Mr SOMLYAY (1:04 PM) —I commence my remarks by saying that no-one in their right mind wants war or likes war. I do not like war. I do not relish the thought of voting to commit Australian lives, to risk the lives of young Australian men and women, to a war, particularly on foreign soil. In my time in this parliament I have seen too many graves of and memorials to Australian people lost in places in many countries, such as Gallipoli, the Somme, Flanders, Britain, Palestine, South Africa, New Guinea, Thailand, Vietnam, Korea and Singapore.

Twelve years ago, in January 1991, I spoke on a motion before this House. It was a bipartisan motion moved by Prime Minister Bob Hawke and seconded by the then Leader of the Opposition, John Hewson. I pointed out that, when I entered parliament a mere 10 months before, it had not occurred to me that I would have to exercise my vote in this place on a motion which would see young Australians at war on foreign soil. That decision at that time was not easy, as many of my colleagues have said, and many people agonised over it. I personally had to be totally convinced that there was no other option at the time.

It is no different in 2003. I found it difficult to send troops to East Timor. I found it difficult to accept that our troops were going to Afghanistan. In 1991 I conveyed the views of my electorate of Fairfax as they were expressed to me at the time. As Minister Abbott said in debate on this issue earlier today, no matter what our positions are, we are here to represent the people of our electorates. Twelve years ago I gave what I believed were the views of my electorate of Fairfax then. In summary, everyone hates war, as I said earlier. Some people have expressed the view that we should not participate in any action against Iraq under any circumstances, but the majority believe that Australia should not participate in any action unless it is sanctioned by a UN resolution, and I think the opinion polls are saying the same thing.

A group of local people in my electorate, under the banner of `Noosa for Peace', organised a rally in Noosa last weekend. That rally passed a resolution, which I will read into Hansard so that I give a balanced view of the various opinions in my electorate on this issue:

I do not agree entirely with that resolution. As I said, I abhor war—as most people do—but there comes a time when we have to take a collective view in this parliament, for the good of the nation. This morning I had word that the Noosa council is considering a motion which calls for no action without UN sanction. There is overwhelming support, though, from the telephone calls, letters and emails that I have received, for taking action against Saddam Hussein if it is supported by the United Nations.

The UN, Australia, the USA and all nations have to make a decision, and it is a fundamental decision: whether to do something or to do nothing. To do nothing, I believe, at this stage is no longer an option. The consequences of doing nothing are stark. If the world does not act over Iraq, that would give a signal to every rogue state and rogue dictator that the UN is weak and will not enforce its resolutions. That would be an open invitation to ensure that instability and terrorism would rule the 21st century.

Diplomacy has run its course for the last 12 years, so I think the options are clear. The solution to this crisis is entirely in one man's hands, and that man is Saddam Hussein. He started this by invading Kuwait in August 1990. He was defeated by the coalition forces and forced out of Kuwait in 1991. The conditions of peace were set out 12 years ago by the United Nations. Twelve years later, we are arguing about enforcing those conditions. The view of the majority of the world is that Saddam Hussein's time is up and that diplomacy has run its course.

A peaceful resolution is still possible. We pray it is, but that is up to Saddam Hussein and no-one else. The first option is for Saddam to comply, abandon the practice of `cheat and retreat' and hand over the weapons we all know he has hidden. Compliance with the UN resolution by Iraq can result in a peaceful resolution. The second option is an option of UN enforcement. The Prime Minister, in his statement to the House yesterday, outlined that the government's preferred option, in the absence of a peaceful resolution, is to seek a UN resolution of enforcement. The world cannot tolerate the manufacture and use of weapons of mass destruction. The UN must act to support its own sanctions. To do otherwise would weaken the UN, with consequences only too well known. I expect that in the final analysis the UN will, by resolution, sanction the use of force against Iraq. Australians, of course, would support that resolution. Our forward deployment of troops to the Middle East would be part of the enforcement process.

The opposition claims that the Australian government has already committed to joining with the USA and the UK in a unilateral decision to use force against Iraq without UN sanction. That is wrong. It is clear from the PM's statement that a peaceful resolution has been and is everybody's aim. As time goes on, a peaceful resolution becomes a more and more remote possibility. UN-sanctioned force is the second option and that is the process to which Australia's efforts are directed. Any other possibility claimed by the opposition is hypothetical. Circumstances change daily. International pressure must be kept up on Iraq in the hope of a peaceful resolution.