Senator ALSTON (Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts) (4:15 PM) —The motion before the Senate requires us to consider matters that go to the heart of international peace and security. The motion relates to matters that will have a profound effect on the shape of the world in which we live now and in the future. I note that a number of today's headlines cannot resist characterising the latest developments as `the moment of truth'. But the real truth is that, despite some last-minute cosmetic hyperactivity which falls far short of the immediate and complete cooperation required unanimously by the Security Council a little more than three months ago, Iraq continues to defy the international community, just it is has done for the last 12 years.

Today's decision by the government to commit Australian forces to the operational control of the coalition field commander, in support of military action in the gulf region, has not been an easy or popular one. Indeed, the easy decision would have been to capitulate to the siren calls of several permanent Security Council members who in recent times have called for Saddam Hussein to be given more time to cooperate with UN inspectors. But history is replete with examples of how the soft option can make matters infinitely worse. Today's decision is not some knee-jerk falling into line with US wishes. Whilst the American alliance is fundamentally important, it is not and should not be determinative of Australia's interests. The duly elected government of the Commonwealth, alone, should make that decision, and it has.

It is also critically important to understand that such action has only been taken as a last resort after diplomacy and other efforts have failed. The government believes in the primacy of international law and the pivotal role of the United Nations. On no fewer than 17 occasions, the Security Council has considered the question of Iraq and its continued failure to comply with its disarmament obligations. As recently as November last year, the Security Council, including France, solemnly concluded that Iraq was in material breach of its Security Council obligations and should be given one last opportunity of full compliance.

As the legal advice from the Attorney-General's Department, made public today, makes it clear, those actions are firmly based in international law. It also makes it clear that the Security Council has already endorsed the use of force. In the eloquent words of Professor Ruth Wedgwood, reported in the Financial Times of 14 March:

It is also important to appreciate the role of the UNMOVIC inspectors. We do not start with a clean slate where certain allegations have been made that Iraq is in possession of weapons of mass destruction and it is then up to the inspectors to locate such weapons or prove beyond reasonable doubt that they exist. On the contrary, the UN has already established that Iraq is in possession of 6,500 chemical munitions with the potential content of 1,000 tonnes of chemical agents; 8,500 litres of anthrax; 650 kilograms of bacterial growth media, which could be used to make 5,000 litres of anthrax; 360 tonnes of bulk chemical agents; 1.5 tonnes of VX; and 3,000 tonnes of precursor chemicals. The onus is therefore on Iraq to demonstrate that it has destroyed or no longer possesses such weapons. This it has manifestly failed to do. Indeed, Dr Blix noted in his most recent report, of 7 March, to the Security Council that Iraq knows the names of people involved with the destruction of materials from proscribed programs and therefore should have records that it could hand over to UNMOVIC, but it has chosen not to do so.

It is worth considering what has occurred since France and other Security Council nations supported resolution 1441. Has Iraq made any genuine attempts to cooperate and fulfil its international obligations? The short answer is no. On several occasions it has deliberately waited until the last moment before making gestures designed to please those who no longer want to hold Iraq to those obligations. To pretend, as France does, that the UN inspectors need more time is to ignore the reality that the inspectors will never be in a position to make definitive judgments without the full cooperation of Iraq. Indeed, its grudging cooperation to date has only been brought about by the forward deployment of troops, not because of any change of heart on the part of Saddam Hussein.

France, through its opportunistic spoiling role, has done the UN a grave disservice. Against this background it is difficult not to conclude that France is driven more by a desire to retrieve lost imperial ambitions while preserving its Iraqi oil interests than by any genuine desire to bring Iraq to account. It ought to be clear to anyone who has studied the events of the past several months that France has deliberately gone out of its way to ensure that there is no incentive for other members of the Security Council to support any second resolution. In these circumstances, the Australian government believes that it is untenable to leave forces in place and hope that Iraq will have a change of heart. Even more so, if one were to adopt the approach of the Labor Party and, of course, the Greens, and bring the troops home now, all such prospects would disappear, as anyone who has seriously studied recent events must appreciate. Many other countries share Australia's concern about the growing threat posed by Iraq's pursuit of weapons of mass destruction and few, if any, argue that Iraq is cooperating as it is required to do.

