Twyford Phil: Geneva Conventions (Third Protocol—Red Crystal Emblem) Amendment Bill — Second Reading Third ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeTwyford Phil: Geneva Conventions (Third Protocol—Red Crystal Emblem) Amendment Bill — Second Reading Third Reading[Sitting date: 04 December 2012. Volume:686;Page:7105. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]PHIL TWYFORD (Labour—TeAtatū): 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 thelast 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 increasingmilitarisation 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 ofcountries 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.