Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister) : The Government deeply regrets the breakdown of the diplomatic process over the Iraq crisis. The New Zealand Government, like most Governments, has been a strong supporter of that process running its course. Like most countries, our strong preference was for the disarmament of Iraq to occur peacefully, through a strong and intrusive weapons inspection process. Such a process was re-established by Resolution 1441, which was passed on 8 November by unanimous resolution of the UN Security Council. New Zealand strongly backed that process, going so far as to send 13 military personnel to the UN weapons inspection team. The head of the team, Dr Hans Blix, has singled out the New Zealand contribution for special recognition in his reports to the UN Security Council.

The inspections recommenced at the end of November. Iraq proceeded to cooperate on process but not on substance. When Dr Blix reported to the Security Council at the end of January, he expressed his concern at the lack of substantive cooperation. Thereafter, Dr Blix and Mr ElBaradei returned to Baghdad to impress upon Iraq that only full compliance with the UN’s requirements that it disarm, and be seen to disarm, would prevent the serious consequences warned of in Resolution 1441. It is a matter of record that Iraq then moved to accommodate more of the weapons inspectors’ requests.

New Zealand was among the many nations that have called upon Iraq to comply immediately, and in full, with all requests made of it by the Security Council and by the weapons inspectors. We have consistently said that only through full compliance could Iraq avert the catastrophe that war would bring to its people. When Dr Blix and Mr ElBaradei reported to the Security Council on 14 February, they were able to be more optimistic. They said the inspectors were getting more cooperation. They further said they had yet to find evidence of weapons of mass destruction. That did not mean that there were no such weapons, but that evidence of them had not been found. None the less, Iraq had still to answer serious questions about weapons of mass destruction that had remained unanswered since 1998, when the previous inspection team had left.

On 18 February the New Zealand Government took the opportunity afforded by the open debate at the Security Council to state its view on the conduct of the Iraq crisis. In our statement we recognised the Security Council’s ability to authorise force as a last resort to uphold resolutions. But we also said that we did not believe that such a decision would be justified at that time. We said that we placed considerable weight on the inspection and disarmament process, and that as long as the inspectors’ reports suggested that their work was useful in pursuing the Security Council’s objectives, that work should continue. We reiterated that we could not support military action against Iraq without a mandate from the Security Council.

In the following week the resolution promoted by Britain, the United States, and Spain was tabled at the Security Council. It called on the council to determine that Iraq had failed to take its final opportunity to disarm as set out in Resolution 1441, and to remain seized of the issue. Intense lobbying for support for the resolution ensued, focused particularly on the six elected members of the council who were undecided. On 7 March Dr Blix and Mr ElBaradei again formally reported to the Security Council. Their reports were read as supporting a continuation of the inspection process. The Security Council debate that followed showed no change in position among its members.

A second open debate was held in the Security Council last week, in which New Zealand participated on 11 March. Again, we urged that the diplomatic process, which had gained traction, be allowed to run its course and that Iraq move rapidly to comply with all requirements made of it. In the course of the last week genuine efforts were made by many people to see whether the gulf between those who wanted to resort to force now and those who wanted more time for inspections could be bridged. I personally spoke with both the Canadian Prime Minister and the President of Chile to express our Government’s support for their efforts to bridge that gulf. I regret that a solution could not be found. I believe that agreement could have been reached on benchmarks, but in the end there was unable to be agreement on the time frame for reaching the benchmarks or on what should happen in the event of benchmarks for compliance not being reached within a time frame.

The leaders of the United States, Britain, Spain, and Portugal met in the Azores on Sunday and made it clear that unless Iraq capitulated immediately, force would be used, and that the UN Security Council had only one day left to decide on whether it would authorise the use of force. The Security Council met yesterday. The resolution was withdrawn. The council did not authorise the use of force.

Today, at 1 o’clock our time, President Bush has issued a final ultimatum to Iraq. He has given Saddam Hussein and his sons 48 hours to leave the country. If they do not leave, the US and its supporters will embark on military action at a time of their choosing, which is expected to be soon. At this eleventh hour our Government urges Iraq to seize this very last opportunity to avert the catastrophe of war. The departure of Saddam Hussein and his sons now would give fresh opportunities to resolve the crisis. It is important to emphasise at this time, when there has been so much division over how to handle the Iraqi crisis, that there is overwhelming support for the disarmament of Iraq. That is an objective we share with the United States and its supporters, and with those who share our views on the diplomatic process. The difference of opinion and approach has arisen over the means and the timetable for meeting the objective, and not over the objective itself.

It is equally important to emphasise our strong sense of shared values with all Western democracies, and to note our concern at the strain that this division over Iraq has placed on longstanding friendships and alliances between Western democracies. Our Government is determined that this difference of opinion, substantial as it is, will not damage longstanding friendships that we value. We fully understand the frustration, the impatience, and the outrage felt by the United States, Britain, and Australia at Iraq’s slowness to comply and its resistance to complying with UN resolutions. But notwithstanding that, our Government does not believe that the diplomatic process, backed by inspections and leading to disarmament, has run its course.

New Zealand’s position on this crisis has at all times been based on our strong support for multilateralism and the rule of law, and for upholding the authority of the Security Council. It is a principled position, it has integrity, and we believe it is well understood by our friends. It is a matter of profound regret to us that some of our closest friends have chosen to stand outside the Security Council at this point, for a new and dangerous precedent is being set. It may be possible to justify one’s friends taking such action, but where then is our moral authority when other nations use the precedent that is now being set? These are troubled times for the United Nations. It has worked hard, as has the Security Council, to address the issue. In the end, consensus could not be reached. For the majority of nations on the council, the threshold for the use of force had not been reached. Our Government supports and endorses that judgment.

Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (Leader—ACT NZ) : I am not sure whether the Prime Minister had actually finished her words. If she had not, I seek the leave of the House for the Prime Minister to have up to another 5 minutes to be able to complete her statement, and for the Leader of the Opposition to be able to match whatever that extra time is. I think we are entitled to hear in full what she wants to tell us.

