Street Maryan: Geneva Conventions (Third Protocol—Red Crystal Emblem) Amendment Bill — Second Reading Third ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeStreet Maryan: Geneva Conventions (Third Protocol—Red Crystal Emblem) Amendment Bill — Second Reading Third Reading[Sitting date: 04 December 2012. Volume:686;Page:7099. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon MARYAN STREET (Labour): 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. Asmy 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. TheInternational 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 CycloneNargis 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.