It might be imagined that something would have been learned from the bumbling escapades of politicians in some of this country's top overseas diplomatic posts.
So much so that such appointments, whether as a reward for service to a party or to move on a parliamentarian, should have ceased long ago. They have not, of course.
Indeed, the practice continues to flourish. This Government has made former National Party leader Jim McLay the ambassador to the United Nations, a post not previously used for political reward.
And now the Foreign Affairs Minister is compounding the potential for blunder by opening many ambassadorial appointments to outside competition.
Murray McCully has kicked this off by advertising the role of the high commissioner in Kiribati.
"This is the most overt signal I have sent so far that heads of missions roles - ambassadors and high commissioners - are not the exclusive preserve of staff of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs," he said this week.
Unsurprisingly, the union representing career diplomats is unimpressed. It has good reason. Its members are accustomed to cleaning up the mess created by political appointees. Now they can expect more of the same bull-in-a-china-shop antics from men and women appointed from the private sector.
The minister is, in effect, suggesting that diplomacy is an art that virtually anyone can pick up at the drop of a hat. It does not require a tact, sensitivity and prudence gained from years of training and experience.
It can be taken up easily by people who are probably more accustomed to bluntness and straight talking. Nor does it require a deep knowledge of a wide spectrum of issues that may be part of New Zealand's dealings with other nations.
Mr McCully sees the cultivation of trade as the chief priority of overseas posts. That, indeed, may be their most important role, but there will also be times when ambassadors need expertise in issues such as immigration, security and international pacts.
There are other reasons for unease. The Labour Party talks of the prospect of "cronyism". It cannot, however, bring itself to conclude that if rewards for private sector "friends" are a no-no, so, too, should be the rewards for political friends.
Nonetheless, there is undoubtedly good cause to be wary of the potential for such abuse, the more so because the interests uppermost in the minds of those fresh from the private sector will not always tally precisely with those of this country.
Mr McCully also spoke of his wish to see talented younger staff from the middle ranks of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade promoted to heads of mission roles. Too many of these people were being lost because they had to wait too long for their opportunities, he said.
That may be so, and a challenge to any ingrained and unthinking system of seniority is worthwhile. But it is a moot point whether the introduction of outside competition will simply further erode the prospects of talented younger staff, not to speak of dampening the morale of all the country's diplomats.
Much of the minister's speech to the Institute of International Affairs dwelt with the need for MFAT to live within cost constraints while also opening posts in some parts of Asia, the Middle East and Africa.
He was on sound ground in suggesting that fewer jobs could be filled by secondment from Wellington, with local people hired instead. Equally, money could be saved by renting rooms in other embassies. But there is nothing to be gained, and much to lose, from throwing open top diplomatic postings.
Mr McCully says he wants simply to "pick the best person for the job". In the overwhelming majority of cases, that should be a career diplomat.
Politics