Mr SPEAKER: Is there any objection to the Prime Minister finishing her remarks and for a similar time to be given to the Leader of the Opposition? There is.

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Leader of the Opposition) : The National Party will be supporting a coalition of the willing. We believe that it is in the interests of global peace and the long-term interests of New Zealand to see Saddam decisively disarmed. National has supported the United Nations process up until the time that it has failed. Along with the Government, we supported Resolution 1441. More recently, we supported the moves by the United Kingdom, Australia, the US, and others, to bring forward a second resolution to the United Nations. We did so, not in the belief that war could necessarily be averted, but in the belief that if there was a war, it should have the broad support of the international community. There is now no second resolution, and we believe that in the absence of such a resolution, it is the correct choice for New Zealand to support the coalition of the willing, which includes our traditional allies the United Kingdom, the United States, and Australia.

I want to say to those who say they oppose the war and looked for a United Nations resolution, that they have the luxury now of knowing there will be a war. They have the luxury now of knowing that Saddam will be disarmed and that what threat he offered to the world will be removed. They have the luxury now of knowing that the US is determined to retain its credibility as world policeman and will do so, and will be called on again to exercise that role.

Our hearts go out to the Iraqi people, who face fear and suffering that they do not deserve. In particular, I want to note the anxiety of those Iraqis who are resident here in New Zealand. It could have been different and we hope against hope that in the final 48 hours it will be different, if Saddam Hussein meets the ultimatum of the President of the United States. We should remember that Saddam could have chosen peace at any time in the last several months, but did not do so. He could have disarmed himself of weapons that he said he was not using. Instead, as a dictator, he continued to mislead the United Nations. He has a record of vicious oppression, reckless military adventure, and 12 years of defiance of the international community after the defeat in the Gulf War. It is our view that the proposal for another 30 days is but wishful thinking. Resolution 1441, supported by New Zealand, included a deadline of 30 days, which expired some 60 or 70 days ago.

A surprising amount of agreement on the circumstances around this war exists between myself and the Prime Minister in the remarks she has just made. There is agreement that Saddam is dangerous and must be disarmed, and there is agreement that we can understand why the US is acting as it is. The Prime Minister has refrained from criticising our allies. New Zealand has made a contribution to the war on terror, a significant contribution that sees hundreds of our military personnel poised on the edge of the war zone in the Gulf, with two frigates—the majority of our Navy—and a number of aircraft from our Air Force. There is agreement that the progress on disarmament that has been made has occurred only because of the credible threat of military force, and also agreement that the United Nations has the right to invoke force in order to disarm Saddam Hussein. The disagreement is simply around the proposal that Saddam and diplomacy should have had more time.

I want to consider the role the US has played, and will play, to help explain why we are supporting a coalition for the willing. I shall put it simply. Not to do so will entertain practical effects that are simply untenable. At this stage, when there is no UN resolution, not to support a coalition for the willing has practical effects that are simply untenable. I say to those who take a different view that if they believe there should not be a war, as the Government does, the next logical step is that the US should then be told that it should withdraw its troops. There can be only one result of that, and that is, that Saddam Hussein wins. Now that the diplomacy is over, now that we are dealing with the raw calculus of military might, there can be only one winner, and it is only honest to back the coalition for the willing for that reason.

For a decade the US has been called on to deal with collapsing States, to stop genocide, and to prevent suffering. Even today it is expected to deal with the task of North Korea and the risks it poses, while powerful nations such as China, Japan, and South Korea take a second-row seat. The US is expected to solve the problems of Israel and Palestine. No one pretends that anyone else can. In recent years the US has stepped into genocide in Bosnia, Kosovo, and Serbia. It has played the role of the global policeman—a role that it will be called on to play again. Those who take the luxury of saying that this war should not, and must not, happen have not taken up that burden. In particular, I refer to the French position, which I find difficult to understand. France is the one nation that has initiated State-sponsored terrorism against New Zealand.

I ask those who are opposed to the war to consider the practical effects of the US saying that it will not go into Iraq, that it will withdraw its troops, and of the world then facing the bizarre situation where Saddam Hussein has faced down the US and has won. That would be a ridiculous result.

I cannot help thinking that decisions on this may have been made months ago. I cannot help thinking that we have been dragged to a choice that we certainly would not have sought. I cannot help thinking that we have only the choice, in so far as views in New Zealand make a difference, between bad and worse options. We have no eagerness for war. We have no eagerness for the suffering that might come with it. But in the long term our interests lie with those of the United States, the United Kingdom, and Australia. Along with the Prime Minister, I urge anyone in Iraq who can to take the steps outlined by President Bush so that war may be averted. We seek assurance from the New Zealand Government today that it is taking all efforts to protect New Zealand citizens and also the assurance that the Government will participate in a post-war rebuilding of Iraq. We have an obligation to do so.

Finally, on the role of the UN, we have a new kind of threat and an old set of rules. In fact, over the last 10 years, the UN has often been unable to take practical measures where those were required. At different times, the US and NATO have stepped in and earned UN support later for their actions. The United Nations and its procedures need updating, and I would hope that the New Zealand Government will play a role in urging change in the rules that the United Nations follow. Saddam Hussein has had many opportunities to disarm. The UN passed a resolution that threatened serious consequences if he did not. He has not, and those serious consequences are bound to follow.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) : There is no doubt that the world would be a safer place without Saddam Hussein. New Zealand First takes the position that Iraq poses a serious security threat in the Middle East and beyond. That threat has not dissipated since the 1991 Gulf War, when the Iraqi forces were thrown back from their invasion of Kuwait. After that war, the United Nations made it clear to Saddam Hussein, in resolutions, that he had to get rid of his weapons of mass destruction. Those resolutions stand on their own, despite others that may have followed them. Saddam Hussein is still thumbing his nose at the United Nations 12 years later, and successfully dividing countries that were traditional allies. This evil despot and dictator must take great comfort from that. He must take great pleasure in watching former NATO allies tearing each other apart in public.

