Mr HATTON (6:47 PM) —First of all, I am happy to be participating in a parliamentary debate in relation to the situation in Iraq, Australian government policy, US government policy and the question of the enforcement of previous UN demands in regard to weapons inspections in Iraq. I am pleased to be doing so, because for a long time it looked as though we were not going to have any debate whatsoever, despite the fact that for some considerable time now the United States Congress, both in its House and in the Senate, has been looking at these issues. Significant committee work has been done, particularly in the US Senate foreign affairs committee, in looking at a possible justification for US action and the context of that US action in regard to a range of statements made not only by President Bush but also by US Secretary of State, Colin Powell, and a number of other members of the US executive.

Labor's position was determined in April of this year, in advance of a solid position being presented by the government, and that position has now been vindicated, because we actually do have a parliamentary debate. There were two strings to the position that Labor put forward. The first was that the issues before us were so weighty and so important that there should be a full parliamentary debate in this House and also in the Senate. The second was that the situation should be resolved through recourse to the United Nations rather than by endorsing the US going it alone. On both of those points, I think we have been finally vindicated.

It is important to take into account not just what is happening this week but what has happened over the last few months, both here and in the United States, to get a sense of the directions that have been taken by various players who have influenced the outcome so far on this general worldwide debate. This is a weighty decision that will be taken in the United States, in Britain and in Australia if it is the case that war might have to be entered into. With a bit of luck and with a bit of good sense, the fact that the United States, in the person of the Secretary of State, Colin Powell, acting for the government, has finally taken the case to the United Nations and pursued that case vigorously there lays open the possibility that we may not be in for another war in the Gulf region, that we may be able to pursue the problems that are at the core of the situation there. Those problems are the question of the inspections of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and the reintroduction of the inspection regime that was abruptly stopped four years ago.

I note that, whilst we are having this parliamentary debate about these weighty issues, the Prime Minister in question time the other day indicated that any decision in regard to our position, either on the UN or on whether or not Australia might have to become a participant in a war in the future, would be taken not by this parliament but by the executive: it would be a deliberative decision of the executive, and the executive alone. Whilst, seemingly, we will not have a deliberative part in any final decision, I think we can help to lay the background to a decision that should underline the fact that it is important for Australia, as an active participant in the United Nations, to continue to do the really hard thing: to pursue a solution to the problems that face us in regard to Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction through the offices of the United Nations.

That is difficult, because you are dealing with a large number of countries and you are dealing with five permanent members of the Security Council and 10 temporary members. It is very difficult to get a coordinated point of view, but that has been achieved a number of times in the past. We have gone beyond the Cold War period; it is now possible across differing ideologies and points of view to come to a concerted view of the importance of the world powers acting as one to take on and deal with particular problems.

There has been a suggestion over the last number of months, up until the last week or so, that there was another course of action that should be open and that that course of action should come from the United States: there should be pre-emptive strike on Iraq. Up until Colin Powell took the argument to the United Nations, it looked as though the United States might have struck out on its own. It is probably because President Bush had an extensive discussion with Prime Minister Blair that he seems to have changed his direction in regard to this. But it looks as though a number of the people in the executive there would still rather take direct military action on their own.

There are a number of historical precedents, of course, for pre-emptive strikes being made. We know that in 1981 or so the Israelis made a pre-emptive strike against a building which was said to house a plutonium nuclear facility that was being developed within Iraq. Since that was knocked out, the Iraqis have moved on along the lines of nuclear enrichment and a non-plutonium bomb to try to build a nuclear capacity. We also know from evidence that has been given that most of Iraq's capacity—based on what the weapons inspectors said up until four years ago, not only because of the war in the Gulf over 10 years ago, but because of the work of the weapons inspectors themselves—to actually built a nuclear weapon has been ripped away. In the four years since the weapons inspectors were effectively frozen out, however, the possibility is there that they could have proceeded a fair way along the track to start that program again.

In terms of first strikes and taking pre-emptive action, there is an example from a very long time ago, about 1200 BC, when one country took pre-emptive first strike action in the area. That country was Egypt, under Pharaoh Meneptah. He was faced on three sides with potential enemies: on one side, the Syrians; on the other side, the Libyans; and in the south, the Nubians. Meneptah had come to the throne as a result of the death of his father, Ramses II. After winning the Battle of Kadesh, he was able to have a long stabilised period of peace within Egypt. But when he had just taken over and there was great uncertainty as to what the future may have held, when war preparations were being made by both the Syrians and also the Libyans, Meneptah determined to go in and fix the problem himself, and he did that successfully against all three groups. But that was in 1200 BC. There was no United Nations. There was no formal organisation where the world's powers, either on a regional or on a worldwide basis, would be able to resolve their problems. There was no Security Council. There was no formal diplomatic organisation to try to solve these problems diplomatically rather than militarily.

It is important to note that we have seen the struggle within the United States, over the last six months or so, for those working towards a diplomatic outcome enforcing a reintroduction of weapons inspectors into Iraq and enforcing the UN resolutions with regard to the destruction of weapons within that country. I think we would hope to see, as well, an enforcement of that in other countries around the world and in the region that have weapons of mass destruction. There are other countries that have given an indication that they might use them at times. Those weapons—in particular, the nuclear ones—do massive damage.

Firstly, the Labor Party have been partly successful in what we called for because we are having a parliamentary debate, which should have happened some time ago. The government finally gave in and determined that we would have a debate. Secondly, we have a situation where the UN is operating. It is operating, we hope effectively, to sort these problems out. And, finally, the United States has been forced to operate within the context of an organisation whose job is to sort these issues out and try to save us from warfare. So, in this situation, it is important that whatever concerns we have, however well demonstrated in the past, we need to be cautious with regard to the approach we follow. (Time expired)