Ms LIVERMORE (6:20 PM) —Those words from the member for Scullin underscore the first point that I want to make, which is that I have been struck by the seriousness of this debate over the last couple of days. There is no denying that the gravity of the issues we are talking about and the gravity of the challenges facing our nation and the international community hang over the chamber and come through in the words of the speeches you read in the Hansard of the last two days. It is similar to the debate a few years ago over our response to the outbreak of violence in East Timor following its independence vote, but in some ways this one is even more difficult in that the choices are not quite so clear cut. There is no doubt that what was happening in East Timor at that time was horrific but, in some ways, our choice was much easier to make and was more clear cut.

It is right to have this debate about Iraq, and I am pleased that we are having it in this chamber and that so many members have had the opportunity to speak. The Australian people deserve to know what we as a country are dealing with and, as their representatives, we owe it to them to spell out the response we think is appropriate and the direction we think we should take in dealing with the issues now hanging over the international community. Of course, this debate is something the Labor Party has been asking for on behalf of our constituents for some months now. People are rightly concerned about what is going on with Iraq, and it was starting to become a little bit crazy in that it was all you were talking about out in the electorate and yet there was a sense that we might not be discussing it in the people's chamber. So I am glad we are having this debate now. It has been a chance to spell out the details of the threats that people are alleging hang over our international security and to express different views about what should be done in response to those threats.

That is one of the only good things about having this debate, because none of us really wants to be confronted with this situation of threat and possible conflict. I am comforted by the fact that we in Australia are not the only ones having this debate. I am comforted by the idea that we are part of discussions and deliberations going on around the world as the international community as a whole through the United Nations comes to terms with the exact nature of this potential threat to security and determines how best to achieve an effective, lasting and, above all, peaceful solution.

When it comes to assessing and containing any threat posed by Iraq, I fully support the United Nations taking the leading role. This is the Labor Party's position and, since April, it has guided our response on the issue of how to handle Iraq. It is an appropriate response. Many of the claims against Iraq centre around its breaches of United Nations Security Council resolutions. If we have decided that enough is enough, then let us take responsibility collectively to determine how to deal with Saddam Hussein. That means using the processes of the United Nations. I support the direction spelled out by the Leader of the Opposition yesterday—that is, a two-step process through the UN. Firstly, there needs to be a resolution setting out the time frame for weapons inspectors to carry out their work and report back to the UN about their findings. There then needs to be a follow-up resolution, depending on the content of the UN Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission report, setting out the course of action the international community intends to employ to ensure compliance by Iraq with any conditions placed on it.

Australia need to play a part in supporting that process, and then we need to get in and help make it work. And why wouldn't we? Australia has a long and proud tradition of active involvement in the United Nations and other international forums. We have always accepted our responsibility as a member of the international community, we have seen the positive role that we have to play and we have recognised that this is consistent with our own interests. Not so long ago, opposition members were labelled as appeasers by the foreign minister for our insistence on pursuing diplomatic efforts to achieve a positive outcome in Iraq. The alternative, presumably favoured by the foreign minister, was to support the United States in its attempts to drum up support for unilateral action against Iraq. I totally reject the foreign minister's view. I think the Labor Party's stance has been entirely appropriate and responsible.

Of course, the majority of Australians agree with me. Numerous polls have been taken to gauge the public's reaction to the difficult questions confronting us about Iraq. The overwhelming response has been that Australia should pursue the United Nations path to resolve this issue and that Australia should only become involved in military action if it is endorsed as part of that UN process. The mood as I speak to people in my electorate is that they did not put me here to send Australians off to war without very good reasons related to our security and national interests. That is the question they want answered here through this debate: do those good reasons exist at this point? I do not believe that they do.

The foreign minister yesterday set out many claims against Iraq and the regime of Saddam Hussein—none of them were new. Yes, of course we do have to take those claims seriously. Clearly it has reached a point where the international community has decided that those actions by Iraq cannot be ignored, but there was nothing in the foreign minister's speech that would justify a pre-emptive and unilateral attack on Iraq by the United States and any supporters it could gather for that mission. The foreign minister's speech identified the problem that we are dealing with in Saddam Hussein, but it was the Leader of the Opposition who in his speech outlined the correct way forward through United Nations processes. Many speeches over the past two days have gone through the history of this issue, from the Gulf War, through the weapons inspections of the late nineties, to the events of September 11 last year. They have gone through that history and they have gone through the politics of this issue over the last few months.

My purpose in entering into this debate is simply to put on the record for the people in my electorate where I stand on this issue, and to assure them that I share their concerns about what may lie ahead for Australia in terms of our response to this issue. As far as I am concerned, let us use the United Nations processes to find a resolution to the problem that Iraq is seen to represent to the international community. That process of weapons inspections and possibly further United Nations resolutions will take some time to play out—and there is the chance that we will face harder decisions and choices in the near future.

One thing is clear: the case for pre-emptive military action has not been made by anything that the foreign minister, George W. Bush or Tony Blair have said over the past week. I was not convinced by the evidence put forward by the foreign minister, and I am sure that the people in my electorate would not be either. The message coming from the electorate is clear, and it is something that I completely agree with. It is something that I feel from the bottom of my heart: we should not just follow the United States into war against Iraq. We need to look out for our national interests. We need to be conscious that it is Australian men and women that we would be committing to military action, and that is why we need to make that the absolute last resort. We need to follow the United Nations processes, and we need to step back at this time from any commitment to support any kind of unilateral or pre-emptive strike. The United Nations is paramount in this. We need to live up to our responsibilities in the international community but at the same time be very conscious of our responsibilities to the Australian people.