Geneva Conventions (Third Protocol—Red Crystal Emblem) Amendment Bill

on behalf of the Minister of Foreign Affairs: I move, That the Geneva Conventions (Third Protocol—Red Crystal Emblem) Amendment Bill be now read a second time. The bill implements New Zealand’s obligations under the third additional protocol to the Geneva Conventions of 1949. The four Geneva Conventions and their additional protocols represent the core framework of international humanitarian law: regulating the conduct of armed conflicts. They are among the most universal international treaties in existence.

The third protocol establishes a new distinctive emblem, known as the Red Crystal, giving it the same legal recognition and protection from misuse that the Red Cross, the Red Crescent, and the Red Lion and Sun currently enjoy under the Geneva Conventions framework. Like the other recognised emblems, authorised users, such as medical personnel, may display the Red Crystal to receive protection from hostile acts in situations of armed conflict.

The Red Crystal emblem provides an alternative to the Red Cross and Red Crescent emblems, and is intended to be free from any national, religious, cultural, or political connotations. The third protocol is seen as a practical solution to a practical problem. Its adoption will allow the Israeli national society, the Magen David Adom, and the Palestinian Red Crescent Society to be admitted to the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies.

The adoption of the third protocol creates a more flexible environment by allowing the indicative use of a combination of recognised emblems or the Red Shield of David within the home territory of a national society, as long as the emblem or combination of emblems is incorporated within the frame of the Red Crystal. Arrangements like this were not permitted under previous rules.

Although the New Zealand Defence Force will continue to use the Red Cross to designate its medical and religious personnel and equipment, it is essential that our armed forces personnel recognise the protective use of the Red Crystal emblem by other forces and authorised civilian organisations. It is also time that New Zealand joined the 92 other signatories to the third protocol and the 60 countries that have ratified it in formally recognising the Red Crystal emblem as part of the core framework of international humanitarian law.

I thank the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee for its careful consideration of this bill. The committee received one submission, from the International Committee of the Red Cross, strongly supporting the passage of the bill. The select committee recommends that the bill be passed with amendments, and I consider that the committee’s recommendations improve the bill and enhance New Zealand’s domestic implementation of the third protocol.

The bill amends the Geneva Conventions Act 1958 so that all the distinctive emblems receive the same legal recognition and protection. The bill also increases the maximum penalty for an offence under section 8 of the Geneva Conventions Act from a fine of $1,000 to a fine of $10,000. The current penalty was set in 1987, and the proposed penalty is more in line with similar offences for misusing protected symbols.

The committee recommended that section 3 of the Geneva Conventions Act be amended to include a grave breach of the third protocol as an offence under the Act. Although the third protocol does not explicitly require such an offence to be created, it is sensible for a grave misuse of the Red Crystal to be recognised as an offence in the same way as a grave misuse of any other protected emblem.

The bill also makes a number of minor and technical amendments to existing legislation. The adoption of the third protocol has been an important step in enhancing protection for medical and humanitarian workers who will use the emblem in conflict situations, especially where the existing emblems cannot be used. It is also an important step towards promoting the unity and universality of the Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement.

Passing this bill will enable New Zealand to ratify the third protocol, reaffirming our strong support for international humanitarian law and for the critical role of the Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement in providing humanitarian assistance to vulnerable people throughout the world. I commend this bill to the House.

Labour supports this bill, the Geneva Conventions (Third Protocol—Red Crystal Emblem) Amendment Bill, and its progress through its final stages in the House today. I imagine that every party in the House will be in support of this legislation, which is not particularly contentious and takes a step that will be very much welcomed by the Red Cross, both in New Zealand and internationally.

The bill amends two separate pieces of legislation—the Geneva Conventions Act of 1958 and the Flags, Emblems, and Names Protection Act of 1981. It implements New Zealand’s obligations under the protocol addition to the Geneva Conventions of 1949, and what it relates to is the adoption of an additional distinctive emblem, which is called the third protocol. Although the third protocol is referred to in the bill as the Red Crystal, most people would recognise it as a red diamond shape.

Most members of the New Zealand community would be familiar with the Red Cross and the Red Crescent. The Red Cross and the Red Crescent are emblems that are used by nations for their medical workers, including military medical workers, and humanitarian workers at times of armed conflict. The emblems give them protection against attack when they are doing work and retrieving victims from the battlefield, and so on. There is actually another emblem that the Minister of Civil Defence referred to—the Red Lion and Sun—which had its origins in Iran, but that has largely fallen into disuse.

