Representing New Zealand

Press, 19 April 1979, Page 18

Representing New Zealand

In appointing Mr L. W. Gandar as High Commissioner to the United Kingdom, the Government is following the tradition of choosing people with political experience for the post. It is one of four posts still filled by political appointees: the others are Ottawa, Canberra, and Rome. One of the advantages of having a political appointee should lie in the acquaintance that person should have with Government policy and the machinery of government. He should have the confidence of the Cabinet and more than a passing knowledge of how many departments work. Mr Gandar was an able Minister of Education in the last National Government and has the respect of colleagues who were disappointed when he was defeated in the last election.

Another advantage should lie in the standing of the person in the eyes of the country to which he has been posted. An ambassador is meant to have access to the highest members of the Government of the country to which he is posted, but it is often what he can do with the access that counts. In this such matters as standing and personality are relevant. Mr Gandar has demonstrated an ability to deal with complex subjects with astuteness and should be able to handle this post well. The fact that New Zealand’s trade with the United Kingdom has been declining is far from a sound reason for not giving the best possible atten-

tion to what is still New Zealand’s biggest market —apart from the numerous other ties.

From time to time arguments are raised about whether posts should be filled by career diplomats or by political appointees. The answer surely lies in who is going to represent the country most effectively. An ambassador or high commissioner does not have to be intimately concerned with the implementation of policies—the career people within the post can do that. What a senior diplomat has to do is act more often than not as a front man as well as judge the work of his assistants. An impression that has to be avoided is that appointments are made by the party in power either as a reward for long service, or as some other form of “jobs for the boys.” New Zealand will be the loser if that impression is given. Career diplomats, not surprisingly, tend to the view that top posts should be filled by career diplomats. One of the things a party in power has to avoid is undermining the morale of those to whom the conduct of foreign relations is entrusted. Nothing could be worse for them than having an illequipped top representative with whom they must work. The Government has avoided -this in the appointment of Mr Gandar, but as other posts now filled politically fall vacant, careful consideration should be given to the best choices.