Much like the Australian economy and the very dubious wisdom of the $42 billion stimulus package, the Rudd Government's very ambitious foreign policy is looking increasingly illconceived.

As criticism mounts over the Government's ill‐advised decision to send the Governor‐ General on a lobbying trip to Africa, Australians should also be questioning the wisdom of the Government's decision to spend $13 million, over the next few years, to appoint a resident Australian Ambassador to the Holy See in Rome.

This appointment took place against the background of a Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade under increasing pressure from a severe lack of funding and resources, a situation that has deteriorated materially since Rudd embarked on his very ambitious, but largely unfunded, foreign policy agenda.

For over 35 years Australia’s diplomatic relations with the Holy See have been served through a non resident ambassador – generally the Australian Ambassador to Ireland.

Despite advice from DFAT that this arrangement had worked well, Prime Minister Rudd pushed for this appointment. The Department was not consulted about either the decision to create the resident ambassador's post or the appointment of Tim Fischer to the position.

In a rush to meet the very short prime ministerially imposed deadline on the appointment, the Department has had to scramble around to make necessary arrangements. An earlier decision to return an Australian‐based Foreign Service officer from Rome has been reversed, the new ambassador has had to be located in temporary premises while a new, more appropriate and more expensive residence is found and a new embassy established.

DFAT is desperately in need of a serious injection of funds, perhaps in the vicinity of $20‐25 million a year. When it is facing such a parlous situation, the Government's priority in opening this new post in Rome is a foolish misallocation of resources. Mr Fischer, as a former deputy prime minister, is certainly a very suitable candidate for a diplomatic appointment, but his services could be far better used elsewhere, perhaps Africa, if that is regarded as a high priority. Alternatively the funds required for the post might be channelled into supporting the existing and seriously under‐funded activities of the department.

It is the prerogative of the government of the day to make diplomatic appointments. But for the cost and the benefits it is likely to yield to Australia, this decision makes very little sense.

Australia needs to protect its interests abroad and the Foreign Service is a critical part of this endeavour. Considering the financial constraints it is under, DFAT does its work with great professionalism.

But maintaining its high standards is becoming increasingly difficult. With successive Commonwealth budgets heading into deficit territory and a massive debt now overhanging the Australian economy, spending for DFAT is under constant pressure and threat of further cutbacks. For all the other important priorities it confronts, the decision in relation to the Holy See hardly makes any sense; it drains limited resources from DFAT's budget and will do little to advance our national interest abroad. Mr Rudd should think seriously about abandoning the idea.