ࡱ> g *bjbjVV r<r<2222$fffff$$$$$$$$P&)V?$2^?$ff5T$###8f2f$#$###f J#$j$0$#X)!X)#X)2#0#?$?$#$X) : HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION 9th Annual Lalor Address on Community Relations Canberra, 3 December 1983 Australian Government Publishing Service Canberra 1984 Commonwealth of Australia 1984 ISSN 0314-3694 PROGRAM Page Official Welcome Mr Jeremy Long Commissioner for Community Relations 1 Advance Australia Where? The Hon. A.J. Grassby First Commissioner for Community Relations former Minister for Immigration 7 The Eureka Stand: An Aboriginal View Mr Neville Bonner member of Australian Broadcasting Corporation, Australia's first Aboriginal Senator 17 Human Rights Diplomacy Ms Pera Wells former member of Australian Mission to the United Nations 31 OFFICIAL WELCOME BY MR. JEREMY LONG COMMISIONER FOR COMMUNITY RELATIONS Distinguished guests, ladies and gentlemen, It is my pleasant duty to welcome you on behalf of the Human Rights Commission and myself as Commissioner of Community Relations to the 9th Annual Lalor Address on Community Relations. In early December 1854, a great-grandfather of mine writing home to London from Victoria where he had emigrated some 11 years earlier, remarked that his parents would 'no doubt see in the London papers some account of the Ballarat riots which have occurred here within the last week'. After giving a brief and decidedly biased account of the origins of the trouble, he concluded: 'A serious collision took place between them (the Ballarat diggers, the gold miners, and the military) by which 20 or 30 lives have been lost on both sides. Something like order, however, has been restored again'. That 'serious collision' occurred at dawn on this day, December 3rd, 129 years ago. It was a brief but bloody engagement between about 100 police and military on one side and perhaps no more than 130 armed gold miners led by Peter Lalor, defending their 'Eureka Stockade' on the other. It ended a rebellion on the goldfields at Ballarat, the immediate cause of which was resentment about taxation - a monthly licence fee imposed on the miners. But the uprising expressed a general and intense resentment of inept, oppressive, unjust and undemocratic government authority among the gold mining community, a mixed group of old and new Australians, born in Australia, Europe and America. -2- The suppression of the rebellion began the legend of Eureka. An early commentator, the American Mark Twain, called it 'the finest thing in Australasian history', a 'revolution small in size but great politically; ... a strike for liberty, a struggle for principle, a strike against injustice and oppression' and 'another instance of a victory won by a lost battle'. A hundred years after this lost battle a Centenary Committee published a slim pamphlet which included these observations: Many causes went into the making of Eureka and many kinds of people - allied sometimes only in their objection to being pushed around. No minority can monopolise Eureka. The Chartists, the foreign Republicans, the non-political majority, the Irish patriots, the Catholic priests (as men of peace) all had a hand in it. What were they alike in? They were alike in being Australian in outlook and it is precisely because Eureka is a focal point for a proper national sentiment and pride in a country which has (outside of war) few heroic legends that it is important to us now. It is worth noting that we should be seeing in the next few months a re-creation for television of the Eureka story - not the first time the dramatic possibilities of the story have been used in a film. But it is appropriate that our film and television people should not now neglect this episode of our history. We are seeing in the '80s a remarkable re-presentation of Australian heritage on film and Eureka is at least worthy of attention, and just as much a key element of our traditions, as Ned Kelly, and Gallipoli. -3- If this process of re-presentation and re-interpretation of our past and traditions is important to native-born generations of Australians, it also serves a useful educational purpose for Australians born and brought up in other parts of the world who may understand us and our view of ourselves rather better for seeing films like 'Breaker Morant', 'Gallipoli' and 'We of the Never Never', and of course the highly praised television series on the Aboriginal experience in these last 200 years, 'Women of the Sun'. It is encouraging to see the turning points in our more recent history beginning to get some attention from the film makers and that next year we will see a film, 'Silver City', set against the background of the great post-war migration, which has had such a massive impact on our society, and against the migrant camps of that era. But I digress. As I remarked, the stand at Eureka was made by immigrants and Australian-born together and it is also significant that it remains the major civil disturbance or rebellion in our history. These are two reasons why it was an appropriate date to choose for an annual address on community relations, to remind us of how things can go wrong and also as an early instance of Australians from all over the world making common cause together. Our principal speaker today is the Honourable Al Grassby, who established the annual series of Lalor Addresses eight years ago at the beginning of his notable term as Commissioner for Community Relations. We are delighted that Al Grassby was able to accept the invitation to give the Lalor Address this year. This is an opportunity for him to reflect on the present state of community relations in this country and on progress made in the war against Australian xenophobia, prejudice and discrimination, a war which he made his own and -4- which he has fought with such courage, eloquence and good humour. Al Grassby has titled his address 'Advance Australia Where?'. It is equally appropriate that Neville Bonner should speak today and offer his thoughts as an Aboriginal Australian after the premature ending of his distinguished term as the sole representative in Parliament here of that most discriminated-against minority. Neville Bonner needs no introduction. I intend to give him no introduction. Instead I would like to draw your attention to the presence with us today of another Queenslander, Mrs Norma Sarra, who has worked for many years to help the Aboriginal and Islander people of the city of Bundaberg. In recent years she has made a very significant contribution to the work of the Human Rights Commission and to the work of the Commissioner of Community Relations, in particular in combatting racial discrimination in her town and in her region. Earlier this year I had occasion to appoint Mrs Sarra to preside over a conciliation conference under the Racial Discrimination Act. It was the first occasion in the eight years of operation of the Act when a citizen, rather than the Commissioner himself, or one of his officers, has presided over such a conference. It is, I think, particularly appropriate and gratifying to all of us associated with the Human Rights Commission that it was an Aboriginal Australian who achieved this 'first'. Welcome, Norma Sarra. Our third speaker today is Pera Wells, a graduate in political science from Melbourne University, who worked for a time on The Age in Melbourne before joining the Department of Foreign Affairs some 10 years ago. Since then she has served in New York at the Australian Mission to the United Nations where she was responsible for human rights matters and related issues. -5- Pera Wells brings an international perspective to the proceedings as a career officer of the Australian Foreign Service. This is appropriate as the work of the Human Rights Commission is inextricably bound up with International Conventions, Covenants and Declarations on human rights. This year marks the end of the United Nations Decade Against Racism and Racial Discrimination and in just a week's time we celebrate International Human Rights Day. -6- 'ADVANCE AUSTRALIA WHERE?' by The Honourable A.J. Grassby I am delighted to actually be here as I am here despite myself. A few hours ago I was in Tokyo but, thanks to the Human Rights Commission and the special team that organised it, they got me here on time and I would like to acknowledge that right at the beginning. I am very pleased to be associated today particularly with an old friend and comrade in arms, Neville Bonner. The last time we were together was in Alice Springs. I do not think that we won the battle there but we certainly did not lose it. Pera Wells and I have known each other for a long time so I feel very honoured at the invitation to speak which the Human Rights Commission has extended to me. It was on December 3, 1975 that the first Lalor Community Relations Address was held in Canberra. I thought it worth while today to recall that the first lecture was given by a great Australian and a distinguished son of Ballarat, Sir John Nimmo. He was a Chief Justice of Fiji and a justice