Senator McGAURAN (11:32 AM) —On 11 September 2001, with the terrorist attack on New York and Washington and its horrific effect, the war on terror began. It is worth noting that Australian lives were lost on 11 September, along with lives from 80-plus other nations. As the United States President said then, and our Prime Minister reiterated, this is a war that will be fought like no other because there is no front line. It would be a war long and protracted; above all it would be difficult and demanding on society. The truth is that the free world's security would never be assured again and liberties would be curtailed.

The Australian government, with the full support of the people of Australia, joined this war in defence of our hard-fought freedoms. We could never have imagined that the Bali terrorist attack would entwine us even more in this war. Our determination, along with our powerful allies, has resulted in success that has assured us a measure of security— for example, the comprehensive arrest of the Bali bomb plotters. The Taliban regime fell very quickly in Afghanistan and al-Qaeda was put on the run. Many al-Qaeda operatives have been arrested or eliminated. Across Europe and Asia other terrorist connected organisations have been flushed out and dismantled or scattered. Behind this successful drive has been the policy of pre-emptive strikes—that is, to go out and meet your enemy before they have a chance to destroy you; to neuter their plans and their networks.

There can be no other sensible and more effective policy than pre-emptive strikes when fighting a shadowy enemy—an enemy who is not seeking firstly to take your land, towns or cities but an enemy who clandestinely attacks because they hate and seek to destroy your lifestyle, philosophy and religion. If we are to secure for the future our Western values and beliefs, all possibilities of links to terror must be pursued. Iraq has a clear link to terrorism, a link that threatens regional and global security. The Iraqi regime has been a sponsor of terrorist organisations, a harbourer of terrorists, a keeper of weapons of mass destruction, a user of weapons of mass destruction and a pursuer of a nuclear arsenal.

In the best interests of Australia and world security, action must be taken to disarm the Iraqi regime. Who is willing to gamble on the silk-thin line that now separates Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction from falling into the hands of terrorist groups? How could we take such a gamble post September 11 and post Bali? The consequences are grave and the risks cannot be taken. In fact, not to intervene would almost ensure that the terrorist groups link with Iraq.

The United Nations over the past 12 years has been pursuing that very point—that Iraq must disarm for the sake of international security. For 12 years Iraq has evaded the resolutions of the United Nations for it to disarm. It is beyond doubt that Iraq possesses weapons of mass destruction. In 1998, when Iraq forced the first United Nations inspection commission to leave the country, the commission confirmed the presence of chemical and biological weapons, nerve agents and other weapons of mass destruction.

Today the Iraqi regime is still ignoring and avoiding the United Nations. The chairman of the United Nations weapons inspection team, Hans Blix, after 60 days in Iraq, unambiguously reported that Iraq was violating the United Nations Security Council resolution 1441 to disarm. As Blix said, `There is no genuine acceptance by Iraq to disarm.' It is therefore essential for the credibility of the United Nations and for world security that it enforces its resolution 1441. This means that, if all diplomatic channels fail and the next inspection report is the same as the last, military force becomes the only resort to force this dictator to meet his international obligations.

Because the military option has been looming as likely for some time, it has been necessary for the United States, Britain and Australia to be prepared. That is why forward deployment has been undertaken. It has had the dual effect of providing the necessary time for our forces to be prepared and, moreover, to display the will to enforce resolution 1441. It is because of the build-up of military force on Iraq's border by America and its allies that Saddam Hussein has cooperated to at least allow United Nations inspectors back into the country.

In this debate there is a clear dishonesty from the Left, which is epitomised by the comment from the Greens senator, Bob Brown, when he said, `More people are afraid of George Bush than they are of Saddam Hussein.' The intellectual and moral dishonesty of that statement is nothing new. It was the rationale during the Cold War to equate communist Russia as a moral equivalent to the United States—that is, a dictatorship is morally equivalent to a democracy. That belief permeated the Left during the 70 years of communist rule. That belief even stretched to defending the Stalin regime and all its brutality. While governments of the Western world defended freedom and democracy, many of those enjoying that freedom and democracy intellectualised that moral equivalence. The wall was up and oppression and massacres took place, but the anti-Americanism, which represented Western democracy, was always attacked. History proved just how bankrupt the Left's views were. History will also show that their support for Saddam Hussein's regime through their anti-Americanism will also be found to be morally bankrupt.

The Australian government does not recoil from its full support of our alliance with the United States. We stand by it. What emotional frauds many in this chamber were after September 11. How quickly they forgot what happened to the world that fateful day. How quickly their hate for America and our alliance rose to the top at the expense of all else, not least the Iraqi people themselves. In reality, the so-called `peace team' are joining Saddam's privileged elite, because no-one else in Iraq is his friend, especially not the people of Iraq. Outside his elite, the people hate Saddam and they will not fight if an attack eventuates. The Geneva based International Crisis Group conducted an extensive survey of Iraqi opinion in October last year. The report was notable for the surprising honesty and bravery of the people it surveyed. They overwhelmingly supported the overthrow of Saddam Hussein, even if it meant an American led attack, which would be seen as liberating them.

Before any Australians jump on the Left's bus to Baghdad, they ought to be aware of Saddam Hussein's record towards his own people. Amnesty International has catalogued the human rights atrocities of this dictator in a report published in August 2001 entitled Iraq: Systematic torture of political prisoners. The brigade from the Left should also speak to the women of Iraq who are brutalised physically, psychologically and culturally. A report published in December 2002 by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office in the UK on the human cost of Saddam Hussein's policies graphically describes the atrocities towards women. I quote from a part of that report:

Even the children of Iraq have suffered under the corruption of this regime, which diverts revenue from the oil for food program developed by the United Nations towards Saddam Hussein's opulent lifestyle, his personal guard and his power elite. The truth is stark in regard to this regime but the Left cannot handle the truth.