To bow or not to bow, that is the question. Is it nobler in mind to suffer the slings and arrows of one's torment at George Bush's foreign policy adventurism or should one take arms against it (figuratively speaking of course)? This challenge of conscience preoccupies a smattering of federal MPs invited to hear the President of the United States address the Australian Parliament next Wednesday. They give the question too much weight.

To accord Mr Bush due courtesy is to acknowledge respect for his office and through that office, to show Australian regard for the American people. It does not necessarily mean that Australians are applauding the incumbent, although many would. It is about saluting the rank, not the individual. That some Australians, including some MPs, are disgusted at the invasion of Iraq does not justify incivility towards Mr Bush in the very institution intended to reflect this nation's aspirations. Australia's elected representatives should show Mr Bush the same respect they expect for Australian leaders visiting overseas.

A Labor backbencher, Harry Quick, does not see it that way. He has been persuaded not to turn his back on Mr Bush during the President's address but he will wear a white armband to mark his opposition to the Iraq War, and says he will refuse to join in any standing ovation for Mr Bush. That is his right. But it will be interesting to see how Mr Quick and other like-minded MPs respond to the address to Parliament the following day by the Chinese President, Hu Jintao, whose regime could teach Americans a thing or two about oppression. And will Democrats, half of whom have threatened to stay away from the Bush address, feel the same pressure to boycott Mr Hu? The snubbing or heckling of Mr Hu by Australian MPs would be as grievously insulting to the Chinese people as would any wilful embarrassment of Mr Bush be for Americans.

This is not to urge standing ovations for either leader. The Opposition Leader, Simon Crean, wants Labor MPs to applaud Mr Bush and to stand at the end of his speech. That is not the same as encouraging a standing ovation, as accorded to Bill Clinton seven years ago, but there is room within courtesy for MPs to fashion their own marks of respect.

By definition, parliaments are crucibles of diverse opinion. This should be reflected in the varying intensities of response to initiatives and individuals, so long as civility and courtesy are maintained.

Standing ovations are almost obligatory when US presidents address the Congress because US Republicans and Democrats consider it necessary to unanimously mark respect for the presidential office. But this is not the US. Here, standing ovations are characterised by spontaneity more than contrivance. They tend to be expressions of genuine enthusiasm. Mr Bush should not be insulted if congressional reflex is not mirrored in his Australian welcome. But he is entitled to be heard with the dignity and respect owed to his position.