in Federal Jurisdiction, also a man who contributed much in advancing social justice by pioneering efforts in other spheres of public life and service. The office of the Commissioner for Community Relations was barely a month old at the time. The idea for the annual address came from the example of Lalor at the Eureka Stockade, so it was appropriate that his name should be associated with -7- the Community Relations annual address. I am delighted to see in this distinguished audience Mr Brian Murray who led significant areas of the Immigration Department for a whole generation and whose idea it was to have a Lalor address. He suggested that Peter Lalor was the Australian who first practised the great art of drawing Australians of all backgrounds together in a common and noble cause. That aspect of the Stockade was eloquently recounted by the Commissioner for Community Relations, Mr Jeremy Long. That night, all those years ago, Sir John Nimmo warned us that while Australia had a great opportunity to show the world how people of many backgrounds could live and work together in harmony and unity, there was a need to recognise the ever present threat from the mean and miserable of spirit who would divide us on racial grounds. The late Paolo Canali, then Italian Ambassador to Australia and past executive right arm to many Italian Prime Ministers, gave the second address that night, illustrating how the one million Australians of Italian birth or origin had become woven into the fabric of the nation. Today I salute his memory as I saluted his resting place in Dublin where he died during a visit to his mother's homeland. Tonight I have the privilege of giving the address so ably inaugurated by John Nimmo and Paolo Canali and again I want to express my deep appreciation to Dame Roma Mitchell and the Human Rights Commission for their invitation to me to give the address this year. I have presided every year, Jeremy, but I never actually gave an address so it is a new experience which I must say I am enjoying, and I hope you will too. I think it is worth while today to look at community relations in Australia in this year of 1983 and try to look ahead to the new century, which incidentally, is only 18 short years away. -8- I was very proud when in 1975 Australia ratified the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination even though it was after nine or 10 years of shilly shallying. I was equally proud that the bitterly divided Parliament of the time could raise enough agreement to pass into law the first nationwide prohibition of racial discrimination in the country's history in the form of the Racial Discrimination Act. As Special Adviser to the Government at the time I had some hand in putting the Act together, to coin a phrase, and I suppose I was unique in being able to actually administer an Act which I had helped to draft. So, eight years later, I can confess to seeing the weaknesses and inadequacies of my homework of the time and the need for reform. The bright promise of October 31, 1975, when the Convention was ratified and the Act proclaimed, was never fulfilled. Eleven days later Australia was brought to the brink of violence by what has been known, depending on how you feel, as either the Dismissal or the Coup de Etat. I will not comment further on that. I spent my first weeks as Commissioner travelling at a frenetic pace around the country, under the direct orders of the then-replaced Attorney-General and Prime Minister, to help keep the peace and to, I suppose, be aware of the shadow of a threatened general strike and acts of violence. So I went to factories, offices, groups, promoting peace and goodwill - at least trying to. I remember going to a newsroom at that time in Sydney. To get to the newsroom I could not go through the main entrance of the building which was sandbagged, I had to go through a side door to be greeted by a series of armed guards of the Metropolitan Security Service. When I got to the newsroom there were all the writers wearing tin hats and awaiting the attack from across the road. I must say that the Commonwealth -9-- car driver who was kind enough to take me there at the time and found himself parked in the front felt that he should have had danger money. It was the most uncomfortable moment he had experienced since World War II, he said. You will be pleased to know, incidentally, that the attack did not take place and that they talked instead. It was an unexpected start to a career in community relations. But eventually, as you remember, the nation returned to normal and the work of the Office commenced in earnest. I want to take this opportunity to pay tribute to the small dedicated team which worked with me in good days and in bad days to serve the oppressed, the insulted, and the denigrated. There were never enough people, never enough of anything and one year we were without any funds for three months. We relied on community bodies to pay fares so that we could get on with the job. I remember we used to go to the Rotary Clubs and say: 'Have you got any spare money so that we can do the job?'. Well, for three months we relied on public charity. But the Office survived and the work continued. Over the years we were joined by State colleagues in newly created anti-discrimination agencies in New South Wales, Victoria and a strengthened body in South Australia which had led the way nationally in adopting anti-discrimination laws. The Human Rights Commission came into being and absorbed the Community Relations Office. The Department of Labour's anti-discrimination committees also began work in that seven-year period. At the same time, Ethnic Affairs Commissions were established in New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia and now in Western Australia to help build a new sense of unity and amity. -10- I think perhaps the most striking development of all in the seven years has been the emergence of a new, talented and dedicated Aboriginal leadership, often a combination of the old traditional leadership and the new and often tertiary trained men and women. In the National Aboriginal Conference, the Land Councils, the Central Australian Aboriginal Congress, in the Kalkadoon organisation in North Queensland and many others in all States and Territories, an Aboriginal leadership has emerged which is making a daily impact on the gravest problems facing Australia today. The freedom of the Aboriginal people from oppression is the litmus test for-Australia as we face the dawn of the new century. Much has been achieved but much remains to be done. Australia today is seeing the last stand of the old bigots and in the present economic climate they have a fertile ground in which to sow the seeds of division, dissension and the denial of justice. A judge of the Queensland Supreme Court, called upon last year in the Alwyn Peters case to pass judgment on a murder charge against an Aboriginal on a reserve in Queensland, said the defendant could not be held guilty of murder, taking into account the hopeless, oppressive and depressive atmosphere on the reserve. He was saying that conditions were so bad for the human spirit that concepts of right and wrong had been destroyed. Against these facts the public assertion by a man up north that Aboriginal people in Queensland reserves receive truck loads of money from Canberra has the same validity as those who say six million Jews did not die at the hands of the Nazis but it was only that the Nazis forgot to turn off the gas. Australia is a far more tolerant society than that - thank God! It is more tolerant now than it has ever been in the near 200 years of permanent European settlement. Of this I have no doubt. At the same time with the worsening economic scene, with 10 per cent of all Australians out of work, with more than 50 per cent of the Aboriginal people unemployed and some sections of the community such as Lebanese seeing their unemployment rising to more than 30 per cent, the ingredients for racial disruptions are there. The past 12 months have seen a rise in racism in Australia. Schools are reporting anti-wog vendettas, street gangs on racial lines have grown up in Sydney and Melbourne and some country towns, and neighbours who have lived peacefully side by side for a decade have divided for the first time. A recent example came to me from one of the Sydney western suburbs. Two families lived side by side, an Anglo-Saxon Australian family of one generation or perhaps two, and an Anglo-Australian lady married to a Maltese Australian. Both of them, with about two or three children each, had lived amicably, side by side, for more than 15 years. Then suddenly one day it was decided that the family that happened to have the Maltese ingredient should 'go home', wherever that meant, and harassment began. Where did it all stem from? It came from the factory and it came from people in groups that were pamphletting that area. It had a direct impact on two very nice families, one of which had been seduced by, I