Senator O'BRIEN (3:17 PM) —In speaking on the motion to take note, I want to address Senator Hill's answer to the question that I asked in question time today, because, in considering why today we are at war with Iraq and why we are part of a process which I suspect will involve dramatic loss of life, one should understand why we are there. It is pretty clear from the answer that Senator Hill was very keen not to address a substantial point of my question, and that was: why was the Australian Ambassador in Washington, Mr Michael Thawley, telling people such as the National Cattlemen's Beef Association that Australia's support for the US military in Iraq was the reason that the FTA negotiations would proceed with or without the objections of US cattlemen? It is not surprising that he did not want to answer that. In Tuesday's Age, Tim Colebatch said:

But he goes on to say:

That is, we have our armed forces in another part of the world, participating in an action against Iraq—let us ignore the justification for the moment—and that is leverage for this country to negotiate with the United States on trade. It is almost making our troops mercenaries in the interests of trade negotiations. I really hesitate to say that, but it is a very shabby thing for this government to do: to be bargaining for a trade agreement on the basis of our participation in a war. It is not surprising that Senator Hill does not want to address himself to the substance of my question, because it is clear that it is the truth that this government has for many months been committed to the wishes of the United States in relation to action against Iraq on the basis of some nod and wink from the Bush administration that the US-Australia free trade agreement negotiations would proceed.

But, as I said earlier in this place, those negotiations will proceed probably long after the conflict in Iraq has concluded. In fact, Mr Colebatch said in his article on Tuesday that in terms of agriculture the detailed negotiations will not begin until July—and that is the earliest they can begin:

The government has made play of the fact that, on the one hand, many matters are on the table but that it will try to negotiate the best outcome for Australia's interest and that certain matters—in simple terms, matters such as our quarantine regime—are not up for negotiation. But, frankly, if you want an outcome there is more than one way to skin a cat. What I have detailed in earlier contributions is the way that this government can compromise our quarantine arrangements by concertinaing the process, by denying the scientific community in this country—who are engaged by our industries to protect our interests—the opportunity to properly put their case. That is the way that our interests can be suborned for the sake of an outcome on a free trade agreement.

The fact of the matter, as the ACIL report has made clear, is that agriculture—and indeed Australia—will probably not be a net beneficiary from the US-Australia free trade agreement discussions. If that is a substantial basis for the commitments that this government has given to the US administration for our presence in Iraq then it is a pretty poor price to pay and it is against this country's interests. That is one of the reasons this opposition is saying that we should not be involved in this war.