The problem with the Red Crescent and the Red Cross is that they have come to have religious and, therefore, political connotations. That actually was not the intention in the first instance. The Red Cross, which is a red cross on a white flag, is actually the inverse of the flag of Switzerland, which is a white cross on a red flag. It was chosen because Switzerland perhaps best epitomised the role of neutrality in international affairs, and, of course, non-combatants in a battlefield situation who are rescuing injured soldiers or civilians, or are retrieving the bodies of those who have been killed, are in a neutral situation. They are not taking part in the battle that is going on, and it is really important that they have protection in their roles.

I guess it is somewhat ironic that we have rules regarding whom you can kill and injure, and whom you cannot kill and injure, in the course of a battle. It would be much better if we—

💬 Hon Maurice Williamson: It’s like caucus.

It is like the Standing Orders, Mr Williamson. It would be much better, of course, if we did not have wars and nobody was entitled to kill and maim people in the course of fighting. But that is not the reality of the world. As long as the reality of the world is that there are conflicts, it is better to have rules surrounding those conflicts than not to have those particular rules.

New Zealand is a party to the four Geneva Conventions of 1949 and the first and second additional protocols of 1977. These six instruments represent the core framework of international humanitarian law: regulating the conduct of armed conflict, as I have just mentioned.

Going back to the problem with the Red Cross and the Red Crescent, there were countries in the world that, for particular reasons, were not able to adopt either of those emblems. In particular, that applied to Israel and it applied to Eritrea. Both countries expressed the need to have an emblem that would be able to win the respect and the observance of both sides in an armed conflict. There was a suggestion by Israel that it could be a red Star of David—[Interruption]—but that was not deemed to have the same impact on the opposing side on the battlefield, as Mr Williamson acknowledges.

So a joint working party was set up in around about 2000 to propose a third emblem. Things move reasonably slowly in international fields—and just as slowly in this House, unfortunately, with the passage of this legislation—and in December 2005 the emblem of the Red Crystal, the red diamond, was finally adopted, and it was adopted by a two-thirds majority. It was seen as a practical solution, and indeed it has been a practical solution. It has enabled the Israelis and the Palestinians, the Israeli national society and the Palestinian Red Crescent Society, to join the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies and to increase cooperation between them. That, in the highly conflicted situation of the Middle East, is an important factor.

The additional protocol did not go through unanimously, however. A large number of countries that were part of the Arab League and the Organization of the Islamic Conference voted against it. They voted against it not so much because they were opposed to having an additional protocol, an additional emblem; they did it in protest at Israel’s perceived breach of the Geneva Conventions in the occupied Palestinian territories and the Golan Heights.

I would have to say that that is a continuing problem. In the last week, to see a decision by the Netanyahu Government to illegally settle another 3,000 Israeli citizens on occupied land, which it is not entitled to do, is a provocation. I understand why those countries symbolically opposed the additional protocol on that basis. I feel equally strongly about that. That is a provocation. It is something that stands in the way of the long-awaited peace settlement between the two sides.

But I do not believe that we should use that as a reason not to pass this bill today. In fact, members of both the Organization of the Islamic Conference and the Arab League implicitly acknowledged the importance of having the third emblem, welcoming the cooperation between the Israeli side and the Palestinian side in terms of their particular national societies. So although I understand the protest that has been made by those two groups of countries, I do not believe that it is grounds for opposing the adoption of the emblem, and I think the House should pass this legislation today.

The second part of the bill actually extends and strengthens New Zealand’s obligation to prohibit the unauthorised use of Geneva Convention emblems. It does that, of course, in the first instance, by extending the protection to the Red Crystal, but it also does it by bringing the penalties into a more realistic framework. The penalty for misuse of the Red Cross or the Red Crescent was $1,000. That is being increased tenfold, to $10,000, and, probably, that only brings it in line with inflation.

The Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee back in 2007 conducted an international treaty examination of the protocol, and it supported ratification. Three years later—and it was a long time later—a bill came into the House, and another 2 years have passed before we are moving to pass this legislation. Again, I would ask the National Government to look at how it manages the affairs of this House and to not hold up non-controversial legislation that all of the parties can support.

This motion should have been moved earlier, but the bill will go through its final stages today. We will then be able to ratify the protocol, and we will be able to implement our obligations under it. Sixty countries, as the Minister of Civil Defence mentioned, have already ratified it. It would be really good to see New Zealand, as a country proud of its role in international affairs, move more quickly in fields like that, so that we can be at the leading edge of ratifying things that we all agree with, rather than leaving things for the unconscionable length of time that has occurred with those two delays. There was a delay in introducing the bill and in getting the bill through the House. It has been just sitting on the Order Paper when every party in the House will probably support it. I support the passage of this bill.

