No it doesn't Stigweard read it again:

"That this House notes its decisions of 25th November 2002 and 26th February 2003 to endorse UN Security Council Resolution 1441"

Now what was required to be done to endorse UN Security Council Resolution 1441?

The passage you quoted (the motion to be debated and voted upon by the House of Commons) contains only 2 references to WMD but 10 references to UN Security Council Resolutions. And this causes you to state categorically that - "The reason for going to war was to find WMDs."

The reason given was the UN Authority handed down to the beligerent powers under the terms of UN Security Council Resolution 678, in order to ensure compliance by Iraq of the Safwan Cease-Fire Agreement detailed in UN Security Council Resolution 687 all of which were detailed in UN Security Council Resolution 1441 which acted as the bridging document covering all outstanding resolutions related to Iraq.

Your linked Sydney Herald article dated almost a year after the invasion is hardly "in the immediate aftermath". That article too is written on the premise that WMD had to be found - they didn't. The article details precisely what is wrong with the media today when it comes to supposed reporting of news. MSM no longer reports anything, they comment, speculate and opinionate, they most certainly could never be accused of objectively reporting any event or situation.

As you correctly point out, the full text of the debate is available from Hansard. Did you actually read it? Because it leaves me, and anyone else who reads it, in no doubt about the doubts, uncertainties and suspicions relating to Iraq's WMD that existed at that time. What was posited as justification for the invasion of Iraq as the main thrust of Blair's argument was based on the potential threat the presence of WMDs in Iraq posed and the imperitive need to ensure beyond all doubt that Iraq was disarmed in accordance with UN Security Council Resolutions for the peace, security and stability of the region.

I rather liked the reference in the debate by one MP who observed that Chirac, having stated that France would use its veto irrespective, had managed to disarm the UN instead of disarming Iraq.