Mr PYNE (8:53 PM) —Forgive me if I take a moment to shake myself out of the 1960s and back into 2003. After listening to the member for Bendigo's contribution to this debate, I could be forgiven for thinking I was listening to a central committee member of the Communist Party from the 1960s or maybe Tony Benn in full paranoid flight in the House of Commons. The member for Bendigo's contribution was a personalised, vicious and Trotsky-like attack on the United States and on this government. It was really quite bizarre. I think he probably did the 1960s Left movement proud. He even quoted their `give peace a chance' in his last statement, so he should be very proud of himself.

Twelve years ago, in 1991, when the coalition of countries that fought the Gulf War were successful, two elements were included as part of the cease-fire at the end of the Gulf War: one was that Iraq had to divest itself of all weapons of mass destruction, and the second was that a weapons inspection regime was to be established that ensured that Iraq did divest itself of its weapons of mass destruction, that it did not produce any new ones and that its program of creating weapons of mass destruction was removed or disbanded. In fact, an Australian, Richard Butler, was given the task of doing that and, as we all know, he left that post because he felt that the Hussein regime was not cooperating with the United Nations weapons inspection program. I make that point because the question of Iraq and disarmament and weapons of mass destruction has not sprung up in the last few weeks or months, or even in the last 12 months—as some people like to raise as a red herring in this place and in the public domain. It certainly has reached a crescendo in the last few weeks or months because, after 12 years of trying to get the Hussein regime to dismantle its weapons of mass destruction and to come clean on its program, the world feels that Iraq has had long enough to do what was required of it as part of the 1991 cease-fire.

The world is bitterly disappointed, to say the least, at the failure of the Hussein regime to do that. Weapons inspectors have been ejected in that time; the war rhetoric of Iraq has been stepped up over that time; and weapons of mass destruction are unaccounted for, even from the Gulf War, let alone the program in Iraq that continued after the Gulf War. This culminated in UN resolution 1441, which required Iraq to disarm, and the sending in of weapons inspectors under Hans Blix to ensure that Iraq disarmed. The weapons inspectors were not charged with the task of running around playing hide-and-seek in the deserts of the Middle East, trying to find evidence of weapons. The role of the weapons inspectors was to ensure that Iraq disarmed. The burden of proof was on Iraq. The burden of proof was not on the weapons inspectors to find evidence of chemical and biological weapons. In fact, Hans Blix in his report said:

It is true that the 11 September 2001 attack on the United States and the 12 October 2002 attack on Australia by terrorists have given impetus to the world's desire to see rogue states with their weapons of mass destruction dealt with so that we can have a peaceful world in the future. Those two events ensured that a cease-fire was put in place and that promises made by Iraq 12 years ago were actually made to stick. Who can blame the people of the United States or the people of Australia for those two events causing them to want to make sure that the impetus for the disarmament of Iraq was brought to fruition?

The question we are all faced with is: when is it a good time for rogue states that produce, acquire and want weapons of mass destruction to be disarmed and dealt with? People can always put off hard decisions, but it cannot be after such rogue states have these weapons of mass destruction; it cannot be after they use these weapons of mass destruction. It can only be when the world feels that it can act to ensure that we live in a peaceful world in the future—and it must be now. That time must be now to give credibility to the United Nations and to the campaign that has been going on for decades to eradicate chemical, biological and nuclear weapons. The exception is those states that can have these weapons and not use them. That is not the case with Iraq—we know that it has used them.

People who oppose an action to make Iraq disarm have to answer another question: if Iraq is not to be dealt with now, then how does one deal with other states like North Korea who have nuclear weapons programs to which they have owned up? How do we deal with those states if Iraq is allowed to keep its weapons of mass destruction, to continue to acquire and produce them and potentially to use them? That leads me to the question of the UN support for military action in Iraq. Of course, we will all be glad if the United Nations passes a resolution endorsing military action against Iraq if it is agreed that Iraq is in material breach of the UN resolutions. I hope that will occur and, from recent reportage from New York, it seems that may well occur. The Australian people obviously want that to be the case too. But what if there is no UN resolution? Is it a fatal blow to the concept of disarming Iraq? Can no military action take place if that is the case?