We understand the urgency felt by the Americans. We understand, also, the frustration in the positions taken by the British and the Australians—our closest allies. But today, our responsibility is to focus on the interests of New Zealand and our position. For most of this year, the Prime Minister has acknowledged the inevitability of war in Iraq. For reasons best known to her, she has declined to share any of the information she has been receiving with the elected representatives of this country. Parliament’s Security and Intelligence Committee has not met this year to discuss the situation in the Middle East. In fact, we have had one meeting, which was on 17 December 2002, since the election on 27 July 2002. Surely that is one of the most important committees of this House, and the security and safety of the New Zealand people is one of the most important functions of any Government or parliamentarian. But the Government, with all the State resources at its disposal, cannot organise a meeting of the Security and Intelligence Committee.

One has to ask why that is. Is it because we are almost defenceless back home against a terrorist attack? We already have suspected terrorists in New Zealand. They have come here, shredded their passports, gone through the immigration system—such as it is—and applied to become refugees or asylum seekers. New Zealanders have no idea how many such people there are of that ilk in this country, and neither does the Government. We do not know what the authorities are doing to track them down, except that we know there is one, at least, at leisure in Paremoremo prison. He has been there for months, and New Zealanders must be scratching their heads in utter amazement over why the Government did not put him on a plane back to the place whence he came.

New Zealand First places the security and safety of New Zealanders first, uppermost, and foremost. We want the Security and Intelligence Committee to discuss measures to keep our borders safe, being on the brink of war as we are. We want to know what measures are in place to keep terrorists out, and what checks are being carried out within the country for those who have already arrived, as every other Western nation has been doing for the last year.

This House, until this day, has been utterly ignored by the Prime Minister. While the world hovers on the brink of war, the Prime Minister plays petty politics on Morning Report on the issue of who is to blame for a debate not yet having been held. That is outrageous, and it belies the seriousness of the concern and the despair that some people have expressed in this House. It is unparalleled in Western society for a Parliament to be having, on the edge of war, its first debate on the issue. It is plainly wrong. We have New Zealand service people close to the imminent war zone, but we have been denied any chance to look at the true facts of the situation, because the Prime Minister is keeping those all to herself.

The real question then is, what does the Prime Minister know that she has not told the rest of us? Is she privy to the same information that the British and Australian Prime Ministers are sharing; if not, why not? Why are we not being given all the information that the Prime Minister must be receiving on a daily basis?

We in New Zealand First understand and support the objective of disarming Iraq of its weapons of mass destruction. We believe that the Iraqi leader is playing his own dangerous and demented game. He has proved time and time again that he is the master of brinkmanship—a form of brinkmanship historically dependent upon the weakness of those people around him. But what we cannot support, and we have made it clear from day one, is a unilateral decision by one group of countries to invade another, for the terrible precedent that it might set. It is not a precedent, of course, that the so-called dictator and despot could take upon himself, for he is not invading democratic countries with human rights—it is quite the converse.

But in some respects the United Nations is now like a toothless tiger; it has a history of shame in the Balkans and in Africa, where millions of people have been slaughtered, but at least it has tried to prevent war and helped to bring peace where there has been conflict. The real question is, what have those countries that have expressed so much concern about a unilateral decision done about arriving at collective action?

New Zealand subscribes to the United Nations, and historically we have always answered its call for help. War should not happen simply because the United States has amassed hundreds of thousands of troops in the Middle East, ready to invade Iraq. War should be only a last resort, when all diplomacy has failed and Iraq has gone past the point of no return, to the comfort, in terms of evidence and proof, of enough countries in the world. But, unfortunately, we in this Parliament and in this country do not have the information to know whether that has yet happened, and we in New Zealand First regret that. If the Prime Minister has access to it and she knows about it for some reason, why has she not chosen to share it with the rest of us?

We disagree with those parties that cynically advocate support for the United States based on reasons of trade or any other similar international benefits. War should not be about that. But we also oppose those groups that would wave a white flag and feathers, and inevitably side, as they always do, with the enemies of the West. Those people are of great comfort to despots like Saddam Hussein. We in New Zealand First are prepared to support an American-led invasion to rid the world of this evil regime for humanitarian reasons proven a thousand times over, but only if it is decreed by the United Nations, and only to prevent further conflict and ill to mankind. To be consistent, that is the only position this country, with our history and our present circumstances, can take.

Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (Leader—ACT NZ) : The ACT New Zealand party strongly supports the stance taken by the United States of America, Australia, and Britain to enforce UN resolutions on Iraq. ACT believes that New Zealand should join the 20 nations that are now in the coalition of the willing that are prepared to take military action to enforce UN Resolution 1441.

Mr Speaker, I thank you for taking my letter requesting the Business Committee to consider having this debate, and I thank the Government for deciding to take the debate and to lead it off. Having said that, I say that there is a great deal of truth in what the Rt Hon Mr Peters says: we as a Parliament should have been debating this issue before the New Zealand Government took decisions at the UN that are going to have profound effects on this country, not just this month but in years to come. This is the most important issue facing the world, yet our Parliament is now debating it after the New Zealand Government has taken a number of stances on our behalf. I also say to the Government that I deplore the fact that the Government refuses to put down a motion to test whether there is support for the Government’s position. It is my view that this minority Government did not want to have a debate and will not put down a motion, because it does not have the majority support of MPs of this House for its policies.

I point out to Parliament that the Government is actually running three different policies on Iraq. We have the Government’s statements that we hear on Morning Report and on television that are driven by public opinion polls, and, I think, are, frankly, often just crude anti-Americanism. Then we have what I call its Persian Gulf policy. In the Persian Gulf we have a New Zealand naval frigate, and we do have an Orion—and strongly with the support of my party—and that policy is described by the Greens as being a pro-American policy. Then we have at the UN a “neither for nor against” policy. The Prime Minister gets up and says what strong statements they have made denouncing Iraq, but they have not actually got around to doing anything to enforce them. There are three different policies.

