[Volume:606;Page:3294] 
I say to Dr Brash that I am sorry but it will not be his. It is sad that those years of monastic existence in the Reserve Bank have led somebody who had some level of ability to be so totally out of touch and so divorced from the reality of ordinary New Zealanders that he went back to the 1970s for a failed employment policy to promote to New Zealand as a new idea to deal with the lowest-ever level of unemployment in the last decade. It was interesting that as soon as Dr Brash did that he was contradicted by Katherine Rich. I heard her voice on the radio saying that that was no part of National policy and that it was rejected by Bill English. The National Party in a futile attempt to regain power some time in the next millennium decided to move further to the right. That will be reflected in ever-diminishing support for that once-proud party. 
I want to talk about the situation in Iraq which is set to dominate international affairs in the coming weeks and months. New Zealand’s position on Iraq is clear consistent and explicit and I believe that it has the overwhelming support of the majority of New Zealanders. I note also the consistency of the Government’s position with the statement made this week by a group of seven prominent church leaders of all denominations. 
New Zealand strongly supports UN Resolution 1441 which demands that Iraq disarm in accordance with previous Security Council resolutions going back to 1991. As a country we have long been one of the strongest voices in the United Nations for the elimination of weapons of mass destruction and I am proud of that. The process for enforcing Resolution 1441 however must be multilateral involving a clear United Nations mandate. We are opposed to unilateral action. At the end of the day of course the United Nations must be able to sanction the use of force. Not to have that ultimate sanction would mean that it would be unable to gain compliance with its resolutions and could never achieve the purpose for which it was established. But the use of force is very much a last resort. It should be contemplated only when all other options have failed. 
That point in our opinion has not yet been reached. We believe that options other than military action are still available to achieve the disarmament of Iraq. Inspections have only just resumed over recent months and the United Nations Monitoring Verification and Inspection Commission has only just reached its full personnel strength. Albeit under pressure concessions with regard to surveillance methods and investigation including the use of U2 planes are still being wrung out of the Iraqis. 
New Zealand has demonstrated its commitment to the United Nations Monitoring Verification and Inspection Commission process with the contribution of 13 personnel a fact singled out by Hans Blix in his report to the United Nations Security Council. We want to see that inspection process continued for as long as it can be effective in helping to secure disarmament. If the point comes where it can no longer be progressed because of the lack of Iraqi cooperation and force has to be considered we believe that a further resolution by the Security Council should be moved to explicitly authorise the use of force. A further resolution would most clearly provide the authoritative and sound legal basis for direct action. 
New Zealand is a small country. As such it recognises the need for the rule of law internationally. Since 1945 and Peter Fraser at the United Nations New Zealand has put great store by the role of that body as the pre-eminent group empowered to resolve international conflict. It has contributed and continues to contribute to international peacekeeping in areas like East Timor Bosnia and the Sinai and to international security operations such as Operation Enduring Freedom. However it is not acceptable that the procedures of the United Nations and the rules of international law should be observed only when they suit the purposes of or have the agreement of a particular party. A country is bound by the law just as a citizen is whether or not it agrees with it. 
It is ironic that those who have most strongly condemned the United States for unilateralism such as some in the Greens are now promoting their own form of unilateralism arguing that if the United Nations mandates force we should not support its actions. A Security Council decision has the force of international law and it must be complied with. In supporting a UN resolution however it is up to each individual country as to what practical form that support takes. New Zealand has indicated that in the event of such a United Nations resolution its support would likely be confined to medical humanitarian and logistical assistance.  
New Zealand’s view of Saddam Hussein is unequivocal. Iraq is a regime that denies democracy and is guilty of the most appalling abuses of human rights. It has a track record of using chemical and biological warfare against its own people and against the Iranians and it has committed unprovoked aggression against Kuwait. The condition of its peace settlement in the early 1990s was its disarmament. Although it has allowed weapons inspectors back it has as Hans Blix has commented cooperated only in process and not in substance. There are serious unanswered questions about chemical bombs and biological weapons that it was known to possess and has not accounted for. Iraq must meet the requirements of Resolution 1441 or face the ultimate consequences if it continues to fail to do so.  
The Iraqi Government can prevent war by taking the actions it is legally obliged to. Our belief is that war should if at all possible be avoided. Let us be frank. War means that people will be killed. It means that homes and infrastructures will be destroyed. The UN estimates that 600000 to 1.4 million refugees would be created and that there would be up to 2 million internally displaced people within Iraq. Tens of thousands of lives could be lost directly or as a consequence of war through famine disease or landmines. Already half the Iraqis cannot meet their basic needs and hundreds of thousands suffer from malnutrition. A war extending over months would dramatically worsen their position. The victims would be ordinary Iraqi people not Saddam Hussein and his clique who would likely escape with hundreds of millions of dollars in Swiss bank accounts. 
There is also the risk that war will destabilise the Middle East and undermine the solidarity of the coalition against terrorism. A war judged by Middle Eastern and Islamic peoples as unjust risks creating sympathy and support for terrorists who would otherwise be condemned. A war in Iraq would also take attention from the primary threat to international security which is terrorism and from the pressing need to find a lasting solution to the injustices in the Middle East conflict between Israel and Palestine. It is for those reasons that common sense dictates that all alternative avenues of achieving Iraqi disarmament should be exhausted before war is considered.  
New Zealand has a proud role in meeting its responsibilities internationally. In the event of a war with Iraq New Zealand will have a role to play. That role however will focus first on emergency relief to save lives. In the aftermath of conflict New Zealand would have a role to play in the areas of mine clearance and peacekeeping—areas in which we have a strong track record—and on reconstruction and development assistance. Although time is running out there is the opportunity to prevent war. Iraq can do so by complying with its obligations and the United States can do so by staying within the multilateral framework and allowing time for current efforts to achieve disarmament without the loss of innocent lives.