Logie Jan: Geneva Conventions (Third Protocol—Red Crystal Emblem) Amendment Bill — Second Reading Third ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeLogie Jan: Geneva Conventions (Third Protocol—Red Crystal Emblem) Amendment Bill — Second Reading Third Reading[Sitting date: 04 December 2012. Volume:686;Page:7100. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]JAN LOGIE (Green):Tēnā koe Mr Speaker. I am pleased to take a brief call this morning in support of the Geneva Conventions (Third Protocol—Red Crystal Emblem)Amendment Bill. Again obviously the Green Party is joining I think every other party in the House today in support of this bill.A lot of the history has already been covered by my colleagues and this speech and this topic almost feel as if they are about us just actually catching up and signing off the paperwork to pass something that has already happened. So there does not feel to me to be a huge amount of need to go into a lot of detail. I would briefly go over—or go over again—what other people have said in terms of the history and the importance of this bill though because it is a catching-up with what happened in 2005 when the Red Cross and the Red Crescent were joined by another symbol in recognition that Israel and Eritrea were not able to use the symbols available to them to cover and protect humanitarian interventions in their countries.In fact Israel has been quite a complicated situation really. Because it was not able to join the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement because of its refusal to use the symbols available America was refusing to pay its fees into the international organisation and this had a real impact in terms of the ability of the association to fund its work. So making this change and having each national country sign off on it has actually had a financially positive impact for the association globally which I am pleased to be able to support.I would like to note though that even after the passing of this protocol in terms of theMagen DavidAdom—which is in effect the organisation that has come into the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement—there has been ongoing debate about its use and non-use of this symbol which has been very disappointing. In 2011 the international conference on the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement noted with regret that the 2005 agreement had not been fully implemented. It decided to continue a monitoring process in terms ofMagen DavidAdom’s use or non-use of the symbol and agreements at that time of involvement in Gaza and the West Bank. Unfortunately in January 2012—that is this year—the organisation confirmed thatMagen DavidAdom had in fact agreed to stop all services within the West Bank. Rescue efforts would be officially administered by regional councils instead and would not be using theMagen David symbol asMagen DavidAdom had continued to do.In effect although we have made this international agreement to enable Israel to come into the family to hold this neutrality that is so critically important unfortunately it has not been following through on that. So my hope is that as more countries in the world put these protocols and acknowledgment of the Red Crystal into our national laws there will be more of a sense of consensus around the importance of neutrality in these symbols. I think that the Hon Phil Goff’s contribution of recognising as Maryan Street also did the history of the Red Cross—that it is not a religious symbol; in fact it came from the inverse of the Swiss flag the symbol of neutrality—is important but that has clearly been lost. The cross is clearly seen globally as a symbol that reinforces a message of Christianity and therefore alongside the Red Crescent which is seen as a symbol representing Islam has in effect made the movement for peace and neutrality politicised and has put it into a religious construct which is really unfortunate. So it would be wonderful to see more use of the Red Crystal and I hope that by our passing this law today we will in some way contribute to the strengthening of neutrality.I would also just like to note—I would be remiss in my job as spokesperson on women if I did not mention it—that this bill also updates the language in the original Act from gender-specific language to gender-neutral language. It is important to mark that and note our progress as a country towards more full inclusion and that for me is also a positive move in terms of a sense of a world where everyone is included and we are not being ruled by old paradigms of power. So again the Greens are very happy to be supporting this bill.