Mr ANDREN (5:05 PM) —This debate is a further politicisation of our defence forces in the same way as they were shamefully politicised during the Tampa episode and the `children overboard' affair. This government is being forced to defend its folly in following America into Iraq by trying to drive a wedge yet again into the electorate over this parliament's loyalty to its troops who are engaged in active duty for the first time in our history, as far as I can recall, without the support of the wider free world. To use the Prime Minister's words: this `has never been the Australian way'.

It is ironic that we are here debating our involvement in Iraq for the first time since the invasion not because the Prime Minister thinks the issue should be debated but because an opposition leader had the temerity to suggest that our troops should not be there and that our defence responsibilities lie at home and close to home. So this is about politics, not principle. Point (1) of this motion goes without challenge, but point (2) asks this House—and, by extension, the Australian people—to endorse an open cheque: an unlimited role in the occupation of Iraq. It asks us to stay in Iraq until respective tasks have been completed. It is an invitation to get bogged down in a quagmire the likes of which we have not seen since Vietnam.

In today's newspaper poll the question, had it been turned around to read, `Do you support the withdrawal of Australian troops as soon as possible?' would also have got the 60 per cent yes vote the government is seeking on this motion. We are in Iraq at the bidding of the Americans, not the world community. We are there on the back of lies about the threat from weapons of mass destruction and the urgency of toppling Saddam Hussein to counter terrorism. We are there to prop up flawed US foreign policy. It is our job as a friend to help the US develop policies that truly develop constructive international engagement, in the words of the member for Warringah.

In taking action that is illegal under international laws and conventions, we have in fact increased the threat of terrorism. Unless and until the international community supports all international forces in Iraq, we should have no role there without UN endorsement. That is why, under standing order 178, I attempted to move an amendment to the existing motion that would have said: `and is of the opinion the continuing presence of Australian Defence Force personnel in Iraq be only at the specific request and under the authority of the United Nations in agreement with the Iraqi interim government.' That this amendment has been blocked by the government shows that it is not serious about dealing with this matter in any serious way.

On 16 October last year the UN authorised a multinational force to be in Iraq, but this does not apply to the coalition of the willing, who are regarded as an occupying force. Any countries outside the coalition are in Iraq under UN resolution 1511 of 16 October. After the handover of power on 1 July, the occupying powers can either become part of the UN multinational force or negotiate with the new Iraqi interim government. This is not adequate. As far as most Australians are concerned, our continuing presence must be endorsed by the UN and any presence must be under the UN banner and the blue helmet—something I note that the PM seemed to deride in a reference to the member for Lyons.

Unless the government—indeed, the parliament—is prepared to consider an amendment such as mine, the political cynicism of the Prime Minister's motion stands exposed for what it is: a piece of wedge politics designed to create division not only within this parliament but in the wider Australian community, a community that overwhelmingly rejected Australia's involvement in Iraq even before the spurious nature of the reasons given for our involvement was exposed.

My colleague the member for New England is ready and prepared to support my amendment, blocked as it is by the procedures for dealing with the question before the chair. Today's Nielsen poll shows that 60 per cent of Australians do not want to abandon the Iraqi people, but I would argue that the same 60 per cent would want Australia's presence to be under UN sanction. UN troops under other control than that of America, Britain or Australia would help defuse the explosive belligerence and festering resentment towards occupying forces. Notwithstanding the terrorist attack on the UN compound in Iraq, it will only be a sustained UN armed peacekeeping presence and civilian backup—medical, social and political, of the kind that we offered in East Timor with the Electoral Commission and others—that will neutralise attempts to foment civil war.

This motion as it stands without amendment is about shoring up the illegitimate actions of the coalition of the willing. Poland and Spain have already stated how they believe they were conned. So, given that the parliament will not consider my amendment, I shall abstain from any vote on part (2) of the motion and, if the points are not separated, I will abstain on the entire motion because, unaltered, the motion is nothing more than an election year stunt.