US President Barack Obama chairing a meeting of the UN Security Council in September last year.

New Zealand's successful bid for a seat on the United Nations Security Council proved its independent foreign policies over the last 20 to 30 years were basically right, campaign head Colin Keating said.

And Keating rejected suggestions New Zealand would use its two year term on the council to vote in line with United States' wishes.

READ MORE: 'We nailed it': NZ wins UN Security Council seat

GETTY IMAGES Prime Minister John Key just after New Zealand was successful in winning a seat on the United Nations Security Council for 2015 and 2016.

Speaking at the 50th Foreign Policy School conference at Otago University Keating pointed to New Zealand's embarrassing defeat by Malta in its bid for a seat in 1982, in the wake of the 1981 Springbok Tour, and the narrow win just 10 years later.

He said New Zealand's decisive victory on the first ballot over Spain and Turkey in 2014, with the backing of two-thirds of UN member countries, was proof that "policy matters", as does style.

And he said New Zealand's stand on the Rwanda genocide in the early 1990s - when along with only the Czech Republic it called for UN intervention - was still remembered and was a key reason it had such strong support this time.

PHIL REID/FAIRFAX NZ Former New Zealand Ambassador to the United Nations Colin Keating lead the recent campaign to secure a two-term on the world body's Security Council.

Auckland University law Professor Jane Kelsey questioned New Zealand's independence on the council and said she could not think of an issue where it would vote differently from the United States position.

But Keating, a former NZ ambassador to the UN, said he could think of six times in the past six months when New Zealand had "strongly stood out against the United States and pushed the United States back".

It had also taken an independent stance on Palestine.

He also rejected her suggestion New Zealand was seen as less independent since 2008 given its "engagement with war" and the "Five Eyes" intelligence alliance and shifts in its relationship with the US.

He had met representatives of maybe 100 countries during the campaign. "Their perception of New Zealand is not the way you describe it. It's still a perception of a country that is strongly independent."

Earlier Foreign Minister Murray McCully said New Zealand did not come to the role with "a big shopping list" but said a resumption of peace talks between Israel and Palestine was a central focus of New Zealand's term on the council.

He said there would be an opportunity in July to get the talks started, with NZ due to chair the council next month.

With just a two year term on the council New Zealand did "not want to die wondering" if the long-stalled peace process could be restarted. And he believed the two sides were closer than many thought and the leaders knew what a deal would look like.

There were always reasons advanced why "now is not a good time", but it might be a case of the UN choosing "from the available wrong times".

It is understood New Zealand also stood out against the US and Britain over consulting Afghanistan directly when the UN was looking at its future role there.

It is an approach McCully has made his hallmark, following a campaign for the seat that focused on representing small states.

For instance McCully said he had called the foreign minister of Cyprus and asked him if he had anything to add before a council discussion on the divided Mediterranean country, and was told "this has never happened to us before".

New Zealand would also press for reform of the veto, held by the five permanent members Russia, the US, China, Britain and France. He backed France's move for "voluntary retirement" of the veto in cases of mass atrocity.