suppose, the economic tensions of the time plus a dash of racism from those interested in creating divisions. -12- The threat of unemployment was indeed the catalyst for change in that situation. Another example is a Sydney club in the Canterbury area solemnly, in defiance of the law, banning all languages but English. Neville Bonner, having one of the mother tongues of the Australian languages, would find himself expelled by a group that came about 40,000 years later than him. Nevertheless, that is the case. A statewide organisation has called for action against Australians with an Asian heritage, and the motion before a recent national congress urged a return to the sad, bad old days of assimilation. There is a return to the assimilationist rhetoric of yesterday with reference to the dominant group, the mainstream. I well recall Clare Dunne at the Lalor Address in 1981 saying that if there was any group around the place who was going to dominate her they were going to have a tough time doing it. Gentle she may be but she is strong. Then, of course, there is this business of the mainstream. The mainstream in Carlton is not quite the same as in Kew; the mainstream in Marrickville is not the same as in Mosman, this applies to Thebarton and the Adelaide Hills; and the mainstream of the Northern Territory with 25 per cent Aboriginal population and 30 per cent Asian heritage is not the same as the A.C.T. I was born in New Farm in Brisbane, which Neville Bonner assures me is still in Queensland, and the mainstream there was certainly different from that of Kingaroy. Assimilationist theory, in my opinion, is a device to force Australians to conform to some mythical group which has never existed. The myth of homogeneity is one of the most pernicious hangovers from a very bloody past. If we have to have a dominant group to assimilate with, which one of the 140 -13- ethnicities should it be? If we are going to say that the only worthy people are the Irish then 75 per cent of the rest will have to go - drowning perhaps, I am not quite sure. If we say the only worthwhile group is the English then 60 per cent of us have to go. If we say southern Europeans then about 80 per cent have to go. And if my Aboriginal brothers and sisters simply said 'The rest have to assimilate or leave' that is 98 per cent who have to go. The absurdity of an assimilationist concept is illustrated by the very figures that exist as far as the Australian people are concerned; and we still have the great problem of recognising just who is an Australian. I am sure you have all been asked whether you know many pure Australians which, I would take it, are those who have been to confession, or maybe there are 'true' ones - I am not quite sure what the litmus test for that is. 'Pure' and 'true': it sounds like a revival movement of some kind but I am not sure that it is meant in just those terms. These days assimilation is recognised as absurd, anachronistic and as justly on the rubbish heap of history. It must not be resurrected to create division and disharmony among millions of Australians. I have recounted the unrest in non-Aboriginal Australia. Currently on the Aboriginal scene, despite all the advances, the founding peoples of Australia remain the most impoverished, the least likely to live after birth, the earliest to die, the most likely to be in jail, to be blind, to be deaf and to be unemployed. With economic hardship the people who never really accepted the notion of Aboriginal equality have returned to vocal bigotries. Just as long as they did not feel threatened for jobs or a house, they did not mind someone trying to give the 'boongs' a fair deal. But facing insecurity, they have rapidly returned to 'boong-bashing'. -14-- The high hopes and expectations of young Aboriginal people have not been fulfilled. They are facing a new hostility and campaigns deliberately designed to incite them to violence. The newspaper headlines often shout about Aboriginal violence but it is always the Aboriginals who die, and it is always the Aboriginals who end up in jail by the score. Since the shooting and massacres were stopped in this century most Aboriginal people, though not all, have displayed a gentleness and silent fortitude in the face of adversity which is probably unique in the world. But I do not know how long this is going to last as the younger generation, the heirs to the high promise of equal rights and justice, find they have inherited the horrible pit at the bottom of the Australian social ladder. No greater challenge faces Australia today than the threat of racial strife and division. All the advances of recent years are at risk and instead of looking ahead to the new century we would be turning back to 19th century bigotries and sadness in every part of Australia. I believe the issues are clear - justice and equality for all - and no issue is more important than land rights, an issue which still besets governments and communities after interminable discussion and consultation. So what is to be done? First, the national legislation governing racial discrimination must be strengthened. If conciliation fails it is not good enough to abandon the oppressed to the very people and institutions that they have seen as their oppressors for the last 200 years. It is not good enough for any Australian Government to rely on volunteers to do the job on the spot without proper recognition and support. It -15- is not good enough to have the Human Rights Commission shackled to the A.C.T. and without the means to play a direct and effective role in the hot frontiers of racial conflict. The work of the States, the churches, the trade unions and other authorities is a vital complement to national action. But it is the Australian Government, in the ultimate analysis, that has the responsibility for meeting obligations under the great International Covenants we have ratified. It is the National Government which must give the lead, must always be there when the oppressed cry for help and justice. In the United States of America with which we share a federal system of government there are agencies at federal, state and local government level to combat racial discrimination, all operating at the one level as the need requires. In my work there I found nothing but a desirable overlap, a smooth functioning of the three in tandem. If in Australia the national government was to abandon its direct involvement with the people in every State and Territory, then I believe it would be failing in its international obligations and ignoring the lessons of the seven pioneering years of the national legislation. There is a need for a national awareness campaign to expose and tackle the racist attitudes which are undergoing a current revival. When one Australian turns to another in the factory, the office, the bar, the club, the school or even in church and says 'I hate Abos, Poms, Wogs, Asians, Jews, or Boongs' there should be a clear reply: 'You are no good for Australia, mate. Get lost and clean up your act'. I believe the arm of tolerance is big enough, and it is still growing, to see the extirpation of oppression, injustice and public bigotry from our land before the year 2000. That, ladies and gentlemen, on this Eureka Day in 1983 is my hope and conviction. Thank you very much. -16- THE EUREKA STAND: AN ABORIGINAL VIEW by Mr. Neville Bonner I am honoured to be here today at the 9th Annual Lalor Address and to have the opportunity to trace some of the history of this great country of ours. Some wise person once said 'History to a nation is as memory to man'. I want to attempt today to portray the circumstances which prevailed in earlier times in this country and which have prevailed in contemporary times, and which, I believe, will prevail for some time yet to come. First, the short history lesson. Quite probably the earliest white men to set foot on the Australian mainland were Dutch sailors. They found their way into the Gulf of Carpentaria on their sailing vessel, 'Duyfken', some time in 1606 arriving from the west. Shortly after, a Spanish vessel named 'El Moranta' a small ship of 120 tons sailed from the New Hebrides to the Philippines with a route designed to pass to the south of New Guinea. The commander of this vessel may have passed quite close to Cape York through the shoals and currents of a passage which were mapped 180 years later, and named by the British Admiralty, the 'Torres Strait'. Dutch seafarers may lay claim to being the first Europeans to chart any part of the Australian coastline. Their charting, however, was coincidental to the main reason for being in those latitudes which was their trading voyages between the Netherlands and the East Indies. -17- But the most famous navigator of all, Captain James Cook, was the first explorer to discover and chart - I use those words with tongue in cheek - the coast of Australia in an age of fragile wooden ships. He sailed across and through more kilometres of uncharted waters and seas and traced more