It is a pleasure to take a call on the Geneva Conventions (Third Protocol—Red Crystal Emblem) Amendment Bill. I am sure that all members of this House would agree that the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies should be regarded with the highest respect of just about any humanitarian organisation. It does from time to time demonstrate selfless contribution and extraordinary sacrifice, with its operatives on many occasions putting themselves into extraordinary danger for the sake of others.

The main aim of this bill is to amend the Geneva Conventions Act 1958 and the Flags, Emblems, and Names Protection Act 1981 in order to implement New Zealand’s obligations under the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, which New Zealand signed on 19 June 2006 with regard to the adoption of this additional distinctive emblem.

Amending these Acts enables an additional protective emblem, with equal status to the Red Cross and Red Crescent, to be used in situations where neither of the existing emblems has the respect of both sides in an armed conflict. And I note in new schedule 7, inserted by the bill in the Geneva Conventions Act 1958, that the distinctive emblems from article 2—as you may see, Mr Speaker—and article 3 indicate clearly the characteristics of this emblem. I think as Mr Goff described it, most would recognise this as a diamond. It was actually described also as a lozenge. However, the major point is that the Red Crystal emblem is intended to be free from any national, religious, cultural, or political connotations, and that is obvious from the history of the genesis of this symbol coming into being.

This bill reaffirms New Zealand’s longstanding position as a supporter of international humanitarian law and the role of the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement. It is worthwhile just reiterating the background. The third protocol, of course, emanated from the original Geneva Conventions in 1949. This distinctive emblem was adopted by the States at the Geneva Conventions in 2005, and New Zealand signed the protocol in 2006. One does again wonder why the Minister of Foreign Affairs at the time, the Hon Phil Goff, did not expedite this into legislation during the course of the last Labour Government. One wonders whether he was a lazy Minister. Was he a lazy Minister? I leave the House to question this.

💬 Dr Cam Calder: Good question.

Yes. I do indeed feel somewhat cynical at the moralising that he has exhibited during the course of this morning. But it is good that this bill is now before the House as we see it, and I think it is important to remember that the Geneva Conventions of 1949 and additional Protocols I and II of 1977 are the primary source of international humanitarian law and the law of armed conflict.

The Red Cross and Red Crescent emblems are now used in over 190 countries to protect authorised medical personnel, buildings, equipment, and chaplains during times of armed conflict. However, some countries—and I think, again, that Mr Goff identified Israel and Eritrea as being two—find it difficult to use these symbols because of the religious connotations. Israel itself was keen to use, through its Magen David Adom NGO, the Red Shield of David. Clearly this was unacceptable to others, and consequently the Red Crystal was settled through the conventions. This was not entirely easy. There were difficulties in getting it through, and certainly the Arab League countries did not agree. However, the overall feeling was that it was important.

I think it is relevant to say that the additional emblem is needed for two main reasons. One can think of the conflict in Libya, and again in Syria, right now, where it is used for military medical personnel and authorised humanitarian workers during those sorts of conflicts that are going on as we speak. It is also used to enable national societies that are unable to adopt either of the emblems currently in use.

As I said, there is no doubt that it was not entirely easy getting this passed through. It would have been great to have it unanimously passed, but that was not the case. The Arab League States wanted to see some of the issues regarding the Golan Heights and the Palestine territories settled before they would agree to it, and one must hope that, with time, this will happen. I must say that I do agree with Mr Goff when I hear of the settlements occurring in East Jerusalem, which seem to me to be particularly provocative under the circumstances. The Red Crystal emblem and its introduction into this convention are a very positive move, and I support the bill in the House.

It gives me great pleasure to rise again to speak in this debate on the Geneva Conventions (Third Protocol—Red Crystal Emblem) Amendment Bill. It is something that Labour supports, obviously. In fact, there is not a party in the House, I think, that would not support this bill. Just before I proceed with a couple of comments that I want to make about the significance of the bill, I do want to go to process. For the member who has just resumed his seat, Paul Hutchison, to ask a question about whether or not the Hon Phil Goff should have progressed this legislation in 2007 or late 2005 ignores the fact that the Hon Phil Goff was not the Minister of Foreign Affairs between 2005 and 2008. So I just recommend that the member, if he is wishing to cast aspersions, gets his history right.