Of course, the Prime Minister could not actually draft in this House a motion that would cover all three policies. Therefore, realising that there is no parliamentary majority for its policies, it will not test the will of the House. I think that in a democracy we should. I see that Tony Blair is prepared to test the will of the House in the British House of Commons. So I have put down a motion. I submitted it to the Clerk at 10 o’clock this morning, and I am going to seek leave for it to be put—and I have helped the Government because the motion will help clarify the matters.

The motion I am going to seek leave for is this: that this Parliament recognises the threat Iraq’s non-compliance with UN Security Council Resolutions, and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction pose to international peace and, noting the UN Security Council on 8 November 2002 in Resolution 1441 unanimously voted that Iraq has not complied with previous UN resolutions and was in material breach of its obligation and gave Iraq a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations or “face serious consequences”, further notes the report of the UN arms inspectors that Iraq has not provided an accurate, full and complete disclosure, this House disassociates itself from the New Zealand Government’s position at the United Nations to oppose a second UN Security Council resolution and deplores the announcement of France to veto any such resolution and this House records its support for the United States of America, Great Britain, and Australia’s preparedness to enforce UN Resolution 1441, and calls on the New Zealand Government to offer all practical support to the “coalition of the willing”.

At the end of the debate I am going to seek leave for that motion to be put. I believe that it is important that this House not just debate but that we stand up and be counted, and that we are prepared to vote. I call on the House to either vote for or against the issue facing us.

I say this to the Government: the real issue that we now have is not whether Saddam Hussein is going to be removed—he is—but where we are in a post - Saddam Hussein world. Mr Peters has asked whether the Government is getting information that we have not heard. I believe that the Government is not. I believe that Helen Clark gets her information at the same time as Mr Peters—from CNN. I do not think that New Zealand has ever been more irrelevant. At a time when foreign policy is impacting on our daily lives—we can see it when we fill up our cars with petrol—the New Zealand Government has never been more irrelevant. Old alliances are being torn up. The Prime Minister says that she is supporting the multilateral approach of the United Nations. I say to her that her policies have turned out to be bankrupt, have they not? That approach has not worked. How can one describe a UN that is not prepared to enforce its own motions, as anything more than an empty debating chamber? Where is the security of New Zealand when the United Nations is not prepared to enforce its own resolutions? Where are our security interests served?

I put it to the House that our security interests are served when the world’s only superpower, the United States of America, is prepared to act against rogue States. The United States has asked us for assistance, and, shamefully, for the first time in our history, we are not standing up against fascism, against this terrorist, and against this threat to world peace. We should be there, and I agree with Mr Peters that we should be there because that is the right thing to do. But I also say to the House that there will be serious consequences for New Zealand because of our failure to take those actions. That is a matter that should have been debated by this Parliament, that we should be debating today, and that we should be voting on this afternoon.

KEITH LOCKE (Green) : This is a very sad time for the people of New Zealand, the people of Iraq, and the people of the world. I cannot help thinking of what it must be like to be young children in Iraq today—living in terror in their homes and not knowing what might explode around them, not knowing which of their friends and relations might be killed and maimed, or what might happen to their homes, streets and neighbourhoods. That is what war is all about. That is what is about to be visited on the people of Iraq. It is all very well for the men in their fine suits—George Bush, Tony Blair, and John Howard—to stand behind their podiums and say that they do not have the time to wait, even for a few weeks, to let the inspections continue to make progress, while they unleash a murder-machine against the people of Iraq, the like of which the world has never seen.

They are simply not getting away with it. From Rome to Reykjavik, from Dunedin to Denver, the people of the world have demonstrated in the largest coordinated protests the world has seen. There has been a huge outpouring of peace protest. Neither Bush, nor Blair, nor Howard, has a mandate from his own population to go to war without United Nations backing. The people of virtually every nation on earth are against this war. The attack on Iraq would also be an attack on the United Nations, on its charter, and on all institutions governing peaceful relations between nations. This would be a criminal war; it would be a criminal assault on another country—forbidden under international law.

This is in no way a just war. No country in the Middle East says it is threatened by any immediate invasion by Iraq, and the United States, Britain, and Australia are certainly under no immediate threat. There is no evidence yet that Iraq even still possesses weapons of mass destruction. The inspectors are currently engaged in a process of trying to get from the Iraqis proof that they have destroyed the VX and anthrax stocks they once had. Yesterday New Zealand inspectors were out there in Iraq doing their work. Yesterday Al-Samoud missiles were being destroyed, but now, tragically, the inspectors are on their way home. There is simply no case for war. There is simply no case not to be patient and let the inspectors run their work through to, hopefully, a successful conclusion.

There is a huge danger for the world in what the Bush administration is doing, because this situation is not just about Iraq. It is about the Bush doctrine of pre-emptive war, in which the American Government asserts its right to strike whoever it likes, whenever it likes, on the supposed grounds that the Government of the country it is striking might some day be a threat. In his speech, Bill English glorified that, saying that we should respect the role of the US as the world’s policeman, and that this situation may happen again. We cannot accept that.

The aggression that is being planned by the United States is covered in the rhetoric of promoting peace and security. George Bush uses grand phrases like “the coalition of the willing”, but this is not a coalition of the willing. This is a coalition of the killing—a coalition that will kill many thousands of innocent Iraqis. The way that this war would be conducted might well fit the definition of a war crime. Under the International Criminal Court legislation we passed through this Parliament not so long ago, the nature of this war could fit the definition of a war crime. A Serbian commander is currently up before the War Crimes Tribunal in The Hague for targeting the electricity supplies of the people of Sarajevo in the 1990s. George Bush might well qualify as being a war criminal if his troops and planes target civilian targets in Iraq—the electricity supplies, the water supplies, or broadcasting facilities. Reports that have come out indicate that that will be part of the war about to be conducted.

