[Dog Gone]

The Australian leader also wants the United Nations charter to be amended to allow member countries to strike first if they believe an attack is imminent.

Well, the next step for Australia is come to the realization that the United Nations charter is not binding on any country.

[winner3000]

I am as much a hawk as anybody. However, I am nervous too about this pre-emptive stuff against non-states. There are two nuances to it. The first is the way the US is actually conducting its war on terror: Once the US identifies a terror cell in a foreign country, they are coordinating with the foreign country for either them taking care of the problem, or we take care of the problem after coordinating with them.
The second way of doing it is the way most people would characterize the Australian prime minister's words: Australia would deal with the problem with no coordination with the relevant nation, thus violating its sovereignty. That's the way the Europeans are mischaracterizing the US response. This sort of policy would give tyrants a great pretext to invade neighbouring countries (such as the Russians inserting themselves into Georgia, regardless of the willingness and ability of Georgians of dealing with the terrorist problem themselves).