Mr BEAZLEY —My question is to the Prime Minister. Are you aware that the author of the Bulletin article on the Howard doctrine says that during his interview with you he twice characterised Australia as a deputy to the US and that you assented? Is it also a fact that, when he suggested that Australia would be `a sort of deputy policeman', you finished his sentence by adding `in the region'? Isn't it the case that far from misportraying you the author accurately captured what you were getting at? Isn't it the case that you only backflipped when you were forced to by damaging reactions to your loose talk in the region, where goodwill and mutual confidence are so essential to the success of the mission in East Timor?

Mr HOWARD (Prime Minister) —In the House yesterday I had some remarks to make about the characterisation of my views on the role of this country in the region, and I do not intend to recapitulate those remarks except to make the obvious point that what has occurred over the past few weeks does represent a very significant change in the climate in which foreign policy is conducted in this country. Those who are interested in a serious debate on that will not indulge the sort of rhetoric that the Leader of the Opposition has indulged but rather might take a little notice of what some of the foreign ministers in the region have said. Talking on CNN today, the Foreign Minister of Thailand had, amongst other things, this to say in relation to the attitude of Australia:

We have no differences, but we think it is the collective responsibility for all of us in the region to make sure that any trouble spots that need our collective help . . . certainly we will respond and we have responded very swiftly.

It was in that same interview that the Foreign Minister for Thailand confirmed the commitment of an infantry battalion by Thailand to the multinational force. As the House is aware, the deputy commander of the multinational force is a member of the Royal Thai Army, and I think it is important that the contribution being made by Australia be seen in the context of collective action with our neighbours and friends in the region. It was in no small measure that the friendship between Australia and Thailand, and the common attitude that Australia and Thailand has to developments in the region, led to Thailand making the contribution that it has made, and I welcome that contribution. It is a very important one and, along with the contribution of forces from the Philippines and other countries in the ASEAN region, it is an extremely important element in the multinational force.

Over the past few weeks this country has assumed both a diplomatic and, as far as participation in the multinational force is concerned, an undoubted leadership role. It has not been a leadership role tinged with any sense of triumphalism but rather a leadership role which is born of the responsibility we carry in the region to work with our friends and neighbours. The action taken by the government has been not only the right action but also an action that enjoys considerable support in the Australian community. Far more importantly than any of those considerations, it enjoys the respect of the international community.

Mr Crean —No, it doesn't.

Mr HOWARD —I am interested to hear that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition is asserting that the action taken by Australia does not have the support of the international community. Even Gareth Evans contradicted that at the Press Club, and that is saying something.