Having dropped that little gem in there for the Government to gnaw at, I would like to proceed to talk about the significance of these emblems, which is something that we do all agree on, irrespective of the time delay there has been from the introduction of this bill under the Labour Government to the passage of it today. The Red Cross, Red Crescent, and Red Crystal emblems have for a long time provided protection for military medical services and relief workers in armed conflicts. The emblems are used for identification purposes. The use of the emblems is actually clearly defined in law. The use and misuse of the Red Cross, Red Crescent, and Red Crystal emblems is clearly defined. The Geneva Conventions and the additional protocols contain several articles on the emblems, and among other things they specify the use, size, purpose, and placing of the emblems, and the persons and property they protect, who can use them, what respect for the emblems entails, and the penalties for misuse. In addition to that, they require that each State party to the Geneva Conventions and their additional protocols enact legislation defining the use, and preventing the misuse, of these emblems on a national level, and that is what we are engaged in doing today.

There are two main uses of these emblems. One is protective, and the other is indicative. First, obviously, the emblems are a visible sign in armed conflict of the protection given to medical services, medical equipment, and buildings of the armed forces under international law, and that protection extends to certain humanitarian organisations working alongside the military to relieve the suffering of the wounded, prisoners, and civilians caught up in the conflict. This first use is the one that is usually referred to as protective use. Secondly, national Red Cross and Red Crescent societies around the world are allowed to use the emblems to identify themselves as part of a global network known as the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement, and this use is called the indicative use. The rules for both of these uses are very precise. As my colleague the Hon Phil Goff mentioned a moment ago, in armed conflict the protective emblem must be in red on a white background with no additions. Of course, the first of these emblems came into being in 1864 as the Red Cross: a red cross on a white background, the reversing-out of the flag of Switzerland, known for its neutrality. So the resulting symbol had the advantage of being easily produced, and it was recognisable at a distance because of its contrasting colours.

In the years that followed, a number of national relief organisations started to be called Red Cross societies, and the indicative use of the emblem became established. The original intent of the 1864 conference, the diplomatic conference that resulted in this emblem being adopted, was to create a universal, neutral, and distinctive sign of protection used and recognised by everyone. Just over a decade later, in the 1870s during the Russo-Turkish War, the Ottoman Empire adopted the Red Crescent as its protective sign, while still recognising and respecting the Red Cross. Persia, too, at that time adopted its own sign, and in 1929 Governments formally recognised all three. The third sign—and, again, the Hon Phil Goff referred to this—was the old Persian sign, the Red Lion and Sun, and that lasted until 1980, when Iran dropped that symbol. So since the 1990s there had been concern about respect for the neutrality of the Red Cross or the Red Crescent in certain difficult conflicts, and in 1992 the then president of the International Committee of the Red Cross called publicly for the creation of an additional emblem devoid of any national political or religious connotation. In 2005 Governments adopted this additional protective sign, the Red Crystal.

Just today I received the latest newsletter from the New Zealand Red Cross, and I would just like to draw on that for a moment to demonstrate how critical it is that in modern times—never mind the history of these emblems, but in modern times—there are acceptable emblems that connote a protection and a neutrality in times of conflict. The International Humanitarian Law Newsletter, which I just received from the New Zealand Red Cross today, talks about places of current conflict: it refers to Syria, it refers to the Ivory Coast and war crimes committed there, it talks about the relentless conflict in Afghanistan, and it talks about past conflicts in Libya. These are contemporary examples of war-torn countries in which these emblems take on an immediate significance. It is imperative that those who are medics, who go in as non-combatants into war-torn areas, receive international recognition and protection. If the introduction of the Red Crystal allows any past connotations with either Christianity or Islam to be removed from the recognition of emblems, then this is a good thing. It is the neutrality and the independence of the emblems that is very important.

The last time I spoke on this I made a comment about emblems and how we do run our lives by emblems. Human beings respond to emblems. We know what it means when a flag is flown at half mast. That is an emblem that is recognised the world over as a sign of mourning of somebody in high office or a very celebrated person having died. We respond to emblems. It has been the case that there have been conflicts in recent times from which the humanitarian aid of the Red Cross has been prohibited, so the Red Cross has been forbidden to go into areas at times. In Burma, when great humanitarian need arose out of Cyclone Nargis a few years ago, the junta at that time refused to admit international humanitarian aid. So there are times when humanitarian need has not been recognised and adopted by Governments, and this protocol, signed by the number of countries that have signed it, gives me some hope that there can be some neutrality and there can be a recognition internationally that when people wear these emblems, they are protected and their function is recognised. So the Labour Party supports this bill unreservedly and commends it to the House. Thank you.

Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. I am pleased to take a brief call this morning in support of the Geneva Conventions (Third Protocol—Red Crystal Emblem) Amendment Bill. Again, obviously, the Green Party is joining I think every other party in the House today in support of this bill.

