Goff Phil: Geneva Conventions (Third Protocol—Red Crystal Emblem) Amendment Bill — Second Reading Third ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeGoff Phil: Geneva Conventions (Third Protocol—Red Crystal Emblem) Amendment Bill — Second Reading Third Reading[Sitting date: 04 December 2012. Volume:686;Page:7096. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon PHIL GOFF (Labour—Mt Roskill): 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.Hon PHIL GOFF: 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 coreframework 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 3000 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 $1000. That is being increased tenfold to $10000 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 toimplement 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.