Most recently, the US Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld, said that the US could use nuclear weapons against Iraq, even if nuclear weapons were not used against US forces. Just hours ago Bush said: “War crimes will be prosecuted and war criminals will be punished.” He could well have been speaking about himself. How can peaceful, nuclear - free New Zealand tolerate this sort of thing, and this sort of warfare? We may not be able to stop the war now, but we should still do everything possible to try to divert it, or at least show the war-makers in the clearest possible way that the whole world is against them. Yesterday I wrote to the Prime Minister asking her, through her diplomatic representatives at the United Nations, to initiate an urgent recall of the United Nations General Assembly under General Assembly Resolution 377. That resolution was used successfully on several occasions, particularly by the United States in the Suez crisis, to get the French and British troops to withdraw from Suez.

The Prime Minister should also speak the truth about what is behind this impending assault. It is not good enough for her to say that there are no real differences in objectives between New Zealand and the so-called “coalition of the willing”. She should be saying that this war will not be about whether Iraq might have weapons of mass destruction, or whether the US administration wants to get rid of an oppressive regime, because, obviously, the United States currently supports many dictators around the world in Saudi Arabia and other Middle Eastern countries. This war is to advance the interests of Bush’s corporate backers, particularly the oil companies. Blair and Howard are there to get a slice of the action for their corporates.

Australia began free-trade negotiations with the United States yesterday. It may have got the jump on New Zealand in those negotiations by agreeing to go to war with George Bush. But John Howard was making his down payments for a free-trade agreement with the blood of the Iraqi people. We must never go there.

It is simply not in our interests for America and its corporates to get even more power in the world, because they will use that power against us. They will use that power in their own interests in trade negotiations and everything else. We will be the losers, as will people throughout the world.

We must not give any support to the war-makers if this war takes place. The Prime Minister should make a clear statement that if there is an assault against Iraq, then the New Zealand Government will withdraw its ship Te Mana from one of its operations—that is, escorting US warships through the Straits of Hormuz, as is explained in many of the Government documents.

Secondly, there should be a serious discussion about whether we should continue to operate the Waihopai satellite communications interception station. It was exposed in the Sunday Observer a couple of weeks ago that the National Security Agency that runs the Echelon network, of which Waihopai is a part, is using it explicitly to spy on United Nations Security Council members, to spy on other Governments. Do we really want to be part of that in the context of the brutal war that is about to take place? We should not continue to keep a blanket of silence around the operations of the installation at Waihopai. We have to bring the issue out in the open and decide whether those operations continue to be in our national interest. Out of this crisis we have to reassess our military relations with the three war-making countries.

Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future) : An awesome reality is descending upon the world at the moment, although it is not obvious from the speech we have just heard. That reality is the failure of the diplomatic moves against Iraq on the one hand and, on the other, the inevitability of the fact that by the time the House adjourns this week, war will probably have commenced.

There are people who rightfully say—and I am one of them—that there can be few regimes in the world more oppressive, more dictatorial, more repugnant, and more undesirable than the Hussein regime in Baghdad. There can be few regimes in the history of the world that have shown themselves so impervious to international criticism and rebuke as the Hussein regime in Baghdad. I am also one of those who says that the process of a multilateral approach, highly desirable as it is, has not succeeded in this case, and that whatever our views about the best way of proceeding, the reality we face right now is that the American President has given the Baghdad regime 48 hours to quit or face the consequences.

There are some important lessons arising from this issue that we in this country should take account of. Historically, we have placed our faith in the United Nations and an international rules-based system. Sadly, it has been found to be unable to cope in this instance. I submit that part of the reason for that has been the ongoing existence of the veto in the Security Council. The ability to bring events to a conclusion, to secure resolutions and support, has been severely hampered by the protestations of various states over the last little while about how the veto might be used. The process itself has become redundant, but that does not mean that we should abandon the notion of the United Nations and an international rules-based system for the future. The lesson we first have to learn is the need to reform that organisation lest it fall into the trap that the League of Nations did immediately before World War II.

The second set of issues we need to focus upon in this country—given the inevitability of conflict now, and with it the very high probability that within a short period of time Saddam Hussein and his cronies will be literally and figuratively no more—is the question of what happens next in Iraq. There is a general consensus amongst all of the nations that have an expressed interest in this conflict of the need to ensure the rebuilding of Iraq as a free, democratic, and viable society. I believe we ought to be taking a role in ensuring that in the rebuilding process we do not inflame and entrench the very attitudes that have given rise to the current conflict. There is a role for the United Nations in that restoration process. I acknowledge with interest the fact that the United States, which for so long seemed to be saying that it would run the reconstruction, is now acknowledging a role for the wider United Nations family. I think that is imperative if we are to get a genuinely free, democratic, and viable Iraq in place, and not simply reinforce the fires of prejudice that have given rise to the awful current conflict.

The next issue this House and this small country ought to pay some attention to is what role, if any, we can play in this situation. Even if we were willing to do so, the time has passed to consider participation in the coalition of the willing. The reality is that it will be there by the time we could actually mobilise anything to get anywhere near Baghdad—even if we had the capability to do so. We have shown over the years that in places like Bosnia and East Timor, where a reconstruction job is required, and where peacemaking and peacekeeping is important, a small nation like New Zealand can play a part. I would like to think that in the post-regime change environment there is an opportunity for this country to yet again play a part in the restoration of freedom and democracy to some other part of the world.

There is another issue that automatically needs to be considered as part of this conflict, and which this country, as a small country, should be prepared to take a role in. That issue is the ongoing conflict between Israel and Palestine. In many senses, the more that conflict remains unresolved and the deeper the wounds become, the more likelihood there is that other conflicts, divisions, and outrages will be perpetrated as a consequence. I was encouraged to hear President Bush say at the weekend—in the peculiar jargon that a Texan President possesses—that he was now prepared to release the road map for a Middle East solution. I welcome that as a positive step forward, but I would hope that the United States, supported by countries like New Zealand, would be prepared to become as actively involved in seeking a fair resolution of those issues as it has portrayed itself to be in respect of the situation in Iraq. Until that conflict is brought to a peaceful conclusion, we can have no ultimate confidence that another trouble spot might not occur somewhere else in the broad Middle East region—maybe not of the horrific magnitude of Saddam Hussein’s Iraq, but potentially destabilising none the less, and certainly anti-democratic and a challenge to the nations of the free and democratic world. I think that has to be the focus from here.