A lot of the history has already been covered by my colleagues, and this speech and this topic almost feel as if they are about us just actually catching up and signing off the paperwork to pass something that has already happened. So there does not feel, to me, to be a huge amount of need to go into a lot of detail. I would briefly go over—or go over again—what other people have said in terms of the history and the importance of this bill, though, because it is a catching-up with what happened in 2005, when the Red Cross and the Red Crescent were joined by another symbol in recognition that Israel and Eritrea were not able to use the symbols available to them to cover and protect humanitarian interventions in their countries.

In fact, Israel has been quite a complicated situation, really. Because it was not able to join the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement because of its refusal to use the symbols available, America was refusing to pay its fees into the international organisation, and this had a real impact in terms of the ability of the association to fund its work. So making this change, and having each national country sign off on it, has actually had a financially positive impact for the association globally, which I am pleased to be able to support.

I would like to note, though, that even after the passing of this protocol, in terms of the Magen David Adom—which is, in effect, the organisation that has come into the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement—there has been ongoing debate about its use and non-use of this symbol, which has been very disappointing. In 2011 the international conference on the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement noted with regret that the 2005 agreement had not been fully implemented. It decided to continue a monitoring process in terms of Magen David Adom’s use or non-use of the symbol and agreements at that time of involvement in Gaza and the West Bank. Unfortunately, in January 2012—that is, this year—the organisation confirmed that Magen David Adom had, in fact, agreed to stop all services within the West Bank. Rescue efforts would be officially administered by regional councils instead and would not be using the Magen David symbol, as Magen David Adom had continued to do.

In effect, although we have made this international agreement to enable Israel to come into the family, to hold this neutrality that is so critically important, unfortunately it has not been following through on that. So my hope is that as more countries in the world put these protocols and acknowledgment of the Red Crystal into our national laws, there will be more of a sense of consensus around the importance of neutrality in these symbols. I think that the Hon Phil Goff’s contribution of recognising, as Maryan Street also did, the history of the Red Cross—that it is not a religious symbol; in fact, it came from the inverse of the Swiss flag, the symbol of neutrality—is important, but that has clearly been lost. The cross is clearly seen globally as a symbol that reinforces a message of Christianity, and therefore alongside the Red Crescent, which is seen as a symbol representing Islam, has in effect made the movement for peace and neutrality politicised, and has put it into a religious construct, which is really unfortunate. So it would be wonderful to see more use of the Red Crystal, and I hope that by our passing this law today we will in some way contribute to the strengthening of neutrality.

I would also just like to note—I would be remiss in my job as spokesperson on women if I did not mention it—that this bill also updates the language in the original Act from gender-specific language to gender-neutral language. It is important to mark that and note our progress as a country towards more full inclusion, and that for me is also a positive move in terms of a sense of a world where everyone is included and we are not being ruled by old paradigms of power. So, again, the Greens are very happy to be supporting this bill.

Like other speakers, I am very pleased to rise in support of the Geneva Conventions (Third Protocol—Red Crystal Emblem) Amendment Bill at its second reading.

Can I also make mention, as the son of a returned serviceman, of the neutrality that has been much spoken of. There have been some very eloquent narratives today. The Hon Maryan Street had a very precise, I would suggest, history of the Red Cross and the Red Crescent, and articulated it very well. I thank her for that contribution. In response to that, I say that the neutrality of those emblems and the ability of people to be able to go into areas of conflict in a neutral way for humanitarian work are essential in a civilised society, I would suggest. To have a situation where, potentially, the longstanding neutrality of the Red Cross or the Red Crescent is being challenged in certain conflicts in the world on the basis that it may have been contaminated in some way by religious or political interference would be a huge travesty for New Zealand and for the world. So anything that we can do as, I guess, a small island nation, as far away as we are from the centre of most of these international conflicts at the moment, is something that we should do.

With those comments and the comments of the Minister of Civil Defence in the address at the beginning of this debate, it is a great pleasure to have been part of this process. Thank you.

I take a call on behalf of New Zealand First on the Geneva Conventions (Third Protocol—Red Crystal Emblem) Amendment Bill. New Zealand First, alongside all other parties, will support this bill. We are somewhat concerned that it is taking so long to get through the process of this House and that this was originally signed up to in 2005—

💬 Dr Paul Hutchison: Who was the Minister at the time?

I am not sure. I was not here in the House in 2005.

💬 Dr Paul Hutchison: The Hon Winston Peters.

