Foreign Diplomacy Doesn't Translate

by Malcolm Farr - Daily Telegraph

Richard Alston had long wanted to be Foreign Minister, but there was always someone in the way.

Alexander Downer and Robert Hill had first dibs on the job and Downer was never going to let go to give even Hill a chance.

So Alston, a senior Liberal senator from 1986 to early this year, had to make do with the communications portfolio.

He was tied to mainland Australia.

But now his skills in international relations, ignored at a ministerial level through his seven years in Parliament, have suddenly become glaringly obvious to the Government.

At age 63 he is about to get as close as he ever will to his foreign ministerial ambitions by being appointed our High Commissioner to Britain.

Which shows yet again how Australian diplomacy is being used by the Government to make dreams come true.

And how it's all starting to look a bit grubby.

There is a strong perception adrift that this Government views strands of the diplomatic system as its gift to the chosen ones, rather than jobs for the well chosen.

Senior Coalition figures acknowledge this in some of their defences of appointments such as Alston's. They point to Labor and say, "They did it too."

At the very least, the foreign service has become an employment service for prime ministerial mates.

From Andrew Peacock to Alston, it has been a handy job finder for John Howard.

That doesn't mean Peacock was a dud in Washington, or that Alston will fail in London.

It does mean that the professional diplomatic workforce can get relegated when it's time to help a mate.

Maybe suspicions wouldn't be so rampant if these late-blooming diplomatic giants were sent to the Solomon Islands or somewhere else where there is a messy, difficult and important job to do, or to a hardship post like Nigeria.

Instead, they wander around the plush, well-worn tracks of London, Wash- ington and Dublin or, like former South Australian Liberal premier John Olsen, Los Angeles.

And how come governments don't offer posts to talented members of the opposing party, not just renew existing assignments? Would John Howard give Kim Beazley an ambassadorship?

At worst, the perception is that the Government is using appointments as leverage to get people out of other jobs, or to encourage them to leave without fuss.

Alston had for some time been mumbling privately about moving on and publicly denying this when reporters wrote the fact, as happened to this column.

His London appointment raised the possibility that the offer was made when he was still a senator, which he has denied.

After losing his portfolio, former Liberal senator John Herron also denied he was leaving for an overseas posting, until his mission to Dublin was confirmed officially.

He replaced the equally likable Bob Halverson, who from 1996-98 was Speaker of the House of Representatives until John Howard decided Ian Sinclair should be given the job.

One argument is that former ministers know not only what the Government of the day wants, but how the bureaucracy works, which apparently is a significant asset to have.

Well, Alston has that, and he does have an interest in foreign affairs.

As a young man he discovered the world working as crew on what might in another age have been described as a tramp steamer, toodling around the Pacific.

As a lawyer, he was a member of the Australian Institute of International Affairs and Amnesty International.

The man was even president of the UN Association of Australia and on the executive of the International Council of Voluntary Agencies.

The word "international" drips off his CV.

That experience and interest meant nothing when the Coalition took office. Now, however, Alston is being praised for his talents.

Last week Foreign Minister Alexander Downer seemed upset that anyone would question the appointment, damning the "completely absurd notion" that politicians should not get cushy diplomatic posts.

"There's another notion around that apparently the democratically elected government of our country shouldn't be making these appointments," he said.

US Ambassador Tom Schieffer made a pertinent point in his address to the National Press Club last week. He said American diplomats are regarded as "personal representatives of the President".

That contrasts with our system, received from the Brits, in which diplomats usually are professionals who represent Australia.

They are there to deliver the bad news as well as the good, and offer advice even when it is unpopular.

John Howard appears to want to adopt the American approach. Certainly he's moving towards it.