I deplore those who say that unilateralism is the way to go. If we adopt that path unreservedly, we will begin to see a new form of international anarchy. I have an equal contempt for those—like the speaker who preceded me—who seem to think that the nations of the world that stand for peace, freedom, and democracy have no role to play in terms of bringing rogue States to heel. That is an equally untenable proposition. The reality we face today is that conflict is inevitable. At best—and even if it had a mind to—New Zealand has a limited role to play in respect of that conflict. We need to be looking to the future, both in terms of the international institutions we have historically placed our faith in, and the role that this country can play in terms of contributing to a new dawn for Iraq, the re-establishment of a form of peace and democracy there, and also to the restoration of international peace.

In 1945 Peter Fraser played a huge role in the development of the contemporary United Nations. Half a century later, as the shortcomings of that institution have become manifest, it is a challenge for the present New Zealand Government, and those that will follow, to play a similar role in making sure that our international institutions are capable of meeting the challenges that have been imposed upon them. Otherwise, the resort that has become obvious in this case, and the failure of diplomacy to stop unilateral action, will become entrenched, and that will be to the detriment of all of us.

Hon MATT ROBSON (Deputy Leader—Progressive) : The leader of ACT said that New Zealand could not be more irrelevant in this crisis. I would take issue with that. The position that the New Zealand Government has taken in the United Nations, and that the Progressive party has been pleased to be part of, has made us extremely relevant. Because of our position in the United Nations, because we have adhered to international law, and because of the fact that the United Nations is the hope for the rule of law for countries large and small, we are indeed very, very relevant. Enormous pressure has gone on to New Zealand from many quarters to take a different position. There have even been suggestions of great material advantage if New Zealand would take a different position. But the New Zealand Government has stood by international law and by international morality.

This is, of course, a troubled time, but in such a troubled time Parliaments need to look at facts, history, and international law. I believe that they also need to listen to the many voices of the people of Iraq itself. No one knows more than the Iraqi people about the disaster of the Saddam Hussein regime. Yet if those voices are listened to one after the other, in their great majority we hear them saying that this is not the way to rid Iraq of this monstrous regime. Of course there are those who see the opportunity, if there is military action, to end the nightmare of the Saddam Hussein regime. But the people of Iraq have, I would say, a greater sense of history and a greater knowledge than we in this Parliament have demonstrated in many of our speeches, because they know that the Saddam Hussein regime was foisted upon them.

This is not the first time that the people of Iraq have had a regime change. Saddam Hussein is there because of a regime change, and when he was given weapons of mass destruction, which he did use on his own people—against the Iranian people—there was not a murmur of dissent from many of those, and their predecessors, who are pushing for this war. When Saddam Hussein set up his fearsome security forces and used them to execute people, to put them in jail, and to exile them, very few voices were raised against that. Yet now his crimes are being brought to light by those who pursue war.

There is a saying in equity that any litigant must come with clean hands, and I would say the people of Iraq fear that they are to be delivered from a brutal regime by those who do not have clean hands. The clean hands in this issue are actually in the United Nations, and it is in the United Nations that we must persevere. We must, as I said, look at facts, history, and international law. History shows us that tyrants can be brought down. Near to us, in Indonesia, former President Suharto is no longer in power and the people of East Timor are free. To the east, in Chile, former President Pinochet, a tyrant who had much Western support, no longer sits in the presidential palace. If we look at disarmament, we see countries that have shown the way. South Africa willingly gave up its weapons of mass destruction. Brazil also gave up its weapons of mass destruction.

The problem is that many of those who pursue the course of war in Iraq and who point to the weapons of mass destruction that Saddam Hussein has had, and that they fear he does have now, do not have clean hands themselves on that issue. They have sat by and watched as Israel has developed weapons of mass destruction. They have also sat by and watched as Israel has violated resolution after resolution in the United Nations. They have done nothing about that. So how can the people of Iraq and the people of the Middle East have confidence that we know our history and that we are going to take part in a concerted and long-term effort to make sure that we bring real peace to the Middle East?

If we look at our history, we see that the periods of intervention have been many in the Middle East, and that they began with the discovery of oil. And if we know our history, we know that unfortunately sometimes New Zealand has lent its support to the seizure of the resources of the people of that region. This war against Saddam Hussein is driven by those deep needs, which many people—some, perhaps, in this Parliament and in the capitals of the world—believe are valid, because they are talking about resources that the world needs. But the long-term damage of this war will be enormous, because what is being said to the people of Iraq is that we will remove this tyrant and war criminal, but we will do it over their bodies.

The International Criminal Court is another international institution that the New Zealand Government, both this present Government and Governments before it, can be proud to have supported. I am very hopeful that not only Saddam Hussein but many of the others who have committed crimes against humanity in the Middle East will be brought before that forum. But we should remember that the United States has refused to support the International Criminal Court. One gesture the United States could make to the world and to the people of Iraq now would be to withdraw from this course of war against the people of Iraq and, instead, to support the International Criminal Court. A second gesture would be to actively support disarmament and the international conventions that are there for disarmament, rather than undermining them. That is another step forward—and a very important step—that could, and should, be taken.

The United States, as the leading country that is proposing this war, could also take the step of linking real development with disarmament. Recently the Government of South Africa put before the world a motion to link development with disarmament. It pointed out that in this world billions more are spent on weapons of destruction than on development for the people of the world. That is an extremely sad fact. If we look at what is to happen in Iraq, we see the world is mobilising enormous resources—aeroplanes, soldiers, and war materials. What are they to be used for? They will be used for destruction. However, in conference after conference about development, the cry goes up for those billions—even a fraction of the billions that are spent on the fearsome weapons held in the hands of the most powerful country in the world—to be directed towards the resources that people need.

