Ms GEORGE (11:30 AM) —If we have learned anything from the wars of the last century, it is that we should be quite certain that military engagement is contemplated only as the very last resort. The Australian people rightly expect that any decision by their government to commit troops to a conflict—that is, to risk lives and to take lives—must be based on a dispassionate assessment of the evidence at hand. In the past six months, the Iraq debate has divided the Bush administration between those wanting to see immediate military action to effect what they call `regime change' and the more mod-erate voices calling for a multilateral effort based on the authority of the UN Security Council.

Along with the majority of Australians, I was relieved that the voices of moderation prevailed. That is not, however, to underestimate the influence of those who from day one have had the notion of a pre-emptive strike and `regime change' at the core of their considerations. Domestically, when caution and moderation were required, regrettably our own foreign minister was on the bandwagon, referring to Labor's position as one being akin to appeasement and even going so far and stooping so low as to accuse the Leader of the Opposition of `talking like Saddam Hussein'. Thankfully, even the RSL president was moved to intervene in the public debate, urging that that kind of rhetoric be wound back.

Ultimately, through the pressure of Australian public opinion, this government has come full circle in its policy approach. The Howard government has now been forced to accept the two main elements that Labor had pursued from the beginning: first of all, a full and open parliamentary debate, with the notion of taking the Australian people into the government's confidence and presenting evidence to justify the strategies that they would want to pursue; secondly, and thankfully, an agreement—albeit at times tentatively expressed—that this government should work through the UN system to enforce Iraqi compliance with their decisions.

Despite yesterday's recital of the litany of sins of Saddam Hussein and his regime, the Australian people are several steps ahead of government members on that matter. I do not believe the Australian people need to be persuaded that Saddam Hussein leads a repressive and oppressive regime and has undertaken some horrendous actions against his own people. He is guilty of atrocities, but he is not alone in the world. He has stores of chemical and biological weapons and agents, but he is not alone in that either. He has defied UN resolutions but, again, he is not alone in that.

People are increasingly concerned about the double standards that prevail in international politics. That, in itself, is the source of much bitterness and anger in the world today. All reasonable people throughout the world understand and empathise with the American people and their feelings of vulnerability and insecurity post those horrendous events of September 11. But these shocking events do not give the United States the imprimatur to act as the moral arbiter for the whole world. There is no justification for unilateral military action against Iraq, for where does one draw the line? Does the actual possession of weapons of mass destruction justify possible intervention in other countries with such weapons, notably North Korea, India, Pakistan, Israel and China? Obviously not. Iraq itself faces a neighbourhood where several countries are themselves developing nuclear, chemical and biological capabilities. In addition to Israel's extensive nuclear weapons program, Syria, Iran and Egypt are all suspected of developing weapons of mass destruction programs as well. However, there is no talk of these risks to the stability of the Middle East. In the words of one recent commentator:

That is why Labor has argued that the ends do not justify the means. At all times, we believe that we must act within international law as good international citizens and to do so to enforce and secure Iraq's compliance. After all, it is within international law that we are demanding that Iraq comply, and the best way to ensure compliance—as we have seen with yesterday's welcome announcement by Iraq to allow the inspectors back in—is through multilateral action sanctioned by the United Nations.

The UNMOVIC inspectors should be given unconditional and unfettered access to enforce their mandate. One can only pray and hope that a satisfactory and peaceful outcome will prevail. In the meantime, the United States, in my view, needs to respect the decisions of the Security Council and allow the inspectors to get on and do their important work. Regrettably, the continued threats of unilateral military action we heard last night and this morning have not abated. The evidence presented to this parliament and to the Australian people does not justify this option—an option regrettably still being pursued by some within the United States administration.

We have argued that any case for military action would need to be made on the basis of one or other of the following grounds. Firstly, the grounds of evidence of Iraq's complicity in the terrorist attacks of September 11. It does not help when we hear the hyperbole from some government members, when no such evidence has been presented to the world. UK Foreign Secretary, Jack Straw, said:

Secondly, Labor has argued that we would need to have evidence of a significant increase in Iraq's weapons of mass destruction capability and threat. I accept, as all do, that Iraq retains stockpiles and stores of horrible chemical and biological weapons. It has not been established to date, however, that these capabilities have rapidly increased in the absence of UN inspectors, although I acknowledge that UNMOVIC officials have described the biological weapons program in Iraq as a `black hole' in terms of their knowledge about what the Iraqis might still have in their inventory. The world awaits the results of their investigation, appreciating the toxic and lethal nature of these agents. Thirdly, I contend that there is no evidence that Iraq has a nuclear weapon or will soon have one, unless Iraq is able to get fissile material on the black market. As recently as January 2002, the International Atomic Energy Agency reported that:

I reiterate that the ALP has always sought a test that has to be there and presented in the terms of new evidence. I think this government failed the Australian people in its presentation yesterday of evidence that has been on the public record since as far back as 1999. There has been no new evidence presented to the parliament or to the people that would lead one down the route of a unilateral pre-emptive attack of a military nature. A new consensus is emerging in the international community that any action against Iraq needs to be undertaken within the context of the United Nations. It is in our national interest to continue to promote an international framework for peace and security in this very troubled world.