Mr BRENDAN O'CONNOR (1:23 PM) —The debate on Iraq is as much about Australia's role in ensuring international bodies are respected and international law is adhered to as it is about a war on terrorism. The debate about what to do about Iraq is an important test for this parliament and, indeed, for this nation. Against the backdrop of community anxiety—anxiety that has been felt, I think, today and has been gathering over the last several months—and the political disquiet that is occurring as a result of people's concerns, this parliament, indeed this government, must determine the best course of action. To date, however, the government has failed to respond appropriately to the concerns of the Australian people.

The Prime Minister and the foreign minister, fresh from wedge politics on refugees and immigration, saw this issue as their Tampa II. Let us not forget the strident language employed by the government only a few weeks ago. Let us not forget that the foreign minister called the opposition `appeasers' because we sought peace and not war, we sought process before conflict. At his most shrill, the foreign minister lost all sense and credibility, I would argue, by comparing the opposition leader's comments with the rhetoric of Saddam Hussein. That was a quite ludicrous proposition. Clearly, it was a reflection of the minister's failure to properly understand the importance of the issue and an indication that the minister was focusing upon domestic game playing rather than the seriousness of the matter.

Amid this performance, credible American commentators—indeed, world commentators—even those who were formerly military advisers and officers in the United States, cautioned their own government about initiating a pre-emptive strike against Iraq. President George Bush only very recently—and perhaps more as a result of the influence that Prime Minister Blair may have upon him—changed tack and saw the need to address the United Nations in order to gather a coalition of support for his views. Across the Atlantic, Tony Blair, seeing the need to have dialogue with the British public, reconvened the House of Commons and led debate on Iraq, outlining his government's case for action that may need to be considered and contemplated in this situation. It is clear for all to see that the Howard government, in attempting to play wedge politics yet again, in tugging the forelock to Washington, has failed to act intelligently and deliberately in the national interest.

What should this government have done in the circumstances? Firstly, the government should have reinforced the need for breaches of international law—that is, the continued failure by Iraq to allow the entry of UN inspectors—to be dealt with by the United Nations. Clearly, the position that has been put by the Labor Party on this matter has been vindicated by the welcome announcement only yesterday by Iraq through the Secretary-General of United Nations, Kofi Annan, that they would allow weapons inspections to take place. I think people are quite right to be sceptical about the guaranteed assurance of that invitation. But we must ensure that we exhaust every avenue for peace; therefore, we must take the invitation in good faith and try every means to ensure that, through that process, we avoid unnecessary conflict. It is a nonsense for the government to suggest, as it did yesterday, that recent developments have led to additional information on breaches. The breaches of United Nations resolutions have existed for a long time, and the UN is the most appropriate place to initiate those breaches being rectified.

I have long held concerns about the way in which this government appears to treat international law and international bodies. Too often the Howard government has eschewed international cooperation, often under the guise of defending this nation's sovereignty. In failing to act credibly on many international matters over a long period of time and appearing to follow United States policy by reflex, this government has diminished Australia's capacity to be taken seriously on this and other matters on the world stage. In failing to support the primacy of the United Nations in the first instance, the government has done little to reinforce the proposition that international conflict requires international solution.

I recall, earlier this month, former President of the Republic of South Africa, Nelson Mandela, warning of the grave consequences of unilateral action from nation-states, be they large or small. There is no doubt that the United States can count itself as the largest nation-state, but it is not exempt from ensuring that international cooperation continues in the circumstances that confront us. I concur completely with Mr Mandela's comments about the need to ensure that nation-states act within the collective to secure order and peace. But instead of finding an international solution—a multilateral fix, if you like—to this problem, Australia has been seen standing in the shadow of the United States, waiting for its next move.

Insofar as this issue is a matter of requiring adherence to international governance, the Australian government has failed dismally. By comparison, the Leader of the Opposition and the shadow minister for foreign affairs have acted appropriately on behalf of the opposition. In April this year, the opposition called for the processes of the United Nations to be fully exhausted. That has been vindicated. Only recently, that has been reiterated in this parliament. Further to that, there has been a request by the opposition that the government take the issue seriously and take the public into its confidence, that there be a full public debate—indeed, a parliamentary debate. We are getting that now, belatedly. However, not one word has been uttered on this matter by the Prime Minister himself, and that is a sad indictment of his capacity to lead this country in such important circumstances.

Let us turn to the war on terrorism. Not one of us could help but be forever affected by the barbaric attacks upon innocent victims on 11 September 2001 in Washington, New York and Pennsylvania. No-one could disagree with the need for an immediate, collective and forceful response to such a cowardly and brutal assault. Indeed, there was immediate bipartisan support in this parliament for retaliatory action against the Taliban and Al-Qaeda. But extending this to a pre-emptive strike against Iraq would need irrefutable proof of Iraq's role in the attack on the United States. I welcome, as I said, the invitation by Iraq to UN weapons inspectors—and we must pursue that course. The towers of Manhattan were destroyed in two hours without recourse to such deadly weaponry, as we must remember.

In our efforts to secure global peace, greater attention and effort must be placed on finding long-term diplomatic solutions to the problems in the Middle East and elsewhere. This will necessarily involve listening to concerns raised by those nation states—and not only those aligned to Western democracies. Until an environment of cooperation and mutual understanding has been established, the world will not be rid of the risk of another assault like that which stunned the world a year ago.