leagues of unknown coasts and land masses than anyone else. On August 26th, 1768 Captain Cook departed England in the Whitby collier 'Endeavour', a 368-tonne vessel bound for history - world history, English history, Australian history, and perhaps sadly, Aboriginal history. He anchored in Botany Bay on April 30th, 1770 after a visit to Tahiti to observe the transit of Venus. Captain Cook proposed Botany Bay as a site for settlement and in 1787 the First Fleet sailed from England to colonise Australia. Quite obviously the oppression of human relationships between black and white within Australia began at the same time. The settlement of Australia by white Europeans commenced and continued without any regard for the indigenous people, neither their immediate welfare, nor their future. For all intents and purposes, the original owners of this land, the Aborigines, were a conquered people, without the decency and formality of a declared war. At least people at war - formal war, that is - would know that if they lost it would be unpleasant. But in this case, we, the Aboriginal nation were conquered, treated in an unpleasant manner and were to be strangers in our own land without any declaration of war. I believe that with the coming of the white settlers a great bitterness arose within the Aboriginal race who were directly or indirectly affected by the confiscation of tribal lands for farming, settlements, towns and properties. This was a difficult time because neither the white nor the black understood the ways of the other. It is clear -18- that the confiscation of tribal lands led to many other situations which fueled the emotional distrust prevailing on both sides. It is recorded that an Aboriginal leader, named Dalaipi said, 'Before the white fellow came, we wore no dress and felt no shame, and we were all free and happy. There was plenty of food to eat and it was a pleasure to hunt for this food. Then when the white man came amongst us we were hunted from our grounds, shot, poisoned and our daughters and sisters and wives were taken. Could you blame us if we killed the white man? If we had done the same to them, would they not have murdered us?' This indictment was spoken to a pioneer son, called Tom Petrie, of Queensland fame; and it is further recorded that Tom Petrie replied that the blackfellows killed many whites who never did them any harm. To this Dalaipi answered 'If a man in one tribe kills someone of a second tribe, the first person in the first tribe that the other comes across is killed for revenge. This is our law. A lot of my people were killed by the police. Many were also poisoned. We were also taught to drink, smoke, swear and steal'. Petrie interrupted 'No, no, not steal'. 'Yes', Dalaipi said 'To steal. Did they not steal our land where we used to hunt for food?'. Clearly the relationship between black and white was founded on a lack of communication - lack of knowledge of each other's culture and a contemptuous disregard for fundamental conditions at the very first exposure. It is a sad reflection on us all that after all this time our disregard for knowledge of each other is still apparent, because out of this disregard of one for the other comes a most horrendous lack of respect for all. Thus this unfortunate and unhappy start to our country's beginning in 1788, that is the Australia of contemporary history. It is obvious that the early white settlers took it for granted that the black people of Australia were something to be disregarded. -19- Just as easily as clearing scrub and trees from an area of land to be used, so these newcomers would also clear aside the Aboriginal people one way or the other. In this manner the early links of mistrust, hatred and ignorance were forged between black and white. Throughout its early contemporary history Australia had a series of adventurous explorers, each one having a place within the white man's history books for having 'discovered' many parts of the Australian continent which I find rather strange because Australia was here all the time! Even in the early days of white man's exploration, the times which I described briefly in this address, Australia the land was here all the time. So were my people - my ancestors. They lived here, developing the culture and traditions that stood and still stand for 40,000 years. My ancestors developed a culture based upon the land. We had and still have an affinity with the land which is to most - perhaps to all white people - impossible to comprehend. To understand it is to live it. We have traditionally viewed the land as sacred. Our ancestors dwell in each and every tree, rock and dreaming place. Prior to the white presence my ancestors considered that the land was sacred. It was to be used by everyone for the benefit of everyone and was to be owned only in the sense that it was held in trust. We passed it along to the next generation unsullied, undamaged for that generation ad infinitum. And so, as said by Dalaipi, the tribal elder, it was a simple lesson - the land was taken by the white people from the black people, without deference to them by the white people. What a lesson, what a bitter lesson on how to steal. During this early period in black and white relations, the ruling white legislators divided the land and handed it out in great unconditional quantities to the settlers, without a second thought for the black people already in residence. This -20- very act meant that the land as we, the Aborigines, knew it was doomed. It was destined to be destroyed by the manner in which the newcomer had practised for years in a European environment. It was to be fenced, farmed, wired and cleared; the natural habitat, untold and unseen flora and fauna gone forever. This desecration of the land went hand in hand with a psychological desecration of the black people. In other times and places the formation of British colonies included negotiations for a treaty, or settlement with the indigenous people, recognising and establishing that they had prior sovereign status and due rights, including an inherent right to land. Wherever occupation of countries occurred, signed treaties were entered into, with, for example, the North American Indians, the New Zealand Maoris and the Papuans. All these people signed treaties with the British colonial governments which guaranteed their rights legally. This has never materialised within this country. Europeans were virtually left to their own ingenuity to deal with the indigenes in whatever way was deemed to be the best, or most appropriate, according to European standards and values. In the majority of cases they were supported by the Government and tragically - and I mean 'tragically' - by some churches in their treatment and disruption of my ancestors' way of life. The land was taken away from my people and never returned to this day except in certain isolated cases which have only occurred in quite recent times. In the early 1800s, various expeditions discovered facets of Australia which were already known to the Aboriginal people, and which resulted in further and further exploitation of not only the land but also of the indigenous people. In 1818, after land hungry colonists had breached the Blue Mountains area Governor Macquarie commissioned John Oxley to explore the land to the west in his capacity as -21- Surveyor-General. He set out with his deputy, George Evans, of Macquarie River fame - Evans had discovered the river when first making the breach of the Blue Mountains in 1813. Oxley succeeded to the extent that more land was discovered which he called Liverpool Plains, a rich panorama abounding with kangaroos and emus. Again the indigenous people were not consulted or considered but completely ignored. Throughout the early 1800s the usurpation of the natural habitats of my people was practised. The newcomers systematically set out to eliminate any organised opposition in their quest to possess the land and to dispose of my ancestors. Responsibility for this shameful act must surely rest with the politicians, landowners and the military police who publicly advocated this philosophy and indeed perpetrated themselves many of the more vicious and cruel acts of the conquerors over the conquered. My ancestors had no hope of holding back this inevitable advance, this huge locust-like plague that consumed all our possessions, even threatening to consume the people themselves. I think it is true to say that conditions have not really changed today in the sense that we, black or white, are still in the great majority of instances ignorant of each other. This, I believe, is a real tragedy. For think what we could have accomplished together - the ability of the white Australian and the potential of the black Australian. One wonders what we could accomplish now. Like another black man in history, I too, still have a dream. And so we progress to more contemporary and yet sadder times for us, the Australian Aborigines. We meet here today to commemorate an event which has