Kim Beazley (Brand, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Prime Minister. Why does the Prime Minister think former SAS officer Peter Tinley was wrong to say this morning that the Iraq war was founded on what we now know is spurious evidence—in fact, no evidence—and that the basis for war has changed and therefore we should leave?

John Howard (Bennelong, Liberal Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have already dealt with the state of mind of the Leader of the Opposition at the time the coalition operation took place. But the issue that everybody now has to confront—including the Leader of the Opposition and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition and, indeed, anybody who is interested in this issue—is: what are the consequences of a precipitated coalition withdrawal?

Jenny Macklin (Jagajaga, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Ms Macklin interjecting

David Hawker (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The Deputy Leader of the Opposition is warned!

John Howard (Bennelong, Liberal Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Everybody has an obligation to think for themselves on this issue, including even the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. What you have to ask yourself is: if there is a precipitated withdrawal from the coalition, what are the consequences of that in the Middle East? This morning we have had our first really good news in five months in relation to Palestine and Israel. Hopefully, and I take this opportunity of saying this to the House on behalf of the government, this represents a step forward that can be maintained. But if there is a coalition defeat in Iraq—and the opposition is really advocating a coalition defeat in Iraq—that will cause immense instability in the Middle East. It will embolden those in the Arab world who do not believe in making peace with Israel to maintain that position because they will know that continued opposition to America and the West is costless. That will lead to greater instability in the Middle East. The terrorists will be emboldened, and that will have consequences in our part of the world.

We can debate the situation of three years ago and, as I indicated in an earlier answer, I am very happy to debate what was said three years ago. I have ample evidence of what the Leader of the Opposition said three years ago, and I know his state of mind on weapons of mass destruction. The Leader of the Opposition was not relying on any advice we gave him, because he was not then on the front bench of the opposition. In his typical fashion, he was trying to be a guru—an expert—on this issue. He said there was not a defence department or foreign affairs department anywhere in the world that did not believe that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction; in other words, he was sitting on the fence. The Leader of the Opposition was hedging his bets so that, if everything had gone swimmingly, he could say, ‘Well, it was really that fellow over there’—the then Leader of the Opposition who implacably brought the Labor Party into opposition to what the government did—‘but what we are charged with now is understanding the consequences of the policy we now advocate.’ The Leader of the Opposition is for precipitate withdrawal that would destabilise the Middle East, that would embolden the terrorists and that would endanger Australia’s security in this part of the world. And that is why the government is opposed to it.