Senator FAULKNER (3:01 PM) —I move:

That the Senate take note of the answers given by the Minister for the Environment and Heritage (Senator Hill), to questions without notice asked by Senators Faulkner and Cooney today, relating to Australia's role in East Timor.

Last week, readers of the Bulletin magazine were treated to the bizarre spectacle of the newly formed Howard doctrine of Australia's relations with our Asian neighbours being outlined. Australians were informed that the Prime Minister had decided that henceforth Australia will be acting in a sort of deputy peacekeeping capacity in our region to the global policeman role of the US. I gather the Prime Minister is already backsliding away from the so-called Howard doctrine. He started that process in question time in the House of Representatives today.

This must be the quickest ever repudiation of an Australian foreign policy doctrine in history. What is clear is that the new doctrine was the product of John Howard himself. It was utterly insular. It was demonstrating a craving to wear the deputy's badge to the international John Wayne figure, the United States. But the Prime Minister fails to realise that we are not dealing with a 1950s Saturday afternoon matinee with the good guys in the white hats. Australia's relations with its neighbours are infinitely more complex, difficult and important than that.

The Prime Minister would understand that if only he had consulted with his professional advisers before announcing his Deputy Dawg doctrine, things would be very different today. But he did not consult, did he? Admiral Barrie made it absolutely clear yesterday that he had not been consulted on the doctrine. He is only Chief of the Australian Defence Force—surely you would have thought that was the sharp end of the deputy sheriff role. A former senior diplomat, Mr Tony Kevin, indicated this morning on ABC Radio that it was clear to him that the Howard government does not see long-term policy development as a valid role for the foreign affairs professionals in the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade and the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet. Mr Kevin went on to say:

To me, that is an enormously dangerous doctrine. What the government does not seem to understand is that foreign policy is not a hobby you do in your spare time. It is actually part of your national security policy.

Over the past few days, the Howard doctrine has been panned and parodied by many experts and commentators. Dr Harold Crouch from the Research School of Pacific and Asian Studies warns that we need to keep our aspirations in perspective. We are not and never will be the leader of South-East Asia. Greg Sheridan noted in the Australian that casting us as the US deputy in the region is also about the most demeaning characterisation of ourselves that you could conjure up.

How did Owen Harries, one of the leading foreign affairs commentators in Washington and a former adviser to Malcolm Fraser when Prime Minister, describe the Howard doctrine? He said, `He's a fool.' Doesn't this very accurate description of Prime Minister Howard's approach to foreign relations hold water no matter where you look? The Howard doctrine ignored intelligence warnings about East Timor, held out on involving the United States economic lever until it was too late and even raised the prospect of national service last night. That is the Howard doctrine, and it is no wonder the Prime Minister has just started to backslide in question time in the House of Representatives today. It is the shortest lived foreign policy doctrine in world history, and so it should be.