Mr SIDEBOTTOM (12:24 PM) —I am pleased to make my contribution on the parliamentary report titled Intelligence on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. I find interesting the literary device of the use of the word `intelligence' in the title of this report. At issue are not only the use, misuse and abuse of intelligence by this government but also the intelligence of those who advanced the argument for war against Iraq. I speak in particular about the Minister for Foreign Affairs. He began this debate with insults. Anyone who opposed war in Iraq was labelled an `appeaser'. Even a cursory understanding of what `appeasement' means shows that the foreign minister knows nothing about it, historically or intellectually. But we were labelled `appeasers'.

The other insult near the end of the debacle of Australia's involvement in Iraq is that those who opposed the war and the government's case for it were labelled pro-Saddam. What an insult! I was pleased to see that those with a strong background in things military and intelligence who had doubts about this war were so offended by this label that they publicly attacked the foreign minister's assessments.

Air Marshall Ray Funnell, who was Chief of Air Staff from 1987 to 1992, was strongly opposed to the war and took great umbrage at the foreign minister's ridiculous insult, as did Admiral Mike Hudson, Chief of Naval Staff from 1985 to 1991, and General Peter Gration, Chief of the Australian Defence Force from 1987 to 1993. I think I can also include Major General Phillips, retired, who was at one time head of the RSL. I personally take offence at anyone who would level at those who question the involvement of this government, the United States and the UK in the war in Iraq a charge that they supported Saddam Hussein's regime.

The third major insult was when the Prime Minister and the foreign minister of this country insulted the intelligence of the Australian people. When we commit our forces to service overseas it is a very important and grave decision. We need to know the real reasons why the government believes we should commit those troops. This report clearly indicates that the reasons advanced could not be substantiated in detail by the intelligence that was available to us. When you look at the reasons advanced by the Prime Minister in his formal parliamentary rationale on 18 March 2003 for sending our troops to war and committing this nation and its future to the consequences of that decision you see that the reasons offered—the clear and present danger to the world because of the existence of weapons of mass destruction and a clear and present danger to Australia's future and our national interests—are not the arguments now being advanced by the Prime Minister and the foreign minister, because they are now arguing for regime change.

If that was the intention to begin with—and part of the argument that Paul Wolfowitz has come out with is that the US administration could not couch it in any better terms than to say that Iraq's weapons of mass destruction presented a clear and present danger to the world—that is an insult to the Australian people and an insult to the international community. Time is running out and I would like to return to this later. I seek leave to continue my remarks when the debate is resumed.

Leave granted.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Mossfield)—Order! The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.