no meaning to the Aboriginal nation. Yes, I certainly agree that Peter Lalor was a great person in the pursuit of liberty and the righting of wrongs. -22- But to me and my pursuit of liberty, Peter Lalor is really of little consequence. And I speak for practical purposes, for who has risen to champion the cause of the Aboriginal nation and its pursuit of liberty? No one. No government and certainly not in the manner of Peter Lalor at Eureka. It is obvious that negotiation is the better way to resolve differences, but how long must we wait? Our young Aboriginal men get restless and frustrated and tired and angry; and in their frustration and hot anger they turn to violence and alcohol. As Brian Siren, an Aboriginal actor recently commented, dependence on alcohol reflects the psychological castration of the Aborigine because he drinks to bury his pain. Many of my Aboriginal colleagues and indeed, white colleagues, are searching for a solution. Many say the commencement of the various final acts have already begun. The 1967 referendum went some way to restoring the balance. The motion that I moved in the Senate in 1975 regarding compensation for dispossession of the land and the acknowledgement that the Aboriginal nation was the prior owner of this country was also a great step. My forbears had a practical and quite deliberate lifestyle and technology. Unlike many indigenous people of other places, such as the Maoris or the American Indians, my people did not practise agriculture. We were hunter-gatherers. We were organised into groups and bands, moving within clearly defined areas and boundaries. We did not wish to practise the sedentary village culture which is dependent upon farming and animal farming. We preferred movement because it was environmentally desirable. So in effect we rotated ourselves not the land. -23- This lifestyle practice was unintelligible to the European newcomers who saw my ancestors as people wandering aimlessly and not using the land in the sense of farming and fencing. This view supported their action of displacing us because we were nomads not living on a block of land, not putting up fences, not individually owning and not using an agreed system of rights and obligations which consider land only in the legal and economic sense. The lifestyle of my ancestors left them poorly equipped indeed to enter into demarcation, or indeed, to defend themselves in their homelands against the superior forces of European settlers, or against the aggressiveness of the land gatherers among them. The local groups and tribes were dispossessed and by the very nature of the Aboriginal social organisation and tribal structure they could not unify and therefore oppose the invasion. Consequently, in the absence of an overall leader, the British colonists saw no authority with whom to negotiate and subsequently the dispossession of my people continued with outrageous ferocity, aided and abetted, it would seem, by authority. When the British colonised New Zealand the officer-in-charge, one William Hobson, received explicit instructions to negotiate a settlement with the Maori people guaranteeing their rights. The Treaty of Waitangi signed in 1840 gave property rights to the Maoris which could not be taken away without consent or without payment. So, even though the Maoris ceded sovereignty to the British Crown within that Treaty they retained their land rights. No such explicit instruction was issued to the early colonial administration of the Australian colony, so it seems that for the purposes of British sovereignty the people of this continent at that time had no rights at all. -24- Therefore in the absence of such restrictions the newcomers with the support of the law exercised life and death over the indigenes. In common with other British settlements my ancestors resisted colonisation as best they could. They tried to organise tribal resistance across the continent to oppose the pastoral expansion practised by the settlers, bearing in mind that their livelihood and very existence was threatened by the ecological degradation and the total incompatibility of sharing their land and waters with grazing animals. They reacted in the only manner in which they could. They struck at the squatters' economy, at their base, the stock, sheep and cattle, and their supplies. At times, I would say, there was some attempt by the Aboriginal people to withstand what they saw as an invasion. The paradox and irony of the situation is such that had the British Army been involved in the protection of the rights of the settlers, several military campaigns organised by the indigenous tribes may well have been recognised as such. But in the absence of those explicit instructions at the very commencement of the Colonisation Act, the indigenes did not exist as real entities capable of recognition by the Europeans. The colonial government believed that the Aborigines had no form of government and therefore no leaders, that they did not bear any legality and therefore no communication was necessary. The total fallacy of these early assumptions is now well established. My ancestors had occupied the whole of Australia under a system of land ownership with clear rules of occupancy and inheritance, an ecological balance, unequalled, I believe, even by today's standards. We had a clear set of laws, consensus government, and a society in which religious and mythological beliefs and love of the land were bound up within the whole of our culture. -25- As evidenced by the Eureka Stockade incident, the colonial Government was stretched to its limit in accommodating the change from penal colony to squatters' boom to gold boom. It was extremely hard-pressed to police the frontier conflicts. The settlers, in their rush to acquire new land took the law into their own hands and, in the face of opposition and retaliation, also chose to take their own protection into their own hands. The very structure of British society, which had conceived the cruel penal system in Australia, and the very brutality of the society directed to convicts was now transferred to the Aborigines who were seen to be the lowest class of society, the lowest class in the hierarchy. The New South Wales Supreme Court held in 1836 that Aborigines were deemed to have no laws of their own and should be subject to the same criminal laws of the settlers. In 1849, however, the New South Wales Court held that Aborigines should not be allowed to give evidence in criminal cases and argued that the best policy would be to let the blacks and settlers fight it out between themselves. It went on to make the most damning statement of its policy. It said 'It is not the policy of wise government to attempt a perpetuation of the Aboriginal race'. Let us apply a little relativity to that statement and imagine that the Victorian Legislative Council had said 'It is not the policy of wise government to attempt the perpetuation of gold miners'. The reaction of Peter Lalor and his workmates would have been interesting to behold. After all, he led what was called an insurrection over the imposition of mining licences costing a few dollars. One wonders at his reaction if he had been subjected to the injustices and indignities his black Australian colleagues were suffering, had suffered, and in some instances are still suffering! -26- So we come to more recent times and it may well be better to disregard the early part of the 1900s because the situation had not really altered radically. We were still without recognition of any description, the reserves filled with my people confined by various authorities. Many and varied government quangos and religious groups sent thousands of my people into these virtual ghettos supposedly for their betterment and welfare. It is interesting to note that at no time were my ancestors consulted by others to find out what they thought, wanted or needed, or indeed, what they thought they might want or need. It is also interesting to explore the legal aspects of the situation as seen by judges - with all due respect - and the rulings that they have made and the criteria on which they have based their judgments. During an early court case dealing with the Aboriginal Land Rights Northern Territory Act, 1976, argument took place over some assumptions including the question of Britain's claim to sovereignty over Australia. Justice Blackburn stated that the acquisition of the Territory by the Crown fell into two distinct classes: conquered or ceded territory, and settled or occupied territory. He said in his opinion there was no doubt that Australia came into the category of the latter - a settled or occupied territory. As a result of this comment it was subsequently argued that if Australia was acquired by peaceful settlement then the Aborigines were British subjects protected by common law with the rights and protections afforded to the new settlers, and that the expropriation of lands subject to customary tenure has been and still is in contradiction to common