It is very much in Australia's interest that the UN should as much as possible be the focal point for the resolution of international disputes. Indeed, the Security Council has a very specific responsibility in this regard. Failure of the UN system to follow through on the enforcement of its own resolutions should not mean that the UN is permanently sidelined. Indeed, those who have learnt the lessons of the failure of the League of Nations ought to appreciate that these are fragile vehicles through which we express international community views. If they are ignored or treated as political playthings then they lose their relevance and, as a result, we need then to start the process all over again. So it is very much in Australia's interests that the UN should as much as possible remain relevant. It is therefore pleasing to note that the United States and the United Kingdom both accept that, despite the attempts of others to render the Security Council irrelevant in resolving the current crisis, the UN still has a very important role to play in the postwar reconstruction of Iraq.

Australia's distance from the gulf region has led some to argue that Australia could decline to actively participate in military action in the region whilst at the same time expressing support and solidarity for our allies. This would not be a responsible attitude to burden sharing, let alone would it be in Australia's interests. We all aspire to live in a world of peace and security. It is our permanent hope that the world will be a better place once Saddam Hussein has been disarmed and the prospects of weapons of mass destruction falling into the hands of terrorists have thereby been significantly reduced. In reading President Bush's statement of today, I note that he uses a very telling phrase:

It is very easy to lampoon these objectives and characterise the Americans as hell-bent on pursuing their own interests without for a moment considering the very significant benefits that the world derives from having a superpower that is genuinely acting in the best interests of the international community.

One only had to listen to Senator Brown's rabid diatribe of anti-Americanism to realise that not only is he trying to personalise the debate and demonise the President but he is at all times trying to distract attention from the merits of the argument. At no time do we hear any positive alternatives other than that of moral leadership being required. When, of course, the Prime Minister of Australia or the President of the United States shows moral leadership and puts, as Mr Blair has done, a very courageous position forward—knowing, in Mr Blair's situation, that very many members of his own party are opposed—one has to say that that is a high degree of moral courage and admirable political leadership. And yet, the Greens and their fellow travellers would simply demean and decry those attempts without suggesting any other alternative.

It is simply not good enough to ignore the current realities. We are not dealing here with adversaries who are prepared to be reasonable. We are not dealing with someone who has been misunderstood or is in a desperately poor situation and has no choice but to respond in ways that are unacceptable to us. The fact is that by every assessment Saddam Hussein is not only a tyrant of the greatest magnitude but someone who is acting maliciously towards his own people, let alone towards the rest of the world. When someone has been given 17 opportunities to comply—not only voluntarily but also under the threat of force—and still refuses to do so, it is simply preposterous to argue that somehow more time will bring them to their senses. It ought to be abundantly clear to anyone who has an open mind on the subject that Saddam Hussein is not susceptible to any sort of logic or persuasion.

It is very easy to attribute base motives to other players, but does anyone seriously doubt that Australia's fundamental values and beliefs are not closely aligned with those of our major allies in this dispute? It is certainly not in our interest to see such value systems overthrown by militant fundamentalists who will resort to the use of chemical and biological weapons, and any other means by which to wreak maximum havoc upon the West. If there were a lesson to be learned from September 11, I would have thought it was that you have to be prepared. In this new world of uncertainty you cannot simply wait until you are attacked before you take action. Quite clearly, the Americans have a fairly high degree of preparedness, yet they were totally unable to do anything to anticipate that sort of catastrophic attack on their value system—let alone, of course, on the thousands of people who died as a result of that act. I think that tells us that if you were simply to wait until such time as Saddam Hussein decided to change his mind, or until other terrorists were to acquire weapons of mass destruction or chemical and biological weapons, you would be a sitting target. That is not the responsibility of a government; a government's responsibility is to do its very best to anticipate and pre-empt any reasonable apprehension of danger. That is what we are doing in this instance. It is of no consolation at all to wait until you are directly attacked and then wonder after the event why you did not take action. That is what royal commissions are all about—the benefit of hindsight and asking, `Why didn't you do these things?' We are doing them now, when it can make a very real difference.

In these circumstances Australia is determined to play its part in helping to make the world a safer place for all its inhabitants, despite the natural aversion and apprehension of many in the community to embarking upon military activity, especially when our own country is not directly and immediately under threat. I believe the Australian public does understand that the Prime Minister and the government are motivated only by a desire to act in the country's best interests and to achieve an outcome that not only will be of benefit to the rest of the world but particularly will assist in alleviating the suffering of those who have experienced the most extreme violence and invasion at the hands of the Iraqi regime. Much careful thought and reflection have gone into this decision, and I believe that the Australian community will very much appreciate that it is not the result of any capricious action on the part of the government but rather a reflection of a deep desire to do the right thing in the best interests of us all.