I reiterate that what the New Zealand Government has done is to show a firm grasp of history by knowing that countries, small and large, need to work through our established international institutions and the rule of law. The New Zealand Government has shown a firm grasp of history by knowing that, in the long term, this proposal for war is ruinous. But there is an alternative to war, and that is to link development with disarmament. We should listen to the voices of those people of Iraq who have suffered so much, but who say to us that they do not want this war to solve their problems. They tell us there are other ways of ending the tyranny of the Saddam Hussein regime, and that those ways are through development, through honesty in international institutions, and by giving them real financial help. We should listen to the voices of all those people in the international community who have also taken that course. In particular, we should listen to Robin Cook, the former Foreign Minister of Great Britain and former Leader of the House of Commons, who said: “I have heard it said that Iraq has had not months but 12 years in which to complete disarmament, and that our patience is exhausted. Yet it is over 30 years since Resolution 242 called on Israel to withdraw from the occupied territories. We do not express the same impatience with the persistent refusal of Israel to comply.”

Dr WAYNE MAPP (NZ National—North Shore) : History will judge that the United Nations failed to support its own Resolution 1441 of last year. Had the Security Council’s members stood together, Iraq would have got the clear message to disarm voluntarily, or face the consequences. The lack of unity of the United Nations has now inevitably led to the military action by a coalition of the willing, led by the United States and Britain, to enforce that resolution.

Let me be clear that this action meets the test of international law. In November last year, the Security Council unanimously declared that Iraq posed a threat to international peace and security and that it was, and is, in material breach of its obligations. The Security Council also said that Iraq had one final opportunity to disarm. The reports by Hans Blix have demonstrated there has been, at best, only partial compliance with that. The United States Secretary of State, Colin Powell, proved decisively that Iraq has embarked on a pattern of deceit, deception, and lies. So Iraq is in breach of its most serious obligations to disarm. It has wilfully thrown away its very last chance to disarm peaceably. Even with 200,000 troops on the border, Saddam Hussein has refused to comply with the unanimous will of the United Nations. That is why the United States and Britain, which are the countries that have committed their forces, have had to make the decision to disarm Iraq by force.

No one wants war, and we are faced with what must be an agonising and a difficult decision. The course of war should always be a difficult decision for any political party or any Government to make, because we know it results in innocent people being killed. The public are right to be worried about unforeseen consequences. But when faced with the worst dictator in the world, disarming him and removing him by force is the only option. That applies to the worst dictators in the world. Everyone in this Parliament whom I have heard today is agreed that Saddam Hussein is the worst dictator in the world today. He has killed literally hundreds of thousands of people. He has started two major wars, and he has used chemical weapons against civilians. He has developed biological weapons, which must be a unique weapon of terror, and he has lied to and deceived weapons inspectors for over a decade.

That is why the National Party, over the last several weeks, has encouraged the New Zealand Government to support our traditional allies in their quest for a second resolution in the United Nations. We believed that was the best possible approach for a multilateral decision. Instead, the Government chose to side with France, Germany, and Russia in opposing a second resolution. That decision will be marked as a decision that will damage the United Nations in the long term, and it will also damage our own country. When we have the choice of supporting our traditional allies, we should make that choice in favour of them. When we need them, we can count on them. So when they need us, they should be able to count on us.

But there is no second resolution. That is due to French intransigence, and Labour has supported that French obstructionism. That might be Labour’s way; it is not National’s. So we are faced today with now having to support the disarmament of Iraq by a coalition led by the United States and Britain, using force, because the United Nations has failed. More than that, we support those countries because they are doing the right thing. The coalition is not acting alone. It is supported by Italy, Spain, the Netherlands, Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, and most other Eastern European countries. Why is that? It is because those countries know, to their cost, the price of failure to stand up to dictatorship. We are faced with that test in this Parliament today. When the United Nations fails to support its own resolutions, a coalition of the willing can enforce that law, and, indeed, must enforce it. Coalitions of the willing are increasingly the way that international laws have had to be enforced in the last decade. The United Nations system simply is not up to the challenges of the modern era, so the countries with military capability are the ones that have to make the decisions. Those countries that are most concerned about a regime cannot afford to be thwarted by those that have no direct or material interest in the situation. Those countries that can enforce the law have an obligation to do so.

This issue lies deeper than just the Security Council, the United Nations, and Iraq. It is also about where New Zealand’s long-term interests and obligations lie. The Prime Minister, over many years, has always seen New Zealand as a European-style non-aligned social democracy, much like Sweden. Of course we have to ask ourselves when any of those small European countries has ever done anything at all to assist New Zealand. In fact, they are typically our antagonists on issues in international forums, so by taking the line that we have on Iraq we have turned our back on our traditional allies. This crisis has revealed more clearly than ever before where the fault lines lie in international relations. Our history should tell us where we should be going. To be out of step with the two countries in the Pacific Basin that we are most closely aligned with cannot possibly be in New Zealand’s interests.

So today I say this: to support the action led by the United States and Britain is the right course for New Zealand. We do so in National because, in the first instance, that ensures that international law is upheld, even when the United Nations fails to act. But in the second instance, our own interests should tell us to support our traditional friends and allies. Those relationships matter most on the tough issues, and this is assuredly one of the toughest of them all. Our position as a nation will be remembered long after Iraq has a new Government, and we will be judged accordingly.

I conclude by saying that there are times in politics and in the life of a nation when clear decisions have to be made. This is one of those times. Our Government did have the opportunity—which it did not take—to make the right decision, in which enforcing international law would have coincided with defending our national interests. That is the path of failure.

Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade) : Decisions have now been taken that portend events, probably within 48 hours, that will result in death and destruction. To say that it is a matter of regret that the process of achieving Iraqi disarmament has come to this understates the significance of the failure of the United Nations Security Council to achieve disarmament by other means.

This has been a serious debate, and I welcome that. But various speakers have made comments with which I strongly disagree. I strongly disagree with Mr Prebble’s statement that this Government’s position does not have support in this Parliament and around the country.

Hon Richard Prebble: Put it to the test.