law. It was suggested further that the judgment could have also found that the spiritual nature of the system of tenure could be afforded proprietary status by the doctrine of communal native titles. I would argue along with my dead ancestors, and I would suggest, every Aborigine past and present, that, based -27- upon historical evidence, we the Aboriginal nation were conquered, that Australia, our land, was invaded, not settled, as is claimed. From the very first landing in Botany Bay in 1788 to the frontier of violence of the 1920s in the remote north and the centre of this land, we have disputed, resisted and fought against the forcible invasion of our land and I feel, no, I assert, that the battle is not yet over. One final point raised by these legal considerations makes a mockery of legal precedence in the court's consideration of land rights and their view that the Aborigines are British subjects, under the protection of common law. I refer to the very foundation of British sovereignty whereby Australia was considered terra nulla, the classical legal jargon for land belonging to no one. Indeed, this constitutional doctrine makes dispossession of our land legal. In September 1974 and February 1975 Paul Coe of the Aboriginal Legal Service of New South Wales challenged this concept and in an attempt to alter the doctrine, sought to have Aboriginal land ownership recognised in the Northern Territory. In 1979 the High Court of Australia finally found that the contention that there is in Australia an Aboriginal nation exercising sovereignty, even of a limited kind, is impossible to maintain in law and that the annexation of Australia could not be challenged. Mr Justice Gibbs put forth the main reason for this judgment as: 'It is fundamental to our legal system that the Australian colonies became British possessions by settlement and not by conquest'. The fundamental issue at stake here and for the future, as for the past, is that in discussion of the land rights of the Aboriginal nation it has been convenient for legal argument to base its opposition on the premise that Australia was a land belonging to no one. This of course is absolute and total -28- nonsense. We, the Aboriginal nation resided here for considerable years - and I think 40,000 could be classified as considerable - before the Europeans started to discover us. My God, we were never lost! Control over our land is the basic prerequisite for our recovery and survival and a commencing point for our restoration to pride, national interest and self-determination. It also embraces the social and cultural aspects of our national pride together with the important issue of political control. I see land rights as an opportunity to compensate not only for past injustices and inequities but also as a means of establishing and regulating the future, and re-establishing the place of my people within Australian society with other Australians. Our white colleagues and brothers, where are you? A community with such a foundation would ensure for my people a relationship with all Australians based upon pride and equal opportunity which would give my people the prospect of advancing their social and economic status. I mentioned earlier that the Senate accepted unanimously my motion of March 1975. I believe it is worth relating again today. I said: 'That the Senate accept the fact that the indigenous people of Australia, now known as Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders, were in possession of this entire nation prior to the 1788 First Fleet landing at Botany Bay, and urges the Australian Government to admit prior ownership by the said indigenous people, and introduce legislation to compensate the people now known as Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders for dispossession of their land'. -29- I move that the Government of Australia and the people of Australia grant that this acceptance by the Senate be accepted by the people of Australia, and I further move that within the concept and ideals of human rights we the Aboriginal nation have, if nothing else, purpose of life, purpose of motivation, and above all others, pride - pride of our place, our rightful place of equality in this great nation that now belongs to you and I together. Thank you. -30- HUMAN RIGHTS DIPLOMACY by Ms. Pera Wells It gives me great pleasure to be here today, especially to share the platform with two very distinguished speakers. I feel that, having listened to their fascinating comments on the Aboriginal situation in Australia and Mr Grassby's vast experience on community relations, it may seem incongruous to hear about what human rights diplomacy is. What do diplomats really know about human rights? Aren't they, by professional inclination, all too preoccupied with preserving the higher realms of protocol to know anything much about the real world of human struggle and suffering? One of my favourite Molnar cartoons parodies this point. It portrays a pair of presumably European delegates huddled in a corner at the Madrid Conference on Human Rights. They are being observed by an evidently satisfied Russian. And the one clutching the arm of the other is admitting: 'There are some procedural difficulties. There is a disagreement on who is human'. The delight of this cartoon is its ironic insight into the fact that human rights issues certainly are now on the international agenda of diplomatic exchanges, but that they are very difficult issues to deal with. This is so because much of the very vitality of human rights concepts reflects past failures of diplomacy. -31- The origin of human rights concepts has nothing to do with diplomacy. Indeed, it could be said that these ideas have gained momentum through the development of secular populist movements which have, particularly since the 17th century, been sustained by the growing recognition of ordinary people that they need not suffer the oppression and injustice of the arbitrary exercise of political power. Diplomacy has traditionally been concerned, not with the problem of how to redress the realities of human suffering, but with the conduct of international relations, that is, relations between sovereign states. It has been considered inappropriate for diplomatic discourse to accommodate questions about seemingly inhumane aspects of a government's domestic activities. And certainly diplomats were not expected to recommend that a relationship with a foreign government be suspended because it was engaged in systematic and flagrant human rights violations. That diplomats were professionally obliged to wear blinkers, like horses harnessed to a cart, obviously restricted their flexibility in negotiations and their ability to resolve conflicts over vital national interests. This may not have mattered very much to the European states that, during the 18th and 19th centuries, were building vast colonial empires throughout the world, confident that they were historically ordained to carry forward the subjugation of peoples in the interest of advancing their ideas of human civilization. It seems unlikely that the diplomatic community in London would have made strong representations protesting the English decision to despatch, in 1788, a fleet with a cargo of convicts to set up a penal colony in a remote vast island -32- continent. Nor would concern have been expressed about violent contempt for the indigenous peoples, nor about the early settlement becoming a paradigm of an oppressive society. And this, despite the fact that 1788 was just after the American Declaration of Independence and but one year before the French Revolution was launched with its inspired catch cry: Liberty, Equality, Fraternity. The process of historical change in the 20th century revealed that the traditional diplomatic procedures for conducting interstate relations were inadequate to the task of resolving conflicts over vital national interests. The causes for this change are complex. But there is no doubt that one cause resides in the unanswerable question: if the systematic victimisation of the Jewish people in Nazi Germany had been firmly confronted by other European governments, would Hitler have been deterred from his extravagant ambitions? Not to know the answer is no reason for not asking the question, nor to believe that these sorts of questions should not become an integral part of diplomatic discourse. In establishing the United Nations in the aftermath of the Second World War, diplomatic blinkers were discarded. Article I of the United Nations Charter established that one of the purposes of the United Nations is to 'achieve international co-operation in promoting and encouraging respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms for all, without distinction as to race, sex, language or religion'. Further references to human rights are expressed in Articles 55 and 56 but there is now much more besides the Charter. -33- Diplomatic representatives met shortly after the Charter was adopted to begin drafting