Peters' performance affects Ardern

By anyone's measure, Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern performed her role as New Zealand's leader with assertiveness in the wake of the Christchurch terrorist attacks.

It was therefore easy to draw a contrast to that leadership when she was this week questioned on the recent diplomatic performance of Foreign Minister and Deputy Prime Minister Winston Peters.

In the wake of the Christchurch attack, Mr Peters was asked to attend the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation in Turkey. It was a chance to ensure those present understood New Zealand neither identified with nor tolerated Islamophobia. It was also a chance, as Mr Peters and Ms Ardern made clear in the days preceding the trip, to confront Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan on his behaviour in the aftermath of the Christchurch attack.

Mr Erdogan had been using footage of the Christchurch massacre as a campaigning tool, while insinuating Antipodeans visiting Turkey could be killed if they displayed anti-Islamic behaviour.

The Australian response was quick, sharp, and threatening. The New Zealand response was to inform Turkish government officials, in the country at the time, of our displeasure. Nevertheless, the Turkey trip, the public were told, would allow Mr Peters to "set the record straight".

But Mr Peters did not bring up Mr Erdogan's campaigning during their meeting, stating afterwards it had been unnecessary as that campaigning had already ceased. Hours later, Mr Erdogan was again playing footage of the attack, albeit in an edited format.

Furthermore, while seated beside Mr Erdogan during the president's speech, Mr Peters appeared to fall asleep. Mr Peters has since said he was in "deep contemplation".

Mr Peters has many years of Foreign Minister experience under his belt. In that time, he has acquitted himself well enough to earn praise and respect from both sides of New Zealand's political landscape. That is rare praise indeed.

He must understand the nuances and complexities of the role as well as, if not better than, anyone in the country - certainly better than those in the media tasked with analysing and critiquing his performance.

Yet that track record, that experience, does not immunise him from analysis or critique. Nor does it qualify him for continuing in a role he has done well in the past but may or may not be performing as well now.

The point is, he must be open to analysis and critique, and the Prime Minister must be open to, and be seen to be open to, analysing and critiquing him when his performance falls short of the mark. Whether it did in this instance is a point of debate but, to many outside observers, it appeared the Turkey trip was not Mr Peters' finest hour.

Mr Peters judgement call not to confront Mr Erdogan on his rhetoric doing their meeting must be respected. Yet it is also reasonable for New Zealanders to expect a firmer line in the wake of the Christchurch attacks.

His assertion that his apparent slumber was "deep contemplation" seems to stretch credibility. Even if true, such a high-profile diplomatic moment is surely not the best time for that degree of deep contemplation.

Certainly, that appeared to be the opinion of many in New Zealand who seemed less than satisfied with his explanations. But it is Winston Peters - he is as close to teflon-coated as any politician in the country.

Unfortunately for the Prime Minister, the media demanded she too analyse and critique Mr Peters' performance. That she robustly refused to criticise it seemed to miss where the public sat on the issue.

Ms Ardern emphatically proved her leadership credentials this month. She led us assertively when we needed leading. It is a shame, then, her deputy appears to have reminded us that assertively leading her government ministers is a role she has yet to master.