nation’s international image will be severely tarnished by Peter’s politically incorrect antics and nationalist/populist reputation. However, few commentators seem to be asking the question- what’s in it for Peters and New Zealand First and what message should New Zealand really be sending to Asia?

In the Bolger government of 1996, Peter’s assumed the finance position but his nationalist position on key issues such as privatisation soon proved unacceptable to the National Party hierarchy. In retrospect, Peter’s has admitted that he underestimated the degree of difficulty in working closely with other parties in the new MMP environment. The present confidence and supply arrangement with Labour allows New Zealand First to have some influence over Labour’s initiatives in social policy, while Peter’s has the opportunity to peddle his influence on the international scene. This means that Clark is willing to put the brake on Labour’s social policy initiatives in exchange for continuing control over general economic policy where there is less disagreement with New Zealand First. Although New Zealand First has little direct involvement in policy-making it is in a strong position to act as a watchdog over Labour and keep the press informed about issues it deems to be of national interest. In immigration policy for example, New Zealand First is now in a stronger position to spot instances of procedural incompetence and excessive leniency by Labour politicians and government civil servants.

As treasurer in the 1996 National-NZ First government Peter’s was too distracted by tensions with the National party hierarchy to have much influence over any particular area of policy. In the present government he has a more focused role and a more realistic chance of influencing policy-makers and international opinion. The present arrangement with Labour also appears to be benefiting Ron Mark, arguably N.Z First’s second most influential politician. In the area of law and order Mark is already having a significant impact- notice the debate he has stimulated over raising the drinking age and in the governments new commitment to increase police numbers.

However, it is arguably Peter’s impact on international opinion that is the most important aspect of New Zealand First’s present arrangement with Labour. In the Asia- Pacific region Peter’s has a poor image because his support for limited immigration is conflated by the media into a general anti-Asian stance. This is somewhat ironic because most countries in East Asia also support limited immigration. Japan for example, has a highly restrictive immigration policy. Peter’s is no doubt trying to persuade Asian governments, and the Asian media, that New Zealand First supports increased trade with Asia and continuing opportunities for Asian students to study in New Zealand. Its also needs pointing out New Zealand First’s economic policy is more in tune with the economic policies of many East Asian countries, such as Malaysia and Korea. Since the Asian crash in 1997, many Asian countries have been sceptical of neo-liberal reforms and would like to see more countries in the region promoting ‘developmental’ economic policies. New Zealand’s poor R and D spending and low savings rate are hardly likely to strike a cord with East Asian economic policy-makers.

Many elements of the Asian media have a chip on their shoulder in regard to the immigration policies of Australia and New Zealand. This is especially true of the media in Malaysia and Singapore. The Singapore Times for example, often argues that Australia can take in many more immigrants and that it is still influenced by its previous ‘Whites Only’ Policy. Current immigration patterns to Australia and New Zealand do not show any clear bias against East Asian immigrants so the ‘Whites Only’ claim is largely unfounded.

Rarely mentioned in the Asian media are the environmental implications of large-scale immigration to Australia and New Zealand. Australia is an extremely arid country, which is struggling to balance the water needs of its farming and residential users. Australia’s thin soils and low topography make it especially vulnerable to problems like erosion, water pollution and excessive salt accumulation. New Zealand’s economy is heavily dependent on farming and tourism and these industries could also be undermined by a substantial population increase. In contrast to Australia, New Zealand is a mountainous country with a shortage of flat arable land and much of this is disappearing under urban development.

Politicians like Peters need to emphasis to Asian leaders that Australia and New Zealand are resource rich but environmentally vulnerable countries that need Asian markets for their products. From an Asian perspective, large scale Asian immigration into Australasia could compromise the region's ability to supply primary products to resource poor Asian markets and provide viable business opportunities for the East Asian Diaspora.