Lees-Galloway Iain: Geneva Conventions (Third Protocol—Red Crystal Emblem) Amendment Bill — Second Reading Third ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeLees-Galloway Iain: Geneva Conventions (Third Protocol—Red Crystal Emblem) Amendment Bill — Second Reading Third Reading[Sitting date: 04 December 2012. Volume:686;Page:7103. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Labour—Palmerston North):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 andsymbology 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 thesymbology 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 JohnTamihere’s comments?IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: Sorry Nikki Kaye could you repeat that?Nikki Kaye: What about JohnTamihere’s comments?IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: JohnTamihere’s comments? I find them deeply offensive as well. I do find those comments offensive. I want to talk about thesymbology 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.IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: 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 inother 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.