Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2002 Week 12 Hansard (13 November) . . Page.. 3548 ..

MS TUCKER (continuing):

Yesterday a publication entitled Collateral Damage on the impact of a war on Iraq was released by International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War. It was launched in Australia by the Australian sister body, the Medical Association for Prevention of War, at an event hosted by Greens senator Kerry Nettle at Parliament House yesterday. I seek leave to table it. I have circulated it to all members speaking today to see whether they approve of it being tabled, in light of concerns that have been expressed about tabling documents which have not been seen. As I understand it, everyone is happy with me tabling it.

Leave granted.

MS TUCKER: I present the following paper:

Collateral damage-the health and environmental costs of war on Iraq, Medact, 12 November 2002.

The media release put out by the Medical Association for Prevention of War yesterday stated:

A US-led attack on Iraq is likely to result in between 48,000 and 260,000 deaths during the first three months of combat, according to a study by medical and public health experts ...

"This report at least deserves a response from those who advocate war against Iraq ... If Prime Minister Howard already understands the human effect of modern warfare, then he has the responsibility to justify to the Australian people our likely involvement in this carnage. If he does not understand, then this report is essential reading for him. But let him not pretend that he just doesn't know."

It is not enough for us to just say that we support this motion, to say no to war in Iraq or to say that the United Nations is the solution. It is time for us at a community level to begin articulating the steps we need to take.

In the context of the so-called war on terror, Howard, Blair and Bush's rationale for a likely attack on Iraq is that Iraq has or may be developing weapons of mass destruction. We should remember that neither the bomb attack in Bali nor the planned hijackings in the United States involved weapons of mass destruction, so we are given to recognise that there are other agendas at work in this decision to turn against Iraq-domestic political agendas, commercial agendas, geopolitical agendas. These are agendas we should resist.

Nonetheless, eradication of weapons of mass destruction, including all nuclear weapons and biological and chemical agents, is an essential step towards a more secure and peaceful world, without a doubt. To achieve this we need a commitment not just from Iraq or North Korea but also from the United States, Israel, Pakistan, Russia, China, the UK, France and India. A legally binding convention under the aegis of the United Nations, if ratified by all nations, including the most recalcitrant United States, could give us hope.

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .