Street Maryan: Geneva Conventions (Third Protocol—Red Crystal Emblem) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Street Maryan: Geneva Conventions (Third Protocol—Red Crystal Emblem) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Sitting date: 28 June 2012. Volume:681;Page:3524. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon MARYAN STREET (Labour) 
: 
 It gives me pleasure to rise to speak to the Geneva Conventions (Third Protocol—Red Crystal Emblem) Amendment Bill but I do wonder why this bill which was introduced on 24 August 2010 has taken till now to surface. It has been languishing at the bottom of the Order Paper for some time and yet suddenly here today on Thursday 28 June 2012 the Government has seen fit to elevate it to the top of the Order Paper. 
I can only imagine that it is because the Government has been so roundly stung by international reaction to its poor performance on the depleted uranium bill last night that it has in fact sought to redeem itself somewhat by introducing this bill. I think the posts that have gone around the world about National’s contributions—and every member’s speech has been posted on websites and can be accessed through Twitter internationally—have stung the Government and it has now seen fit to try to redeem itself and prove that it is really not such a bad international citizen after all. I look forward to members who spoke in last night’s debate on depleted uranium searching out the reference to their own speeches on the websites of interest because these are about international movements and these are about international citizenship. That being as it may I comment only on the moment of this bill coming forward not on the fact that it has. 
It is an important bill. Mr Speaker I do not know whether you will permit me to stand this iPad here or not. You may consider it to be the use of a visual aid and not appropriate and I will certainly take it down if you tell me to do that. The three symbols that I am demonstrating here on my iPad are representative now of the people who provide medical and humanitarian support in places of conflict. Those people can be protected by the wearing of these symbols. But the point about this which I think is a very serious point and one that the Labour Opposition supports is underlined by the fact that human beings respond to symbols. Human beings respond to symbols. We govern our lives by symbols. We attach emotional importance to symbols. We attach political significance to symbols. And so it is unsurprising that over time the three symbols that are here have been developed in order to accommodate the different expressions particularly of religious tradition that we find around the world. 
The Red Cross symbol has been in existence since 1864. The Red Cross has achieved a huge amount of credibility in humanitarian efforts around the world in every conflict one can name since 1864. People marked with the Red Cross—typically medics but also non-arms-bearing humanitarian assistance of one kind or another—wear it for protection to identify themselves as not being of any party involved in a conflict and therefore needing protection. 
 The Red Crescent was first used by the Ottoman Empire in 1870 and was formally recognised internationally in 1929. Of course the symbolism of these two first symbols is clear. One looks like a Christian symbol; one looks like a Muslim symbol. We can see the crescent for example used widely on flags of Muslim nations and that symbolism is redolent with all kinds of meaning and associations. We should never underestimate the power of symbols. So in order to protect people who go into war-torn areas of conflict from being associated with one side or another particularly as religious-based conflict has developed over time—and religion and culture are frequently inseparable in these conflicts—it has become necessary to use the Red Crystal. It is called the Red Crystal. The Minister of Health in his opening speech gave a very technical description of it but it is basically a red diamond on a white background. It is a red diamond with a white diamond inside it. It is a different symbol. Thank you for indulging me on that Mr Speaker. I will take the visual aid away. It is a red diamond and that allows people to associate something other than religious traditions and cultural commitments with a symbol that needs to be available for the protection of those non-combatants who go into war-torn areas to offer humanitarian assistance. 
I noticed that in a couple of speeches Ethiopia has been mentioned. I think in the Minister’s opening speech he referred to Eritrea and if I remember correctly he referred to both symbols in fact being used in Eritrea. Certainly that would be true of Ethiopia which used to have Eritrea within its border because 64 percent of the people of Ethiopia are in fact Ethiopian Orthodox Christians. They are not Coptics; they are Ethiopian Orthodox Christians. They have for a— 
Hon Simon Bridges 
: Coptic. 
Hon MARYAN STREET 
: No not Coptic. No no Coptics are quite different—quite different. There are five Orthodox—I will not go into this—Churches around the world and the Ethiopian Orthodox Church is one of the five. On the other side of the population—64 percent are Ethiopian Orthodox Christians as I said—there is a very large contingent some 34 percent of the Ethiopian population who are Muslim who came to Ethiopia for refuge at the time of Muhammad when they were being persecuted. Muhammad told them to go to Ethiopia and seek refuge because they would be well treated there. That has been the history of Ethiopia—that Christian and Muslim have coexisted peacefully in Ethiopia. The Eritrean division was something quite different. The use of the two symbols has been important certainly in Eritrea but is relevant in regard to the population make-up in Ethiopia. 
 This is an important convention to pass. The fact that it has taken a long time to get here in the end is simply a point to note. This brings New Zealand into line with 60 other countries internationally and goes towards the safety that the international community can afford to those non-combatants those medical personnel who go in to assist people whatever side they may be on and in whatever part of a conflict they may be and gives them the kind of humanitarian assistance that all of us at the core of our being would wish them to be able to give without coming to harm. I support this bill. Thank you. 
Debate interrupted.