Mr COSTELLO (Treasurer) (6:20 PM) —I give my unqualified support to the motion which has been moved by the Prime Minister and which I hope which will be endorsed unanimously by this House. Since the ballot in East Timor on 30 August, Australia has airlifted nearly 2½ thousand people from Dili, including Australians, UN staff and almost 2,000 East Timorese seeking safe haven.

The UN Security Council has unanimously authorised the establishment of a multinational force under Australian command to restore peace and security in East Timor. Australia has landed forces in East Timor—some 1,500 troops already—and by tomorrow morning there will be some 2½ thousand. The Australian government has indicated a preparedness to make available 4½ thousand troops for that force. The force comprises assistance from New Zealand, Malaysia, Canada, Britain, the US, the Philippines, Thailand and Korea. There is some assistance from China. I believe some 12 nations in all will be part of what will turn out to be Australia's biggest military commitment since Vietnam and, in many respects, an even more significant military commitment than that because this is one led by Australia.

I, like other members of this House, have enormous pride in the Australian fighting forces. I refer to their determination in relation to this, their ability to land—as they have—to secure the situation in Dili and the strength of their command, a command which has already shown extreme professionalism in relation to a very difficult encounter.

This chain of events has come about as a consequence of a ballot in East Timor which was held on 30 August in which some 78 per cent of the East Timorese people effectively voted for independence. The ballot had high hopes. It went remarkably smoothly but subsequently it gave way to killing, despair, mayhem, looting, forced repatriation and suffering on a level which I believe shocked our nation, and shocked it severely.

I have listened to some of the contributions in this debate, including the one immediately preceding which in a rather convoluted way seeks, whilst supporting the government's actions, to attack the government. This is a government which has secured 2,000 troops in Dili, a unanimous UN mandate, has made a commitment of 4,500 troops, has committed more aid than any other country, has provided the civilian police in relation to East Timor and the multinational advisers and is now leading—something Australia has never done before—a multinational force.

Mr McMullan —What about Cambodia?

Mr COSTELLO —In relation to Cambodia, that was a UN Blue Helmet operation, which was not under Australian command—a key difference. I would have thought that was obvious. I would not have thought I would have had to make that point, but I do so because of the ignorant interjection which was just made by the member for Canberra.

Let us contrast that with the situation over the last 25 years—no ballot; de facto, then de jure recognition of Indonesian control of East Timor; no ballot in relation to independence; no force; no aid; no CIVPOL; no multinational force; a recognition of Indonesian military occupation and then legal right to East Timor—and, if I may say so, backed up by a defence treaty with Indonesia which was signed by Prime Minister Paul Keating, in the presence of then Foreign Minister Gareth Evans and then Deputy Prime Minister Beazley, in Jakarta signing a defence cooperation agreement at the time. We have heard sophistry in this House, but the kind of sophistry which went on in the last speaker's speech does not fit well with a clear and considered position.

There has obviously been terrible suffering in relation to East Timor, but until the UN, at the direction of and with the support and on the representations made by the Minister for Foreign Affairs, and with the agreement of Indonesia, gave a charter to go into East Timor any Australian landing in relation to East Timor would have been a landing on foreign soil, Indonesian soil, without Indonesian consent. In a shorthand way, that is often called a war. The efforts of the Prime Minister and the Minister for Foreign Affairs in relation to negotiating the UN mandate and assembling the force and raising the brigade and ensuring the troops could be in Dili, as they now are, I think have been superb. I think all Australians admire the work that the Prime Minister of Australia did and the work that the foreign minister did, particularly in the UN. I pay personal tribute to the work they have put together, and I hope the work they have done is recognised by all Australians.

I want to make a few longer-term observations in relation to these matters. There have been debates in our country in recent years about Australia's place in the region, about how it sees itself and how it sees its identity. The events in East Timor galvanised public opinion in a way which meant that we no longer had to ask where we were geographically: we knew this was our business. We took decisive steps to help with the humani tarian tragedy. We did not ask where our geographic responsibility started and ended: we knew this was where we had a duty. We considered it our responsibility to take a leadership role, and we are working with other countries in this regard—a clear demonstration of Australian leadership in this period in the world.

Obviously Australia would not have been in a position to do that had it not been economically strong throughout the Asian economic crisis. You are seeing some of the leadership role that we were able to assume economically, diplomatically and militarily work out in direct humanitarian assistance. Secondly, and this point has been made, the fact that the APEC leaders were meeting in Auckland at a critical time gave new diplomatic impetus to the efforts of the Prime Minister and the foreign minister and illustrated the absolute importance of engaging the Asia-Pacific economies in this part of the world, our part of the world, in a direct leadership role. This is a direct illustration of the advantages of such regional association and a practical demonstration of how they assist and keep people engaged.

The third observation I make is that, just as Indonesia is important to Australia, Australia is important to Indonesia. Maybe we have not been as realistic in our relationships as we should have been. We as a country have to remain engaged with Indonesia. We need to understand its aims and objectives and, importantly, it needs to understand our aims and objectives. Australia has no territorial interest in East Timor. Australia is not going into East Timor as part of advancing any other agenda, other than a humanitarian agenda, as part of its duty. We need to understand each other on a nonsentimental, open and realistic basis. Most importantly, we cannot afford to misunderstand each other and our peoples cannot afford to misunderstand each other. This is not just a matter for governments and elites; this is a matter for public engagement both ways. This is an extremely important relationship.

From the Australian point of view, we have an interest in seeing a stable Indonesia which is economically secure and prosperous. We need to keep our eye on that long-term relationship which is just as important to us as it is to them. I am proud of the fact that the Australian government has made this unprecedented commitment. It will no doubt involve human costs. It will involve economic costs. It will require considerable will to maintain that commitment. It is a commitment that the government has made, with the support of the Australian people, in a humanitarian way, which is very much part of the duty and the responsibility that we accept in this region of the world.