Graham KennedyDr KENNEDY GRAHAM (Green): I would very much like to pick up on what I take to be the recurrent theme in the intervention of the previous speaker Todd Muller because I agree with it very much—that is to say the superb capability of the diplomats in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade who serve New Zealand very well. It comes through to some extent in the report and that is to be commended. I have to actually add however that that includes primus inter pares Derek Leask and Nigel Fyfe to whom the State Services Commissioner unreservedly apologised in December last year for being unfairly treated in the Rebstock report which we recall very clearly. This Parliament can only hope that Dame Paula Rebstock described by the State Services Commissioner as possessing immense talent" that could still be used in the future will not produce further reports that will be in the judgment of the Ombudsman "seriously flawed in multiple respects" and unfairly single out future outstanding New Zealanders who work in the best interests of the ministry and this country.On to more positive things and I agree with the Hon Annette King that there is a lot in the development of foreign policy in the last year or two that can be commended particularly the New Zealand support for promoting Security Council Resolution 2334 on Israeli settlements. It is a complicated situation but the complexities and the sensitivities there do not absolve Israel of the obligation to respect international law. I am aware of Israel's legal argumentation and I respect it. I disagree with it but I respect it and I think it should be encouraged to put it to independent objective international judgment.The other very positive feature as Annette King did say was the thematic debate that New Zealand undertook in July 2015 when it had the presidency on the security of small Island States. I made a point of going up to that meeting and I have to say it was one of the more impressive meetings out of many many UN meetings that I have participated in or observed. It was an outstanding day of debate with 77 leaders heads of Government and Foreign Ministers somewhat passionately—and that is unusual for the Security Council—addressing the situation. It was not just climate change. It was piracy money-laundering and of course sea-level rise but above all a plea to all countries coming through from those leaders—and not least to New Zealand in the chair—to undertake more ambitious efforts at emissions mitigation for the sake of avoiding future climate change that will pose not simply an existential threat to those States but actually will have them disappear in some cases.We do not have time to explore the merits of whether the Security Council should actually undertake more responsibility for climate change. The British and the Germans have sought to have the Security Council declare climate change to be a threat to international peace and security and the council has stopped short in each case to this day. It simply describes it as a risk multiplier—a multiplier of other risks—to peace and security but it has not declared climate change to be such and that is for the future. To be critical New Zealand could have pushed that a little bit further in that debate but that aside the debate was superb and it was a commendation to the Government.Leadership on nuclear disarmament—we look at North Korea and the problem we have there. That was touched on there in the report: how to cooperate under the Trump administration. Just regard Israel's nuclear weapon programme as not that dissimilar to the North Korean nuclear weapons programme and let us get a balanced approach to nuclear disarmament. Thank you."