Much of the media was distracted from its content by Mr Peters' silly reference to the ‘‘baubles of office'', and failed to report him saying ‘‘we will oppose free trade agreements with low wage economies''.
On this topic, Mr Peters and his party have been entirely consistent, so no serious observer of politics can be surprised that, with a free trade agreement with China now signed, some elements of the media think he will have to resign, since, as Minister of Foreign Affairs, Mr Peters might at some point between today and the election be asked by a foreign government for his opinion, and his opinion might damage the official position of the New Zealand Government.
This is a nonsensical understanding of how diplomacy works. Mr Peters is in no danger of losing his portfolio on this issue while Helen Clark is Prime Minister.
The situation may be absurd, but it is politically manageable. His party made its position clear on trade deals in the post-election negotiations, and the post of Foreign Affairs Minister was offered to Mr Peters on the strict understanding that he would have no responsibility for trade.
He is also a minister outside Cabinet, a position designed to recognise that he cannot be bound by collective Cabinet responsibility, and NZ First is not in a formal coalition with Labour.
Furthermore, the fact that the Prime Minister was told in advance of Mr Peters' planned statement about the Chinese FTA was, in effect, acknowledgement that NZ First's position is simply part and parcel of coalition politics.
Mr Peters could only be in danger of losing his foreign affairs portfolio (he is also Minister for Racing and Associate Minister for Senior Citizens) if he spoke against the FTA while representing New Zealand overseas and did not make clear he was speaking personally.
That is quite unlikely. While he is required to ‘‘speak for the Government on all issues'' when overseas in his official capacity as a minister, he can easily divert attention to the FTA by citing the Minister of Trade, Phil Goff, as the appropriate respondent.
And in any event, there cannot be a diplomat in Wellington who is not fully aware of NZ First's ‘‘loose'' position in coalition, or Mr Peters' consistent policy position on free trade.
Nevertheless, it is worth observing that this master of semantics has not quite rejected out-of-hand the FTA - merely argued that it could have been better for New Zealand.
This line is being pressed entirely for Mr Peters' domestic audience. It means he and NZ First can continue to argue against the actual deal, including when Parliament considers it, although in moderate terms - after all, he and his colleagues have made it possible for Labour to govern - increasing the intensity of opposition during the election campaign proper, when trade policy and foreign policy can be suitably inseparable and political convenience no longer matters.
Mr Peters must also have his optimistic eye on post-election possibilities. The extraordinary - and patently unwise - statement on Wednesday by the leader of the National Party, John Key, that Mr Peters could ‘‘conceivably'' remain foreign minister in a National government if his support was needed for the party to govern, has simply strengthened his hand.
Mr Peters is, above all, a master politician and he has done very well - on his terms - out of the past two weeks.
The party he leads managed to make its negative decision on the free trade agreement with China only after it had been signed, thus limiting any possible embarrassment to its coalition bedmate; Mr Peters was able to garner a few headlines with his virtuous and possibly popular indignation about the quality of the agreement; his job as Foreign Minister in the coalition seems secure despite the necessity for him to simultaneously wear both a homburg and a stetson; and a possible job offer emerged from the Opposition, to be kept in his hip pocket for those unsettling days post-election.
Truly, Mr Peters is a diplomat for all seasons.