the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. They have been meeting ever since to discuss, and negotiate issues of human rights. The Declaration, adopted in 1948, was followed some 20 years later by the Covenants on Civil, Political, Economic, Social and Cultural Rights that now give legal status to the rights set out in the Declaration. These instruments together have not only set human rights standards to which all member states of the international community should aspire; they also contain the basic concepts which inform much of diplomatic discourse. The additional adoption of many other international legal instruments on human rights, covering race discrimination, the rights of women, and the rights of many minority groups, such as the disabled, has meant the United Nations and other organizations, notably the ILO, have evolved a very important framework for sustaining human rights issues on the international agenda. Diplomats have been actively engaged in the drafting of these instruments and in securing their status. But equally important, diplomats have been increasingly preoccupied with the problem of establishing procedures for dealing with evidence of continuing human rights violations. The traditional role of diplomacy remains. It is to seek to resolve the conflicts and tensions between nation states which threaten the fragile structures of the international community that are essential to the maintenance of peace. The structures themselves are not immutable, but the process of changing them should best be through negotiation, not through armed combat. -34- Many of the most profound sources of tension in the world today are, however, now clearly perceived to have a human rights dimension. If more effective procedures for responding to human rights violations could be implemented, would we not be moving in the right direction towards resolving these conflicts? The question may be well put; but such is the world-wide evidence of continuing torture, starvation, racism, political imprisonments and disappearances, are diplomats seriously committed to strengthening procedures for dealing with human rights violations? Are they still blinkered, simply playing conceptual games with these issues without really addressing the stark realities? There are several observations I should like to make. First, let us remember Molnar's cartoon. Human rights issues are difficult to deal with internationally because they inevitably raise matters of very real political sensitivity. In portraying the stumbling block as being disagreement about 'who is human' Molnar is highlighting profound ideological differences. These differences cannot be resolved with simple-minded rhetoric, but only through rigorous debate about the very basic issues at stake. Imperfect as it may be, the conceptual framework of human rights provides parameters for this debate, perhaps more so in a European context than in relation to the complex cultural diversity of Africa, Asia, Latin America and the Middle East. Second, the United Nations is an inter-governmental body, typical of the forums of diplomatic exchanges, and indeed the most comprehensive. There are formal constraints in an inter-governmental setting on what can be achieved, constraints which are however being progressively lessened. There is significance in the increasing effectiveness of non-governmental organisations, such as Amnesty International, in influencing the international climate of opinion on human rights issues. A good -35- advance lies in the development of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights's procedures for dealing with communications on human rights violations. Third, the United Nations often performs a role not unlike that of the Party in Opposition in a two-party democracy. Certainly the Ambassadors accredited to the United Nations represent the interests of their governments, but the collective decisions arrived at by United Nations bodies usually cannot, in the area of human rights, be actually implemented by the United Nations Organisation. Co-operation of governments can be sought, moral pressure can be brought to bear and there is the final possibility that those governments which are seriously alleged to be violating human rights will cease to enjoy international credibility - with all the domestic consequences that may entail. Fourth, it is often suggested that the United Nations is ineffectual because the decision-making process is premised on one member state, one vote. How can Togo's vote have the same weight as the United States? And is not the United Nations increasingly out of touch with global political realities and even distorting the real meaning of human rights because of the ever-growing collective weight of Third World countries? This criticism is not only short-sighted, but misses the point implicit in Article I of the Charter. If member states of the United Nations are to strive seriously for the progressive realisation of higher standards of human rights, then their co-operation should be firmly based on democratic principles. Fifth, as we in Australia are aware, human rights concepts are not static abstractions from reality, but reflect the unending search of people, often of very different ethnic, cultural and religious beliefs, to define values they may share in common, and to learn respect for values they may not share, -36- but seek to accommodate. Insofar as diplomacy is a politically guided expression of this search, discussion about human rights can in itself influence perceptions of reality and hold the potential of gradually loosening the barriers to understanding. Australian diplomatic activity, particularly at the United Nations, has maintained a vigorous interest in the promotion of human rights. That successive governments have and are committed to doing so, reflects not only the strength of domestic interest in human rights issues, but the high value we attach to our own democratic traditions and our development as one of the most ethnically diversified countries in the world. Today we commemorate the debt we owe to those who manned the Eureka Stockade in December 1854. The cause they championed was the basic political right of people to influence the decisions that directly affect their lives. They heralded the determination of Australians to secure representative democratic institutions; it is not insignificant that Peter Lalor, who raised the banner of the Southern Cross over the Stockade, later became a member of the Victorian Parliament. His latter-day contemporaries might be Lech Walesa in Poland or the leader of a successionist movement - maybe the Turkish Cypriot, Denktash. Let me conclude with the hope that they, the many millions of unnamed people and individuals struggling for human rights may gain the long term victory that was Peter Lalor's. Printed be Canberra Publishing and Printing Co. IJcdeʸxjfXH:f/jhOhkXUh`MB*CJOJQJphhkX@B*CJOJQJphhkXB*CJOJQJphh`Mh`MB*CJOJQJphhkXB*CJOJQJphh`M@B*CJOJQJphhkX@B*CJOJQJph"h`M5@B*CJOJQJph"hkX5@B*CJOJQJph"hkX5@B*CJOJQJph"h`M5@B*CJOJQJph"hkX5@B*CJOJQJphJde# < R   Hhdhda d^Hdh]H`$da$$a$ $dha$ $d$^a$8x^8! " xhZL>2hkXB*OJQJphhkX@B*OJQJphh`M@B*OJQJphhkX@B*OJQJphh`M>*@B*OJQJphhkX>*@B*OJQJphh`M@B*OJQJphhkX@B*OJQJphh`M>*B*OJQJphhkX>*B*OJQJphjhOhkXUh`Mh`M@B*CJOJQJphhkX@B*CJOJQJphhkX@B*CJOJQJph" # ; < Q R r s | }   * , - C D Q R x y õõõõseWõõéhkX@B*OJQJphh`M@B*OJQJphhkX@B*OJQJphh`M@B*OJQJphhkX@B*OJQJphh`MB*OJQJphhkXB*OJQJphh`M@B*OJQJphhkX@B*OJQJphh`M>*@B*OJQJphhkX>*@B*OJQJphh`M@B*OJQJph R s }  - D R y xPdf\]x^P    dl^ dld  x HH^ldD  l dH^H   = } 4 t ƶvhXH8(hkX@B*CJOJQJphhkX@B*CJOJQJphhkX@B*CJOJQJphh`M@B*CJOJQJphhkXB*CJOJQJphhkX@B*CJOJQJphhkX@B*CJOJQJphhkX@B*CJOJQJphh`M@B*CJOJQJphhkX@B*CJOJQJph%h`M5>*B*CJOJQJRHZphhkX@B*CJOJQJph%hkX5>*B*CJOJQJRHZphh`M  1B r88Hd5l]8^8`H8d3H]^88d3 ]^88d5D]`8 8d5``8 d^H8d.]H`8H8d3 ]H`8d3h]`H^H 0 m H:z7u6Ͽϯqa]qOqh`MB*CJOJQJphh`Mh`M@B*CJOJQJphhkXB*CJOJQJphhkX@B*CJOJQJphhkX@B*CJOJQJphh`M@B*CJOJQJphhkX@B*CJOJQJphhkX@B*CJOJQJphhkX@B*CJOJQJphhkX@B*CJOJQJphhkX@B*CJOJQJph6s(01dABp  <sϿq߿aQaCah`MB*CJOJQJphh`M@B*CJOJQJphhkX@B*CJOJQJphh`M@B*CJOJQJphhkX@B*CJOJQJphhkX@B*CJOJQJphh`M@B*CJOJQJphhkXB*CJOJQJphhkX@B*CJOJQJphhkX@B*CJOJQJphhkX@B*CJOJQJphhkX@B*CJOJQJphs#a[!^Ͽo_[M?h`MB*CJOJQJphhkXB*CJOJQJphh`Mh`M@B*CJOJQJphhkX@B*CJOJQJphhkX@B*CJOJQJphhkX@B*CJOJQJphhkX@B*CJOJQJphh`M@B*CJOJQJphhkX@B*CJOJQJphhkX@B*CJOJQJphh`M@B*CJOJQJphhkX@B*CJOJQJphK ;%&*#;%<%|| 8d3D`8 8d. `8 hd5]h d^HHd.H]H^H d  ^H8d0]^H`8HH8d3`]H^H`8 $da$ 8d0`8^XR FJKw ߯ϟo_O?_hkX@B*CJOJQJphhkX@B*CJOJQJphhkX@B*CJOJQJphhkX@B*CJOJQJphh`M@B*CJOJQJphhkX@B*CJOJQJphhkX@B*CJOJQJphhkX@B*CJOJQJphhkX@B*CJOJQJphhkX@B*CJOJQJphhkX@B*CJOJQJphhkX@B*CJOJQJph  :;|/o$%&)*dϿߡߑqm]M=߱hkX@B*CJOJQJphh`M5B*CJOJQJphhkX5B*CJOJQJphh`Mh`M@B*CJOJQJphhkX@B*CJOJQJphhkX@B*CJOJQJphhkX@B*CJOJQJphhkXB*CJOJQJphhkX@B*CJOJQJphh`M@B*CJOJQJphhkX@B*CJOJQJphh`M@B*CJOJQJph_ ] !P!!!"N""" ######=${$$Ͽϑqa߿q߁Qqh`M@B*CJOJQJphhkX@B*CJOJQJphhkX@B*CJOJQJphhkX@B*CJOJQJphhkX@B*CJOJQJphhkX@B*CJOJQJphhkXB*CJOJQJphhkX@B*CJOJQJphhkX@B*CJOJQJphhkX@B*CJOJQJphh`M@B*CJOJQJph$$:%;%<%?