Hon PHIL GOFF: I believe we should, and we will, test that motion. That will demonstrate that overwhelmingly this Parliament supports the course this Labour-led Government has taken, and it will demonstrate that what Parliament has done is in line with what the overwhelming majority of New Zealanders wanted it to do.

For Mr Prebble to say that New Zealand is irrelevant is quite wrong. We would be irrelevant if we were simply the echo of the voice of another country or group of countries. I am proud of the fact that as a small but sovereign country, we have been prepared to do what we believe is right, and to take the stance that we have taken because of a sincerely and strongly held belief. I believe that Mr Prebble insults this House in saying that the Government is anti-American. I am probably unique in this House in having two nephews in the American army. This Government has never been anti-American. We have stood beside the Americans when it was appropriate to do so, and when it was appropriate to differ we have differed.

I disagree, too, with Mr Prebble’s comments about a lack of debate. If there was a lack of debate, according to Mr Rufus Dawe it was within Mr Prebble’s own party. Mr Dawe condemned the ACT party for failing to consult its members on this issue. I deeply regret that the one war veteran at the ACT conference last weekend was booed and told to “Sit down, you clown.” because he promoted the United Nations as the essential body where decisions about war and peace should be made.

I regret also the comments made by Keith Locke. Once again, the Greens have taken their arguments to extremes. I heard Mr Locke condemn President Bush as a war criminal. I waited for, but I did not hear, one word from Mr Locke about Saddam Hussein and the tragedy that that man has brought on so many people in his country. I heard nothing from Mr Locke, on the fifteenth anniversary of Halabja, about the 5,000 men, women, and children in that town against whom Saddam Hussein used chemical weapons. I heard nothing about the 40,000 people still suffering in Iran as a result of the chemical warfare attacks in the war waged by Iraq against Iran. While I respect Mr Locke’s right to hold his opinions, he should try to bring a little more balance to them.

I have a number of points that I want to make. The first is that this country has consistently promoted the need for Iraq to disarm, and it has consistently emphasised that the onus was on Saddam Hussein to prove disarmament and to avert the prospect of war. I can say with my head held high that this country is one of the few countries taking part in the debate on Iraq that has been consistent in its statements on the wider need to eliminate all weapons of mass destruction. Past Labour Governments have given New Zealand a reputation for advocating the elimination of biological, chemical, and nuclear weapons, of which New Zealanders as a whole are proud.

I believe that it was possible to achieve disarmament by intense diplomatic pressure, albeit backed by the credible threat of force. I have never doubted that the United Nations needs to have the ultimate sanction of force, in order for its resolutions to be carried into effect. But the truth is, after the 4-year absence of United Nations inspection teams from Iraq, the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission had been readmitted, and it had been there for less than 4 months. In the words of Hans Blix, a person for whom I have great personal respect, it was making progress. We had seen the inspections recommenced. We had heard the debate over the use of U2 flights, won by the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission team. We had seen the al-Samoud missiles destroyed. We had seen the questioning of the scientists begin.

None of those events went far enough. They were all achieved with great reluctance on the part of Iraq, but those events were happening and there was still the prospect that that route could have been successful in achieving disarmament. The reason that route was stopped was not that there was any imminent or immediate threat from Iraq. As long as the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission team was there, no threat was posed by that country. Threats would have been posed long term if that process had not been carried through. The tragedy is that the timetable we are working to is a timetable driven by the build-up of military forces in the region and the approach of summer.

Why have we resisted the use of force at this time? We have resisted it, as a Government and as a country, because the other options have not been exhausted. We have resisted it because, as Kofi Annan has said, “War is always a catastrophe.” People suffer and people die, not only as a result of bombs and bullets but as a result of the destruction of the infrastructure that takes away their shelter, their food supply, their water, and their medicines. War should always be avoided while there are alternative ways of resolving problems. We believe that those alternatives still exist.

Finally, I say we have two priorities with regard to Iraq and the Middle East today. Our first and most important priority must be the protection of New Zealanders—some 2,500 of whom still live in the region, and including the 15 New Zealanders still in Iraq. Most of the latter are with the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission. Their evacuation from Iraq is the responsibility of the Secretary-General. I know that plans are already under way to pull out those forces, and we will not be relaxed about that situation until they are safely out of that country.

The second priority is to help to ensure that assistance is available to the Iraqi people in order to minimise the suffering and the deaths that will be the result of war. That means providing immediate humanitarian assistance for emergency relief through the United Nations and multilateral agencies. We will be committing support to a range of agencies, including the high commission for refugees, the Red Cross, the United Nations Children’s Fund, and other agencies in order to relieve the hurt, the damage, the loss of life, and the suffering that will be caused to ordinary people. Additionally, this Government will commit itself to the longer-term tasks of rebuilding a post-Saddam Iraq that will be better for its people in terms of social policy, economic development, and the creation of a democracy. We have a role to play in that. As a good international citizen we have never stepped back from meeting our responsibilities, and we will not do so on this occasion.

Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (Leader—ACT NZ) : I seek the leave of the House to move without debate the motion I foreshadowed to the House, so that we can vote on the issue.

Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to move that motion. Is there any objection? There is not. The question is that the motion be agreed to. The member read it out during the course of his speech. Those in favour will say “Aye”, those of the contrary opinion will say “No”.

Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON (NZ National—Pakuranga) : I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I do not think that is acceptable. I heard some of it, but it was a quite long-winded motion, with a number of fairly long sentences. If we are to be asked to vote on it, we have a right to hear that motion once again.

Mr SPEAKER: Despite the fact that it has been on the Table since 2 o’clock, I think the member is right. I ask the member to read it.

Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (Leader—ACT NZ) : I move, That this Parliament recognises the threat Iraq’s non-compliance with UN Security Council Resolutions and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction pose to international peace and, noting the UN Security Council on 8 November 2002 in resolution 1441 unanimously voted that Iraq has not complied with previous UN resolutions and was in material breach of its obligation and gave Iraq a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations or “”,.