McClay ToddHon TODD McCLAY (National—Rotorua): Madam Chair thank you very much. I agree with my colleague who has just spoken Priyanca Radhakrishnan that the conversation in the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee was a very useful one. Indeed of the many hearings that I have participated in attended or answered questions in this was one of the most useful one of the most insightful and one where we almost got the answers that we required. We started with a very wide-ranging conversation about the need for bipartisanship in foreign affairs and that actually what bipartisanship meant for an Opposition was that they wouldn't necessarily agree with everything the Government did—indeed didn't have to agree with much of what the Government did—but we shouldn't be afraid of that actually robust debate in the committee that in this House leads to better foreign affairs outcomes for New Zealand and that we shouldn't be afraid to actually debate important issues of foreign affairs both in public and in this place for the people of New Zealand. It can't be left to any one Government irrespective of what parties are involved in that Government and I made that the case both when we were in Government and now of course with a different Government. I would say that the Rt Hon Winston Peters recognised that there should be opportunities for us to explore these sorts of things. He did say that the Government would have information that an Opposition wouldn't which perhaps would make it difficult for an Opposition—any Opposition—to have these conversations. In conversation with him in the committee he also accepted that we must find ways to share more information. The greater involvement that New Zealanders have through observation or being able to put their views to Parliament or members of Parliament on issues of foreign affairs can only be good for democracy and can only be good for this House and the direction the Government goes in.Of course it is for the Government to make decisions with Cabinet as to what they do internationally. There are many occasions where they will involve the Opposition and bring them with them. But ultimately the only way that there is acceptance of the importance that our diplomats and our officers overseas and our Ministers when they go away do on behalf of New Zealand is when there is buy-in from the public. I'm of the view that there are too many members of our public that don't understand the great great job that our ambassadors and our officials and our diplomats do overseas. And that's understandable because actually largely their interaction may only be if they lose a passport if they get in trouble or if they are there perhaps looking at some trade. But ultimately we have a very large number of people around the world that represent us well.The Minister extended an olive branch to the committee in my conversation with him and accepted that perhaps on seven occasions a year this House would set aside time to debate foreign affairs. And we accepted that offer from him. I did suggest that seven may be a number to aspire to over time and that it would be a challenge and perhaps to talk to the Leader of the House or Cabinet about that. The Rt Hon Winston Peters assured me it wouldn't be an issue if we decided on seven but perhaps we would start with fewer. We take him up on that offer and I think this House should do it. This is a debate about the spending in foreign affairs where the Opposition gets to criticise and ask certain questions. What I was proposing was a wide-ranging debate on foreign affairs issues not in urgency or because something's happened in the world but actually to raise the issues and have understanding. In the type of debates this Parliament used to have before the advent of MMP when parliamentarians were locked away here and couldn't get leave unless it was an exceptional given by the Opposition there were wide-ranging debates and the quality of debate was quite outstanding—I think we should do that much more in foreign affairs.The final point I wanted to make here is that we had a discussion about Israel in the committee. The Opposition raised the concern we had that the New Zealand Government had a map up on one of their websites showing Israel as Palestine. That was a grave error. We sought on behalf of the Jewish community in New Zealand an apology. And the Minister was forthright in providing that and offering it and said he would ensure it would never happen again. There could be many reasons why this happened—none of them are good reasons; none of them are acceptable.It is time that we made sure that all across Government in New Zealand they are clear on New Zealand's position on Israel and Palestine and the Middle East. Actually it is time for the Government to make a decision that the embassy that looks after the State of Israel the independent State of Israel is no longer in Turkey; it is Israel. The Opposition would support that. That would be a very good use of money. Concerningly there is no money in the Budget for that but it is something we should debate in this House when we take the Minister up to have that first debate he promised.