Hutchison Paul: Geneva Conventions (Third Protocol—Red Crystal Emblem) Amendment Bill — Second Reading Third ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeHutchison Paul: Geneva Conventions (Third Protocol—Red Crystal Emblem) Amendment Bill — Second Reading Third Reading[Sitting date: 04 December 2012. Volume:686;Page:7098. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Hunua): It is a pleasure to take a call on the Geneva Conventions (Third Protocol—Red Crystal Emblem) Amendment Bill. I am sure that all members of this House would agree that the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies should be regarded with the highest respect of just about any humanitarian organisation. It does from time to time demonstrate selfless contribution and extraordinary sacrifice with its operatives on many occasions putting themselves into extraordinary danger for the sake of others.The main aim of this bill is to amend the Geneva Conventions Act 1958 and the Flags Emblems and Names Protection Act 1981 in order to implement New Zealand’s obligations under the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 which New Zealand signed on 19 June 2006 with regard to the adoption of this additional distinctive emblem.Amending these Acts enables an additional protective emblem with equal status to the Red Cross and Red Crescent to be used in situations where neither of the existing emblems has the respect of both sides in an armed conflict. And I note in new schedule 7 inserted by the bill in the Geneva Conventions Act 1958 that the distinctive emblems from article 2—as you may see Mr Speaker—and article 3 indicate clearly the characteristics of this emblem. I think as Mr Goff described it most would recognise this as a diamond. It was actually described also as a lozenge. However the major point is that the Red Crystal emblem is intended to be free from any national religious cultural or political connotations and that is obvious from the history of the genesis of this symbol coming into being.This bill reaffirms New Zealand’s longstanding position as a supporter of international humanitarian law and the role of the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement. It is worthwhile just reiterating the background. The third protocol of course emanated from the original Geneva Conventions in 1949. This distinctive emblem was adopted by the States at the Geneva Conventions in 2005 and New Zealand signed the protocol in 2006. One does again wonder why the Minister of Foreign Affairs at the time the Hon Phil Goff did not expedite this into legislation during the course of the last Labour Government. One wonders whether he was a lazy Minister. Was he a lazy Minister? I leave the House to question this.Dr Cam Calder: Good question.Dr PAUL HUTCHISON: Yes. I do indeed feel somewhat cynical at the moralising that he has exhibited during the course of this morning. But it is good that this bill is now before the House as we see it and I think it is important to remember that the Geneva Conventions of 1949 and additional Protocols I and II of 1977 are the primary source of international humanitarian law and the law of armed conflict.The Red Cross and Red Crescent emblems are now used in over 190 countries to protect authorised medical personnel buildings equipment and chaplains during times of armed conflict. However some countries—and I think again that Mr Goff identified Israel and Eritrea as being two—find it difficult to use these symbols because of the religious connotations. Israel itself was keen to use through itsMagen DavidAdom NGO the Red Shield of David. Clearly this was unacceptable to others andconsequently the Red Crystal was settled through the conventions. This was not entirely easy. There were difficulties in getting it through and certainly the Arab League countries did not agree. However the overall feeling was that it was important.I think it is relevant to say that the additional emblem is needed for two main reasons. One can think of the conflict in Libya and again in Syria right now where it is used for military medical personnel and authorised humanitarian workers during those sorts of conflicts that are going on as we speak. It is also used to enable national societies that are unable to adopt either of the emblems currently in use.As I said there is no doubt that it was not entirely easy getting this passed through. It would have been great to have it unanimously passed but that was not the case. The Arab League States wanted to see some of the issues regarding the Golan Heights and the Palestine territories settled before they would agree to it and one must hope that with time this will happen. I must say that I do agree with Mr Goff when I hear of the settlements occurring in East Jerusalem which seem to me to be particularly provocative under the circumstances. The Red Crystal emblem and its introduction into this convention are a very positive move and I support the bill in the House.