Some members of the ALP—the member for Bendigo has just been adding to this point—claim that it would be illegal for a coalition of the willing to take action to disarm Saddam Hussein and make him comply with UN resolutions. Of course it would not be illegal. That is simply not true.

There are three good examples. In 1997 when the NATO powers acted against Serbia to defend and protect the people of Kosovo, there was no UN resolution allowing that to go ahead, endorsing that action. A humanitarian resolution which would have encapsulated such an action was suggested. The Soviet Union made it clear that it would veto such a resolution, so the motion was not put. The bombing of Serbia went ahead. China moved a motion in the Security Council declaring that action illegal. The motion was defeated by 13 votes to two in the Security Council. If you like, it reaffirmed that it was not illegal at the time for a military action outside UN auspices to take place—at that time an action by NATO. Back in 1982 Argentina invaded the Falkland Islands. There was no UN resolution to allow Britain to take back the Falkland Islands into British sovereignty or to endorse the war that the United Kingdom conducted against Argentina. In 1962, when the Cuban missile crisis occurred, there was no UN resolution to allow the United States to blockade Cuba and interdict the introduction of Soviet missiles into Cuba to threaten the United States.

The role of Australia in all this has been impeccable. Countries like the United States, Britain, Australia and the countries of the eight European leaders who signed their letter last week—Spain, the Czech Republic and others—are placing the necessary pressure on Saddam Hussein that could force him to disarm and to avoid a war. Kofi Annan, the Secretary-General of the United Nations, himself has said—he has made it clear—that weapons inspectors would not be in Iraq today if it was not for the military pressure that has been applied on the Saddam Hussein regime. The US, Britain and Australia, through the application of predeployment military pressure, are making war less likely, not more likely. They are making it very clear to Saddam Hussein that we are serious about disarmament, we are serious about his weapons of mass destruction, and he must disarm or these weapons will be taken away from him by a coalition of the willing.

Ironically, and tragically, countries like France and Germany and their allies in Australia, particularly from the left of the ALP, are giving succour to Saddam Hussein by creating the impression that he can continue to hold out against the United Nations and against the coalition of the willing. They are giving succour to his cunning and usual plans to avoid facing the aspects of the agreement of 1991 that required him to disarm. Indeed, one could argue, as Greg Sheridan has in the Australian, that France, Germany and their allies in the ALP left are making war in the Middle East more likely, not less likely, because the more they give succour to the Hussein regime and create the impression in his mind that he has his opponents on the run the more likely the situation is to become dangerous. They should seriously think about that.

In conclusion, there is one aspect of this debate which I find quite repugnant, and that is those members of the ALP who try to create a moral equivalence between the position of Iraq on the one hand and that of the US and Israel on the other. I find it criminally misleading, repugnant and despicable that anybody would suggest that there is a moral equivalence between the United States and Israel and Iraq. Iraq is a totalitarian, dictatorial, antidemocratic regime with no freedom of the press and no freedom of association, a regime that has used weapons of mass destruction against Kurds and Shiah Muslims, the state of Israel, Iran, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia and Qatar. This is a regime that is bellicose and belligerent; it has no freedom that we would regard as normal in our lives. The United States and Israel are democratic, freedom-loving nations with a free press, freedom of association and freedom of religion and organisation. They have not used weapons of mass destruction against their own people, against their opponents. They have the protections that we would regard as normal for children; they have equality for women. They have the same value system that we have in Australia. To make an argument that there is a moral equivalence between Iraq and Israel and the United States is a repugnant and outrageous argument.

I commend the Prime Minister's statement to the House and I hope that other members, particularly in the ALP, will see reason on this issue.