I do not know; I cannot confirm that. What I can say is that, as I mentioned in the House last night, the Government has 64 Government bills on the Order Paper, many of which have been sitting around for years and years and years, gathering dust, sitting on shelves in various places, and going nowhere quickly. This is another case of a bill that should not have taken all these years to get to this point. This has the full support of every member of this House and is a no-brainer. Of course we would be supporting the Red Cross, the Red Crescent, and the Red Crystal movement internationally in its endeavours to bring humanitarian aid, support, and care to people in the most difficult situations in some of the worst trouble spots of the world. In that respect can we just say let us not in this House see this sort of thing occur again where something can be signed in 2005 but the legislation takes until 2012 to finally be passed.

In terms of the Red Cross, the Red Crescent, and the Red Crystal movement, it operates in 188 countries around the world and has over 97 million volunteers, members, and staff worldwide. It is a tremendous movement, a tremendous organisation, including such large numbers of volunteers as well as those staff working for them. Every night on the news, virtually without exception, where there are major areas of conflict around the world, we are regularly reminded of the good work that the Red Cross does in many of these conflict situations. It is there to protect human life and health, to ensure respect for all human beings, and to prevent and alleviate human suffering without any discrimination based on nationality, race, sex, religious beliefs, class, or political opinion. We are very happy to support this. We are somewhat concerned about the delays, but we are very happy to support this.

The Red Cross also has an illustrious history in terms of receiving the Nobel Peace Prize. It was awarded it back in 1917 during the First World War for its incredible humane efforts in the First World War. Again during the Second World War in 1944 it was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, and again in 1963 it received the Nobel Peace Prize. I would go so far as to say that having received it three times, the Red Cross in this current millennium, in this current century, certainly would be worthy of receiving it again for all the work it does.

We commend this. We believe this is just a practical solution to those areas where obviously a Christian cross or a Muslim crescent are not appropriate, where this provides a middle ground to ensure that those people who work under the symbol have a level of protection, and people who are out there know that they can turn to this symbol, turn to the Red Cross, turn to the Red Crescent, and know that they will receive assistance. New Zealand First supports this.

I am very pleased to speak in the second reading of the Geneva Conventions (Third Protocol—Red Crystal Emblem) Amendment Bill. It amends the Geneva Conventions Act 1958. It proposes a new emblem, the Red Crystal or red diamond shape, which provides an alternative option to other emblems such as the Red Cross and the Red Crescent. These emblems will all give protection to personnel or organisations that use or wear them.

The Red Cross and Red Crescent are emblems that are now used in over 190 countries, but the fact is that there are some countries that find it difficult to use the Red Cross or the Red Crescent because they are considered to have religious connotations. So this third option, the Red Crystal emblem, will hopefully be satisfactory to those countries. It means that authorised personnel, buildings, and equipment during times of armed conflict will have the protection that they should have. I commend this bill to the House. Thank you.

Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. Thank you very much for inviting me to speak on this fine piece of legislation, the Geneva Conventions (Third Protocol—Red Crystal Emblem) Amendment Bill, which has drawn unanimous support from around the House.

The purpose of this legislation has been well canvassed by the members who have spoken before me. Ultimately what this comes down to is allowing the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement to be able to do its job wherever it goes around the world. It is, I suppose, in itself a symbol of exactly how powerful symbols and language are no matter what culture we talk about around the world. The fact that the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement has not been welcome in some parts of the world because of the symbols that are used and the connotations that go with them really to me underlines just how important language and symbology still are even in this day and age.

Of course, what we know is that the original Red Cross was developed as the inverse of the flag of Switzerland, a nation known for—a symbol, if you will, of—peace and neutrality. That was the original meaning behind the Red Cross. But it is only natural, I would think, in non-Christian countries to recognise the cross as a Christian symbol. The first addition to the Red Cross that was made was the Red Crescent during the Russo-Turkish Wars between 1876 and 1878. That was picked up by the Ottoman Empire, and the Red Crescent then spread amongst the Muslim world. But, of course, the world is not simply a dichotomy of Christianity and Islam. There are many other religions and many other movements out there, and so what we are trying to achieve here is to provide a symbol that can cross cultural borders as well as geographic borders.

It is not the first attempt to come up with a third protocol. Other members have mentioned the Red Shield—or the Red Star—of David, which, of course, really only works in one country and works for one country, and has exactly the same connotations as the Red Cross and the Red Crescent have for many other nations and religions. There have been a number of different proposals over the years. The red flame was proposed by Siamese delegates back in 1899. In Persia we have talked about the red lion and sun symbol. A red sun symbol was once proposed. A red lamb symbol, which perhaps we would be quite comfortable with here in New Zealand, was proposed by the Republic of Congo. India proposed a red wheel, Lebanon proposed a red cedar, Sudan proposed a red rhinoceros, and Syria proposed a red palm. This is not the total number of different proposals there has been over the years, but it is a small segment of them. It just shows that this has been an issue for a long time—trying to find additional symbols that overcome the problem faced by the Red Cross and the Red Crescent.

