Mr CREAN (2:32 PM) —My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer to my letter to you, Prime Minister, of 16 August, calling for the government to make a full parliamentary statement on Iraq, and your response rejecting that approach. Prime Minister, are you seriously suggesting that the only parliamentary debate you will allow on Iraq is after you have committed Australian troops to war? Why won't you take the Australian public into your confidence and allow a parliamentary debate on this important national security matter now?

Mr HOWARD (Prime Minister) —I thank the Leader of the Opposition for the question. The request that was made of me by the Leader of the Opposition was that I should make a full parliamentary statement within the next two weeks. It is that request that I rejected. The Leader of the Opposition might have acknowledged in more precise terms what his request was, and then I would have acknowledged in equally precise terms what my response was. For the benefit of the House, let me read some excerpts from the response I gave to the Leader of the Opposition. I said this:

I responded that I thought a full statement of the type he requested within this period of two weeks would, for the reasons I set out, be premature. I did go on to say this:

What that means, if I can just take the narrative on a little, is clearly that, if a decision were made—and it is quite hypothetical—to commit Australian armed forces, then of course that matter would be brought before the parliament, but that does not preclude the possibility of there being parliamentary debate on this issue in advance of any decision. I have not sought at any time to rule that out. What I did rule out was any statement being made in the next two weeks. I made that very clear, for the reasons I explained in my letter. If the Leader of the Opposition had read the letter carefully, he would have seen—surely—the second last paragraph, and he surely would have acknowledged that what I was simply doing, for very good reason, was ruling out a full parliamentary statement in the next two weeks because plainly that would be premature.

No decision has been taken by the United States. The debate in the United States is underway. I do not believe any decision will be taken by the United States either way within the weeks immediately ahead. I have said that, if the Americans were to take a decision to take action, I believe it likely that they would approach Australia for assistance. It would then be for the Australian government to consider the matter in accordance with the normal constitutional processes. I might remind the House of some words used by Mr Hawke when he was Prime Minister, when he moved a motion committing Australian forces to the Desert Storm operation on 21 January 1991. What he said was this:

Now they are not words I have used; they are words that the former Prime Minister of Australia used on that particular occasion. I would expect if—and I underline the word `if'—a decision were taken to commit any Australian forces consequent upon an American request, and it would be a decision only taken by this government if we thought it to be in the national interest to do so and we would want to be completely satisfied that it was in the national interest to do so, then I would follow the same procedure that was followed by Mr Hawke on that occasion, and the procedure that was followed by me as Prime Minister when a decision was taken to commit forces to East Timor.

In the time I have been Prime Minister this country has committed military forces to significant combats on two occasions: one to East Timor and one to the war against terror. In relation to East Timor, I kept the then Leader of the Opposition fully informed. I stand ready to continue keeping the current Leader of the Opposition fully informed. I have always taken the view that the most serious thing any government does is to commit military forces to a conflict, and I would want, as far as humanly possible, to achieve bipartisanship in relation to any decision this government ever takes to commit military forces. I say to the Leader of the Opposition that if there is any further information he wants of me, he only has to come and see me and I am happy to make it available. Intelligence briefings have been made available. They will continue to be made available in accordance with the conventions that operate between government and opposition.

We do have an opportunity, because of our alliance with the United States, to have an understanding of American thinking, particularly the military. We have personnel placed within the US command structure and we have had them there since the start of the war against terrorism. One of the advantages of that is that we are able to have a knowledge of the thoughts of the American military not only in relation to existing contributions but also in relation to future contributions that the American military might make to the pursuit of American foreign policy objectives.

It is no secret that the United States military is probably looking at options in relation to Iraq. But it is equally no secret that the administration is far from taking any decision about this. When it will reach that conclusion I do not know, and I suspect at this stage the American administration does not know. But we will be in a position to be as abreast of their thinking as probably any country in the world and will therefore be in a position to take a very informed decision if we were to receive a request. I assure the Leader of the Opposition that I will, as far as it is possible to do consonant with my own constitutional responsibilities, inform him and include him. I did that in relation to Timor with the member for Brand when he was Leader of the Opposition and I did it in relation to the war against terror.

This is a difficult situation. Nobody wants military conflict. Nobody in this House wants to see Australian forces ever sent abroad again, certainly not sent unnecessarily, if that can be avoided. Nobody wants war—we all hate it. And nobody has a monopoly on the detestation of military conflict. We ought to put that aside once and for all. I certainly deplore it, and all members of my government do, as I am sure all members sitting opposite do. But there are always occasions when some kind of military action becomes unavoidable. I hope that does not arise on this occasion.

I can say—I hope without any contradiction from anybody in the House—that the one thing that would transform this situation overnight would be a willingness by Iraq to comply with the resolutions of the Security Council. That is the kernel of the problem. That is the clear, unambiguous reason for the difficulty: that Iraq continues not to comply. If Iraq were to comply, overnight this situation would be transformed. That is the government's position. What I have said to the Leader of the Opposition—and I repeat it—is that it is not appropriate and it is entirely premature to seek to have a full parliamentary statement from me on this issue in the next two weeks. That does not preclude statements further down the line in advance of any—what is still, of course, completely hypothetical—commitment of Australian forces.

I simply repeat something else I said in my letter to the Leader of the Opposition, and that is that I am available each day, as is my wont, to answer questions; as is the defence minister, as is the foreign minister. The normal processes of parliament will continue. I think we all hope that military conflict can be avoided; but I think that we are all instructed by history that, despite our hopes and aspirations, on occasions sometimes they are not realised. And I am sure that the parliament will have the responsibility to exercise good judgment on this issue, if that were to happen, as it has in the past.