Mr SECKER (11:25 AM) —The previous speaker had doubt after doubt—doubt about stability in the Middle East, doubt about Indonesian attitudes and doubt about almost everything that was going on with this action. Can I suggest that, if he has any doubts about stability, he should have a look at the existing situation in the Middle East. We surely could not get less stability there than we have now.

In the weeks of debates that we have heard in this chamber there is one very clear message: the coalition on this side of the chamber is clear in its resolve to be part of a willing coalition and the Labor Party are not. The Labor Party are so split on this issue that they would be hopeless in government, as they are in opposition. They are split three ways. There are actually several members of the opposition who believe that we are doing the right thing but publicly have not got the guts to say so. Then there is the group that slavishly follows the line of the opposition leader—that force should be used only if there is yet another resolution from the UN. Then there is the group of opposition MPs who do not even agree with that line and who oppose the use of any such force under any circumstances. The Labor Party are actually split three ways whereas we on this side of the chamber are not.

The members for Watson, Franklin and Sydney cannot even support their own leader on this issue. What would they be like in government? If you cannot govern your own party, as the line goes, you cannot govern Australia. Then we had the member for Stirling saying with such solemnity that this all amounts to an invasion. Talk about the bleeding obvious! What did she think it was—a Sunday school picnic? What was Saddam's invasion into Kuwait—another school picnic?

The Labor Party opposition is the most disgraceful opposition in living memory. It is not content to throw bipartisanship out the window. Every Labor speaker that I have heard, as if under their own marching orders, has tried to terrify the Australian population by saying that this action means that we are now real targets for terrorists. Isn't it ironic that only a matter of weeks ago they denigrated this government for a householder mail-out to warn of the need for vigilance and said how unnecessary it was? Now they try to tell us that we are targets so we had better look out. Talk about sitting on both sides of the fence. Here we have an opposition that cannot make up its mind about which side of the fence to sit on but opportunistically and disgustingly tries to terrify the Australian population.

The idea that somehow we can make ourselves less vulnerable to being targets for terrorist attacks by shutting up and doing nothing is not backed up by experience or the facts. The French, Kenyans and Germans have suffered from terrorist attacks; their appeasing ways have not worked. French President Chirac has not achieved anything with his appeasement either. In fact, I believe he has actually done great damage to the cause of the United Nations, because he has led the charge for inaction—as only the French can do. I fear that his actions will lead the United Nations down the same path as the old League of Nations, with no authority and no unity. We had unity with 17 or so resolutions of the Security Council of the United Nations and we had unity with the last resolution, 1441, which gave Saddam one last chance. He did not take it. That was over four months ago. How long does anyone want to give this horrible dictator?

Let us look at some of the untruths being spread by the Labor Party—first of all, that this is somehow an illegal action. The fact remains that the independent experts in international law in both the Attorney-General's Department and the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade are unequivocal in saying that our actions are not illegal. This is also confirmed by the British Attorney-General. The second furphy is that this is a unilateral action. The fact is that 30 nations have agreed to be part of this coalition of the willing for the immediate disarmament of Iraq and at least another 15 countries are cooperating. Let us look at some of those 30 countries.

Mr Hardgrave —That's more than three.

Mr SECKER —Much more than three. Besides Australia, Britain and the United States we have Middle Eastern countries like Afghanistan, Kuwait, Turkey and Bahrain. We have European countries like Albania, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Georgia, Estonia, Hungary, Iceland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, the Netherlands, Poland, Romania, Slovakia and Spain. We have Asian countries like Japan, South Korea and the Philippines, and the list goes on. So for anyone to suggest that this action is somehow unilateral is sheer nonsense. We heard the member for Banks, amongst others, disgracefully saying that the blood of the innocent victims in Iraq will be on our hands and on the hands of the Prime Minister. Inaction has already caused the death and suffering of over a million innocent Iraqis. How many more does he want before he acts?

Then there is the furphy that we should not act without the say-so of the United Nations through yet another resolution. The United Nations was not there in Kosovo, and the world got the right result; the United Nations was not there for the Cuban missile crisis, and we got the right result; and it is a pity that the United Nations was not there to avert the crisis in Rwanda to save millions of lives. To say that we must act through the United Nations ignores history and the judgment of all those nations that are willing, and have been willing, to take the necessary actions.

Like all representatives in this House, I have received a flood of emails and correspondence on this matter, ranging from the supportive to the abusive. I have taken the time to read much of this, especially if it is from my electorate of Barker. I have made a point of talking to my constituents, whether they agree or disagree with my stance on, and support for, this action. I am accused of not listening by some because I do not agree with their views. Either way, I have listened and I have sought their views—and they do vary, quite considerably. I have read numerous articles, both for and against, but in the end, even though there are always doubts in your mind when you look at all of the different reasons for and against the action, I keep coming back to the need to disarm Saddam Hussein in the only way he knows. We all hate war. We would all prefer to avoid it. But Saddam has left the world with no option. He alone can now avert this action.

I send our brave troops my thoughts and prayers for their safe return. I wish well the parents, families and friends of our troops, who I know will be supporting them. I have spoken in my electorate to parents of people in the Air Force, on the ground and in the Navy. There are a few in my electorate who will have a certain unease. There is no doubt that there is some unease out there, because nobody likes war. There is concern about what is going to happen. You can never predict what happens in a war. But, in the end, I support this motion. I hope for a speedy result in the form of the liberation of Iraq from the control of this awful dictator.