Interestingly, and I think this talks about how symbols and language can change over time, in 1922 a Red Swastika Society was proposed. That was proposed in China during the warlord era. Of course, after the 1930s the swastika’s meaning changed dramatically and probably would no longer be acceptable today. So, you know, things can change a lot over time, and we have to be cognisant of that. I think in that way the Red Crystal, or diamond shape, is one that hopefully will stand the test of time.

But language is important, and symbols are important. They have real meaning. When you get the language wrong or you get the symbology wrong, that can be quite offensive. Recently we have had another red symbol, and that is the red shirt, the gay red shirt that Mr Key introduced into modern language here in New Zealand. I see members opposite grimacing at this. They ought to. They should be embarrassed about the new symbol of the gay red shirt. But this is hugely important.

💬 Nikki Kaye: What about John Tamihere’s comments?

Sorry, Nikki Kaye, could you repeat that?

💬 Nikki Kaye: What about John Tamihere’s comments?

John Tamihere’s comments? I find them deeply offensive as well. I do find those comments offensive. I want to talk about the symbology around a red shirt. When you use a symbol like that, and then you go on to say that what the Prime Minister meant by using the word “gay” was “weird”—he thinks that the term “gay” means “weird”—that is powerful. It has meaning in exactly the same way that a cross or a crescent can be interpreted differently by people who might see a different meaning in what was originally suggested, in the same way people were offended, deeply offended, by the Prime Minister’s statement that wearing a red shirt meant that a person was gay, and that being gay meant that they were weird. I think we have to call that out because it is not just about—[Interruption]

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Order! Can I just remind members that it is quite in order to interject on the person who is speaking—that is normal practice—but it is not acceptable that members interject on each other, especially when they do not have the floor. If you want to take part in the debate, you are welcome to do so.

Language and symbols are powerful. Our Prime Minister is our premier spokesperson around the world. He needs to be cognisant of the fact that when he uses language and symbols in the way that he did, that undermines his ability to represent New Zealand as a peace-loving nation that does not believe in discrimination and that does not single people out for discrimination. That is what this symbol is all about, and we should be supporting this, because we are known around the world as a nation that has been at the forefront of peacekeeping, maintaining peace, and trying to eliminate discrimination. New Zealand has a proud history in the UN and in other fora for being a nation that leads the charge against discrimination, and it undermines that reputation and that history when our Prime Minister uses that type of language. I think that needs to be identified.

But, as I say, this legislation is a bill that is being supported right around the House. Shane Ardern said that we have to do our small part as a small nation to reinforce the message behind this: that we want the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement to be able to operate across borders and across cultures. I think that actually it is much more than that. The world looks to nations like New Zealand that have such a good record on these matters to show leadership, and perhaps it would have been better if we had been able to pass this legislation a little bit earlier so that we could have been amongst the world’s leaders on this issue, but it is good that we are finally catching up and passing this legislation. Labour wholeheartedly supports this bill.

After that contribution on linguistics and a certain amount of gay banter, I want to bring the debate back to a very serious issue, and that is that around the world, in southern Sudan, Syria, Afghanistan, Côte d’Ivoire—and there has been a bitter, nasty, and bloody dispute in southern Thailand, near the border with Malaysia, for some years—men, women, and children are suffering. Men, women, and children are dying or being grievously wounded. This is not just background noise on the global television screens; this is people suffering. The Geneva Conventions (Third Protocol—Red Crystal Emblem) Amendment Bill sets out to address issues in the many conflicts around the world where the combatants, those involved, or civilians may not readily recognise the long-established symbols of the Red Cross and the Red Crescent.

The bill, obviously, reaffirms New Zealand’s longstanding position as a supporter of international humanitarian law, and, of course, reaffirms the role of the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement in providing humanitarian assistance to vulnerable people throughout the world, but, in addition, as we have heard eloquently described by previous speakers, provides an additional protective symbol with equal status to those well-known Red Cross and Red Crescent symbols, which can be used in situations where neither of those has the respect of sides in the armed conflict.

