Senator TCHEN (8:23 PM) — This afternoon Senator Hill introduced a motion into the Senate setting out Iraq's serial defiance of United Nations resolutions and setting out Australia's position regarding a coalition to disarm Iraq of its weapons of mass destruction. There has been a debate in the chamber on that motion in which many opinions have been expressed, some passionately and some well reasoned. I have little to add to the reasoning in this debate, but, over the period since the United States first drew the world's attention to the danger of leaving Saddam Hussein to continue his possession of weapons of mass destruction, we have heard the expression, both in the community and in this chamber, of various opinions on how this matter should be dealt with. I would like to share a number of observations about these various opinions and comments, particularly with my Labor Senate colleagues. Many of them, unlike their Democrat and Green colleagues, still consider the term `irresponsible' one of insult rather than one of endearment.

Over the last few months, we have seen much public expression of opinion, especially the expression of aversion to war against Iraq. We have seen marches, we have read opinion pieces and we have heard talkback radio. In these expressions of opinion we have seen demonstration with various degrees of civility. In my view, the public expression of opinion—especially the aversion to war—is a hallmark of a civilised and democratic society and is something which we should accept. Australia is certainly one of the foremost civilised and democratic societies in the world today. The important thing is that the expression and nature of this opinion need to be balanced, rational and considered. I have observed much of this expression of opinion. I have received more than 2,000 emails and letters from various people. Most of them express this aversion to war; that is fine. However, if you read through them you see that some of the bases on which they object to war are really quite questionable. One of the pronounced themes that runs through this is anti-Americanism. Anything that America proposes, they are against. Anything that America is concerned about must be a conspiracy for world domination. This anti-Americanism, unfortunately, seems to have also crept into Labor Party thinking.

For many years in Australia we have enjoyed a bipartisan foreign policy stance, particularly regarding our close relationship with the United States of America, with whom we share many of our values and much of our culture. Yet I can see that the Labor Party has actually been seduced by this unreasoned anti-Americanism. In a lot of the messages I also get the statement made in various forms, `I'm ashamed to be Australian because Australia is following America's example.' I have to say to the people who say this that I am not ashamed of being Australian, because I think that Australia is a great country and that Australian society is a great society. We are a caring and considerate society. We have values which we should be proud of. We treat other people and other nations in the way which we hope they will treat us. That is nothing to be ashamed of.

The other thing I found extremely strange about all these people who are anti-American is that they have adopted as their totemic hero the French President Chirac. This is the gentleman under whose administration the French tested atomic bombs in the Pacific, regardless of world opinion, at Mururoa Atoll, which France actually does not own— they hold it under colonial power. He is the person who gave the order to blow up the Rainbow Warrior. He is the person who recently shook the hand of and welcomed to a state dinner Mr Robert Mugabe, leader of Zimbabwe, when the rest of the world, particularly his European colleagues, hold Mr Mugabe in abhorrence. President Chirac— together with our own Senator Bob Brown— is a hero of the Saddam Hussein protection association. This is something which I find extremely difficult to understand.

When a number of senators spoke earlier, they drew a parallel between this war on terrorism—the proposal to disarm Iraq—and Vietnam. It is a very good parallel. Vietnam is a perfect example of where a democratic society loses resolve and direction, pulls back from the task they should have carried out and gives a country away to dictatorship—to one of the most corrupt governments you could find in the world today. However, I believe that the hysterical demand to leave Saddam Hussein alone draws a more relevant parallel with the appeasement era of the late 1930s and the fate of the League of Nations, from whose ashes the United Nations was built.

The Labor Party is taking a curious position on the question of Iraq. This afternoon, when speaking after Senator Hill, the Leader of the Government, Senator Faulkner, the Leader of the Opposition, proposed amending the motion to, amongst other things, insisting that Iraq be disarmed under the authority of the United Nations. The Labor Party's position is that the war on Iraq is both morally and legally wrong—it would be legally wrong without United Nations sanction and it would be morally wrong as well. However, if the United Nations were to vote for a war on Iraq, it would become legal internationally and the Labor Party would be very happy to go along with it, whether it was morally right or not. This is the curious position that the Labor Party has taken. I ask my Labor Party colleagues to really think, as Australian senators, about whether you could actually describe a war as morally wrong and then, if the United Nations sanctions it, carry through with it. The reality is that Saddam Hussein has defied the United Nations for 12 years. There have been 17 resolutions ordering Saddam Hussein to comply with the United Nations wish that he disarm, yet he has defied them all along. So there is already a perfect legal basis for it. Labor must choose where it stands on this.

One other argument that one runs across all of this is that there is no proven link between Iraq, al-Qaeda and terrorism. Yet the argument is that, if we go to war against Iraq, we will be in danger of terrorist attack. How can that be? If they are not linked, how can we be at risk? Where would the danger come from? The reality is that, if we leave Saddam Hussein alone, it will enable him to pursue his aim of dominating the Middle East. His ambition is to take over the Arabic-speaking part of Iran, to take away Kuwait and, finally, to destroy Israel. (Time expired)