The bill contains the legislative provisions needed for New Zealand to become a party to the third additional protocol to the conventions of 1949. As we have said, the Red Crystal is intended to be free from any national, religious, cultural, or political connotations. The aforementioned cross and crescent symbols provide safe havens in time of conflict and are recognised by 190 countries around the world as protecting medical personnel, material, equipment, and buildings. Of course, they also serve to identify the international bodies. So this Red Crystal will strengthen the protection of victims in conflicts where neither of those existing emblems has the respect of both sides in an armed conflict. It is a very necessary bill. It is a very important bill, and I commend it to the House.

I just advise members that the next call is a split call, so the members participating will be given the bell with 1 minute remaining.

I am very happy to take a short call in this debate on the Geneva Conventions (Third Protocol—Red Crystal Emblem) Amendment Bill. We support this bill. It is important that both the Red Cross and the Red Crescent organisations can operate effectively and with the protection of humanitarian neutrality in conflict zones.

I want to talk just very briefly about this issue of humanitarian neutrality, because that is the backdrop for this debate and the move to add a third protocol to the Geneva Conventions and allow the use of this third symbol, the Red Crystal emblem. The risk to humanitarian neutrality is something that has become a part of an urgent debate over the last 20 years or so and I think it really links to the proliferation of civil conflicts that we have seen around the world after the end of the Cold War in places like Somalia, Kosovo, the Congo, Sudan, Azerbaijan, and, most recently, Syria, to name just a few. We have seen more and more conflicts that are intra-State, often between non-State parties, and alongside that an increasing militarisation of aid as both State military forces and also non-State military forces have tried to use aid as a tool and as a kind of bargaining chip of war. The effect of that has been really to corrode the perception of the neutrality of humanitarian workers, and that really goes to the heart of one of the key principles of the Geneva Conventions and much of the development of international humanitarian law over five or six decades. So it is essential that we, the New Zealand Government and the international community, protect and support the work of the Red Cross and Red Crescent organisations.

What this bill seeks to do is allow New Zealand to ratify the third protocol, which establishes this third protective emblem, which will be worn on the backs and on the uniforms of medical personnel, aid workers, and humanitarian workers in conflict zones all around the world. One of the interesting things is that the reason that this third emblem is needed is that there are a couple of countries, in particular, that find both the Red Cross and the Red Crescent difficult. Israel is one of those countries, as other speakers have noted. The particular religious and political make-up in Israel and Palestine means that both the Red Cross and the Red Crescent are problematic. Eritrea is the other example, the other country. It is in the Horn of Africa, in one of the most volatile parts of Africa. Eritrea is a country that has come out of a long period of civil war against the Ethiopian State and is a country that is basically split between Orthodox Christian and Muslim populations, and it has a Government that is intensely conscious of how vulnerable it is to political instability and religious and ethnic conflict. The Eritrean Government is unwilling to allow either the Red Cross or the Red Crescent to be used in that country. So this symbol is a way around that problem, and there may well be other examples of countries that would benefit from, or would prefer to use, this third protective emblem, the Red Crystal.

I note just in passing that this bill has taken a long time to get to this second reading stage. It has been treated as something of an orphan by this National-led Government and it has been nearly 4 years, as a number of colleagues have already noted, that it has been languishing on the Order Paper. That is a shame. It is a shame and it reflects, I think, a low priority that the Government has given this bill.

It is unfortunate that the area of foreign affairs is one of the portfolios where I think New Zealanders feel most disappointed and let down by the lack of leadership by this Government. The languishing of this bill for so long is really only a very small example. Overall, the leadership in the areas of foreign affairs has been extremely disappointing. You know, the most notable thing that this foreign affairs Minister has achieved is the kind of botched handling of the restructuring of his department and his ministry. In the area of humanitarian policy and disarmament policy we have gone backwards, to be honest. We saw the disestablishment of the post of Minister for Disarmament and Arms Control, and the abdication of any kind of leadership by New Zealand in the whole area of disarmament, which is an area where this country has a proud tradition of activism and leadership in the international community. It is sad that this Government has moved back from that position.

One of the most graphic illustrations of that lack of commitment and lack of leadership was the attitude shown by National Party MPs when we debated my member’s bill a few months back, the Depleted Uranium (Prohibition) Bill. It was treated with scorn and contempt and voted down by members on the National benches in spite of the fact that only a few days ago at the United Nations a huge majority of countries voted in the General Assembly to support a resolution affirming the need for a precautionary approach in relation to uranium weapons.

I just wanted to say that this is a bill that Labour supports. We are glad to see it finally put to bed. Its passage will now allow the Government to ratify the third protocol to the Geneva Conventions, and New Zealand will join a long list of countries that have officially incorporated this protocol. It will allow the Red Crystal to take its place alongside the Red Cross and the Red Crescent.

Bill read a second time.

Third Reading