%@%v%%$&b&&&'''''˿{m_QCh`MB*CJOJQJphhkXB*CJOJQJphh`M@B*OJQJphhkX@B*OJQJphhkX@B*OJQJphhkX@B*OJQJphhkX@B*OJQJphhkX@B*OJQJphh`MB*OJQJphhkXB*OJQJphh`Mh`M@B*CJOJQJphhkX@B*CJOJQJphhkX@B*CJOJQJph<%@%'''"'%'A'I()+,,xH8d8 ]^H`8HH8d3D]H^H`8HH8d3 ]H^H`8HH8d5]H^H`8H h^H h^H ^H Xd^X 8d$``8 dd^ '!'"'$'%'@'A'y'''7(H(I((((ǹyiYI9)hkX@B*CJOJQJphh`M@B*CJOJQJphhkX@B*CJOJQJphhkX@B*CJOJQJphhkX@B*CJOJQJphhkX@B*CJOJQJphhkX@B*CJOJQJphh`M@B*CJOJQJphhkX@B*CJOJQJphh`MB*CJOJQJphhkXB*CJOJQJph)h`M5>*@B*CJOJQJRHZph)hkX5>*@B*CJOJQJRHZph(:){)))) *I*** +D+++++ ,H,,,,Ͽo_O?;h`Mh`M@B*CJOJQJphhkX@B*CJOJQJphh`M@B*CJOJQJphhkX@B*CJOJQJphhkX@B*CJOJQJphhkX@B*CJOJQJphhkX@B*CJOJQJphh`M@B*CJOJQJphhkX@B*CJOJQJphhkX@B*CJOJQJphhkX@B*CJOJQJphhkX@B*CJOJQJph,,,,-y---%.f....7/x////H0001@1|11+2j2˽ٯˡwi[iMihkX@B*OJQJphhkX@B*OJQJphhkX@B*OJQJphh`M@B*OJQJphhkX@B*OJQJphhkX@B*OJQJphh`M@B*OJQJphhkX@B*OJQJphhkX@B*OJQJphhkX@B*OJQJphhkX@B*OJQJphh`MB*OJQJphhkXB*OJQJph,,./ 3333568:;;;@;~t $dda$HH8d8 ]H^H`8HH8d3 ]H^H`8H8d5`]^H`8 Xd^X8d$ ]`8H8d'D]H`8 8d'D`8d$` d^ j222 3 3A3}3333333?444425m55555㫝}m]M]mM]=]mh`M@B*CJOJQJphhkX@B*CJOJQJphhkX@B*CJOJQJphhkX@B*CJOJQJphh`MB*CJOJQJphhkXB*CJOJQJphh`Mh`M@B*OJQJphhkX@B*OJQJphhkX@B*OJQJphh`M@B*OJQJphhkX@B*OJQJphhkX@B*OJQJphhkX@B*OJQJph5?6y666777 888Q888 9H999:@::9;:;;;ϿscScSC?h`Mh`M@B*CJOJQJphhkX@B*CJOJQJphhkX@B*CJOJQJphh`MB*CJOJQJphhkX@B*CJOJQJphhkX@B*CJOJQJphhkX@B*CJOJQJphhkXB*CJOJQJphh`M@B*CJOJQJphhkX@B*CJOJQJphhkX@B*CJOJQJphhkX@B*CJOJQJph;;?;@;;;;9<<<=?=y====$>>>>ϿƏo尿?_/kB*䴳ϴkB*䴳ϴB*䴳ϴkB*䴳ϴkB*䴳ϴB*䴳ϴkB*䴳ϴkB*䴳ϴkB*䴳ϴkB*䴳ϴkB*䴳ϴB*䴳ϴkB*䴳ϴ;<=?:AAAA5DDE^Gzo`8d"D]`8 8d$ `8 8d'D`8 8d"`8 $da$Hd0]^H`hH8d3 ]h^H`8  H8d3 ]^H`8HH8d3D]H^H`8HHHd.`]H^H`H >>?T????@?@|@@@'A9A:AlAAAAAAϿqaQA=h`Mh`M@B*CJOJQJphhkX@B*CJOJQJphh`M@B*CJOJQJphhkX@B*CJOJQJphhkXB*CJOJQJphhkX@B*CJOJQJphhkX@B*CJOJQJphh`M@B*CJOJQJphhkX@B*CJOJQJphhkX@B*CJOJQJphhkX@B*CJOJQJphhkX@B*CJOJQJphAAAA/BmBBB*CgCCC$D4D5DmDDDDD&Eõ}oaSõGS9hkX@B*OJQJphhkXB*OJQJphh`M@B*OJQJphhkX@B*OJQJphhkX@B*OJQJphhkX@B*OJQJphhkX@B*OJQJphhkX@B*OJQJphhkX@B*OJQJphhkX@B*OJQJphhkX@B*OJQJphh`MB*CJOJQJRHphhkXB*CJOJQJphhkXB*CJOJQJRHph&EdEEEEE#FaFFFGSG]G^GGG HJHHHHHIAIJIǹǹso_O_AhkXB*CJOJQJphhkX@B*CJOJQJphhkX@B*CJOJQJphh`MhkX@B*OJQJphhkX@B*OJQJphhkX@B*OJQJphhkX@B*OJQJphhkX@B*OJQJphhkX@B*OJQJphh`M@B*OJQJphhkX@B*OJQJphhkX@B*OJQJphhkX@B*OJQJph^GHHKIJKLNNNPAQRw8d$]`8d,HH8d"`]H`8 $dda$Hd.H]^HH8d. ]^H`8H8d3D]^H`8HH8d0T]H^H`8H8d"]H`8 JIKIIII0JnJJJJJ=KzKKKKLL]LLLMYMMMN߿ϟߏo_ϯoOhkX@B*CJOJQJphh`M@B*CJOJQJphhkX@B*CJOJQJphhkX@B*CJOJQJphhkX@B*CJOJQJphh`M@B*CJOJQJphhkX@B*CJOJQJphhkX@B*CJOJQJphhkX@B*CJOJQJphhkX@B*CJOJQJphh`M@B*CJOJQJphNTNNNNNNNN#OOPWPPPPQ@QϿwi[wM?M1hkX@B*OJQJphh`M@B*OJQJphhkX@B*OJQJphhkX@B*OJQJphhkX@B*OJQJphhkX@B*OJQJphhkX@B*OJQJphh`MB*OJQJphhkXB*OJQJphh`Mh`M@B*CJOJQJphhkX@B*CJOJQJphhkX@B*CJOJQJphhkX@B*CJOJQJphhkX@B*CJOJQJph@QAQvQQRRRS>S|SSST T;TxTTTT!UUUUUUUV㻭㟑wwi[MIɅh`Mh`M@B*OJQJphhkX@B*OJQJphhkX@B*OJQJphhkX@B*OJQJphh`MB*OJQJphhkX@B*OJQJphhkX@B*OJQJphhkX@B*OJQJphhkX@B*OJQJphhkXB*OJQJphhkX@B*OJQJphhkX@B*OJQJphh`M@B*OJQJphR TTUUUWZ[&]']-]]t8d3`]^`8 $da$ d)] ` d'D`H8d' ]H`8 Hd$]H d^ 8d"] `88d'D]`88d" ]`8 VYVxVzVVWTWWWWWWW XIXXXYAY~YYY8ZsZZZZ㵣{m_mQ_m_mE{h`MB*OJQJphhkX@B*OJQJphhkX@B*OJQJphhkX@B*OJQJphhkXB*OJQJphh`M@B*OJQJphhkX@B*OJQJph#hkX@B*CJOJQJRHiphhkX@B*OJQJphhkX@B*OJQJph#hkX@B*CJOJQJRHiphhkX@B*OJQJphhkX@B*OJQJphZ [[[[[\J\\]%]&]'],]-]a]]]^S^^ǻ㭩}m]M=mhkX@B*CJOJQJphhkX@B*CJOJQJphh`M@B*CJOJQJphhkX@B*CJOJQJphhkX@B*CJOJQJphh`MB*CJOJQJphhkXB*CJOJQJphh`Mh`M@B*OJQJphh`MB*OJQJphhkX@B*OJQJphhkX@B*OJQJphhkX@B*OJQJphhkX@B*OJQJph]^B`Ta-bcccd'ffvg d'D] `8d'D]`8 d"`] d^d3]^`h8d5D]h^`8d3D]^`8d3 ]^`8$8d0D]^`8a$ ^^^_A_}___3`A`B`v```SaTaab,bϿߏoaQoAQhkX@B*CJOJQJphhkX@B*CJOJQJphhkXB*CJOJQJphh`M@B*CJOJQJphhkX@B*CJOJQJphhkX@B*CJOJQJphhkX@B*CJOJQJphhkX@B*CJOJQJphhkX@B*CJOJQJphhkX@B*CJOJQJphhkX@B*CJOJQJphh`M@B*CJOJQJph,b-bdbbbcRcccccccdQddϿok_SE7EhkX@B*OJQJphhkX@B*OJQJphh`MB*OJQJphhkXB*OJQJphh`Mh`M@B*CJOJQJphhkX@B*CJOJQJphhkX@B*CJOJQJphhkX@B*CJOJQJphhkX@B*CJOJQJphhkX@B*CJOJQJphhkX@B*CJOJQJphhkX@B*CJOJQJphh`M@B*CJOJQJphdde?e}eee&f'f]ffffg}gg;huhhhhh;iyiiǹ՝ՁǹǏseWIhkX@B*OJQJphh`M@B*OJQJphhkX@B*OJQJphhkX@B*OJQJphh`M@B*OJQJphhkX@B*OJQJphh`M@B*OJQJphhkX@B*OJQJphhkX@B*OJQJphhkX@B*OJQJphhkX@B*OJQJphhkX@B*OJQJphh`M@B*OJQJphfhi"j7k8k{kl,mmppptj $da$d3H]^$h8d3]h^`8a$h8d3]h^`8$8d3d]^`8a$$dna$ d'` @d'H]@$d)]`a$ Hd$H]H iii!j"jZjljpjjjk6k7k8k>kdkhkzk{kǹՉ{wiTiD6h`MB*CJOJQJphhkX@B*CJOJQJph)hkX5>*@B*CJOJQJRHZphhkXB*CJOJQJphh`Mh`M@B*OJQJphhkX@B*OJQJph&hkX6@B*CJOJQJRHsphhkX@B*OJQJphhkX@B*OJQJphh`M@B*OJQJphhkX@B*OJQJphhkX@B*OJQJphh`M@B*OJQJph{kkllHllll+m,m`mmmmnNnnn oϿqaQqA1hkX@B*CJOJQJphhkX@B*CJOJQJphhkX@B*CJOJQJphh`M@B*CJOJQJphhkX@B*CJOJQJphh`M@B*CJOJQJphhkX@B*CJOJQJphhkX@B*CJOJQJphhkXB*CJOJQJphhkX@B*CJOJQJphh`M@B*CJOJQJphhkX@B*CJOJQJphhkX@B*CJOJQJph oJoooGppppppppqq6rurrrs￯ugYuKYg=hkX@B*OJQJphhkX@B*OJQJphhkX@B*OJQJphhkX@B*OJQJphhkX@B*OJQJphh`MB*OJQJphhkXB*OJQJphh`Mh`M@B*CJOJQJphhkX@B*CJOJQJphhkX@B*CJOJQJphhkX@B*CJOJQJphhkX@B*CJOJQJphhkX@B*CJOJQJphpsctux xxx{z}qH8d) ]^H`8HH8d' ]H^H`8@Hd,`]@^H dd^HH8d$]H^H`8H8d$D]^H`8 H8d"D] ^H`8HHd$`]H^H` ss:sxss0tbtcttuOuuuuuvWvvv wKwwwxx xǹǫǏseWeIEh`Mh`M@B*OJQJphhkX@B*OJQJphhkX@B*OJQJphhkX@B*OJQJphhkX@B*OJQJphhkX@B*OJQJphhkX@B*OJQJphh`M@B*OJQJphhkX@B*OJQJphhkX@B*OJQJphhkX@B*OJQJphhkX@B*OJQJphh`M@B*OJQJph x xxFxxxxxyyy;zzz{zzz/{{#|_|||}^}}˽مwi[M?[[hkX@B*OJQJphhkX@B*OJQJphhkX@B*OJQJphh`M@B*OJQJphhkX@B*OJQJphhkX@B*OJQJphhkX@B*OJQJphhkX@B*OJQJphh`M@B*OJQJphhkX@B*OJQJphhkX@B*OJQJphhkX@B*OJQJphh`MB*OJQJphhkXB*OJQJph}}}~I~~~~8w7rĀŀueǹǫ񝙉ykǫk]OիhkX@B*OJQJphh`M@B*OJQJphhkX@B*OJQJphh`M@B*CJOJQJphhkX@B*CJOJQJphh`Mh`M@B*OJQJphhkX@B*OJQJphhkX@B*OJQJphhkX@B*OJQJphhkX@B*OJQJphh`M@B*OJQJphhkX@B*OJQJphŀSFGL9nHH8d' ]H^H`8 HHd'`]H^H $da$ H8d' ] ^H`8 Hd$]^HhH8d$D]h^H`8Hd"D]^H`d ]^ $da$ e/k'_܄\؅RSʆEFGǹǹseWǁ՝WIEh`Mh`M@B*OJQJphhkX@B*OJQJphhkX@B*OJQJphhkX@B*OJQJphhkX@B*OJQJphhkX@B*OJQJphhkX@B*OJQJphhkX@B*OJQJphhkX@B*OJQJphh`M@B*OJQJphhkX@B*OJQJphhkX@B*OJQJphhkX@B*OJQJphGKL̇ ňY؉RNJ:{;yٽwi[ٯM?مhkX@B*OJQJphhkX@B*OJQJphhkX@B*OJQJphhkX@B*OJQJphhkX@B*OJQJphhkX@B*OJQJphh`M@B*OJQJphhkX@B*OJQJphhkX@B*OJQJphhkX@B*OJQJphhkX@B*OJQJphhkX@B*OJQJphh`MB*OJQJphhkXB*OJQJphy289l%]ɎʎˎώЎPƏ7fgɻ㭟・seWIh`M@B*OJQJphhkX@B*OJQJphhkX@B*OJQJphh`MB*OJQJphh`MhkX@B*OJQJphhkX@B*OJQJphhkX@B*OJQJphhkX@B*OJQJphh`M@B*OJQJphhkXB*OJQJphhkX@B*OJQJphhkX@B*OJQJphhkX@B*OJQJph9ʎˎЎgYmє%pHd`]H^ $da$H8d"]^H`8HHd H]H^HH8d"D]^H`8HH8d"D]H^H`8HHd"`]H^H $da$ H8d$ ] ^H`8 gӐSϑNXYƒ3lmДєGǹǫǃugg[չM?hkX@B*OJQJphh`M@B*OJQJphh`MB*OJQJphhkX@B*OJQJphhkX@B*OJQJphhkX@B*OJQJphhkXB*OJQJphh`M@B*OJQJphhkX@B*OJQJphhkX@B*OJQJphhkX@B*OJQJphhkX@B*OJQJphhkX@B*OJQJphhkX@B*OJQJph$%YӗJŘƘ0o+lwxӏ񝁫seWIh`M@B*OJQJphhkX@B*OJQJphhkX@B*OJQJphhkX@B*OJQJphhkX@B*OJQJphhkX@B*OJQJphh`M@B*OJQJphhkX@B*OJQJphhkX@B*OJQJphh`MB*OJQJphhkXB*OJQJphh`Mh`M@B*OJQJphhkX@B*OJQJph%Ƙx^ ֦wdH8d"`]H^`8 $d@a$HH8d"]H^H`8HH8d$ ]H^H`8HH8d$]H^H`8 $da$ H8d  ] ^H`8Hd" ]H^`H8d"D]H^`8 `PL>-]^ԟ I ǻsseWWWsIhkX@B*OJQJphhkX@B*OJQJphh`M@B*OJQJphhkX@B*OJQJphh`MB*OJQJphh`Mh`M@B*OJQJphhkX@B*OJQJphhkX@B*OJQJphhkXB*OJQJphhkX@B*OJQJphhkX@B*OJQJphhkX@B*OJQJphhkX@B*OJQJph 6)f\_ߤɻ׃wsweWI;IhkX@B*OJQJphhkX@B*OJQJphhkX@B*OJQJphhkX@B*OJQJphh`Mh`MB*OJQJphhkX@B*OJQJphhkX@B*OJQJphhkX@B*OJQJphhkX@B*OJQJphhkX@B*OJQJphhkX@B*OJQJphhkX@B*OJQJphhkXB*OJQJphh`M@B*OJQJph\ܥզ֦M=|}-ldުչsesWSGhkXB*OJQJphh`Mh`M@B*OJQJphhkX@B*OJQJphhkX@B*OJQJphhkX@B*OJQJphhkX@B*OJQJphh`M@B*OJQJphhkX@B*OJQJphhkX@B*OJQJphh`M@B*OJQJphhkX@B*OJQJphhkX@B*OJQJphhkX@B*OJQJph֦}í:;@wwdHH8d$`]H^H`8 $dda$HH8d']H^H`8H8d'D]^H`8H8d$D]^H`8H8d"`]^H`8 $dda$H8d"]^H`8Hd h]H^` 0p#c߬Q­í6uk׻ɭ兑wi[iMhkX@B*OJQJphhkX@B*OJQJphhkX@B*OJQJphh`M@B*OJQJphhkXB*OJQJphhkX@B*OJQJphhkX@B*OJQJphhkX@B*OJQJphh`M@B*OJQJphhkX@B*OJQJphhkX@B*OJQJphhkX@B*OJQJphh`MB*OJQJph'fZձ9:;?@s*eٳWԴMvǹǏ}qeWWqI㹝hkX@B*OJQJphhkX@B*OJQJphh`MB*OJQJphhkXB*OJQJphh`Mh`M@B*OJQJphhkX@B*OJQJphhkX@B*OJQJphhkX@B*OJQJphhkX@B*OJQJphhkX@B*OJQJphhkX@B*OJQJphhkX@B*OJQJphh`M@B*OJQJphvw,i"b۷и۸ܸOϹ ǹՏիseW㹫IEh`Mh`M@B*OJQJphh`M@B*OJQJphhkX@B*OJQJphhkX@B*OJQJphhkX@B*OJQJphhkX@B*OJQJphhkX@B*OJQJphhkX@B*OJQJphhkX@B*OJQJphhkX@B*OJQJphhkX@B*OJQJphhkX@B*OJQJphh`M@B*OJQJphwܸ|5dej6\{lHd$`]^H $dda$HH8d' ]H^H`8HH8d$D]H^H`8HH8d$ ]H^H`8HHd"]H^H $da$HH8d'D]H^H`8H8d$D]^H`8 ǺAe߼[{|,l#޿4˽wiw[iwwwMhkX@B*OJQJphh`M@B*OJQJphhkX@B*OJQJphhkX@B*OJQJphh`M@B*OJQJphhkX@B*OJQJphhkX@B*OJQJphhkX@B*OJQJphhkX@B*OJQJphhkX@B*OJQJphhkX@B*OJQJphh`MB*OJQJphhkXB*OJQJph45m*cdeij56n*h#[ǹseeWIhkX@B*OJQJphhkX@B*OJQJphhkX@B*OJQJphhkX@B*OJQJphhkX@B*OJQJphh`MB*OJQJphhkXB*OJQJphh`Mh`M@B*OJQJphhkX@B*OJQJphhkX@B*OJQJphhkX@B*OJQJphhkX@B*OJQJphh`M@B*OJQJph[\ Lmn)a;,ǹ՝չǝՏ}oaQAhkX@B*OJQJRH_phhkX@B*OJQJRH_phh`MB*OJQJRH_phhkXB*OJQJRH_phh`Mh`M@B*OJQJphh`M@B*OJQJphhkX@B*OJQJphh`M@B*OJQJphhkX@B*OJQJphhkX@B*OJQJphhkX@B*OJQJphhkX@B*OJQJphh`M@B*OJQJph\nlrd"]^`8d"]^`8 $dda$8d$]^`8 d^H^Hd' ]H^H8d$D]^H`8HH8d'D]H^H`8 ,i!^/￯pbVH:hkX@B*OJQJphhkX@B*OJQJphh`MB*OJQJphhkX@B*OJQJph)hkX5>*@B*CJOJQJRH_ph3h^n}h^n}5>*@B*CJOJQJRH_aJphhkXB*OJQJphh`Mh`M@B*OJQJRH_phhkX@B*OJQJRH_phhkX@B*OJQJRH_phhkX@B*OJQJRH_phhkX@B*OJQJRH_ph/o_,g$dkl]չ㫝ugYgK=h`M@B*OJQJphhkX@B*OJQJphhkX@B*OJQJphhkX@B*OJQJphh`M@B*OJQJphhkXB*OJQJphhkX@B*OJQJphhkX@B*OJQJphh`M@B*OJQJphhkX@B*OJQJphhkX@B*OJQJphhkX@B*OJQJphhkX@B*OJQJphhkX@B*OJQJphlApKopuv d^hH8d"]h^H`8H8d" ]^H`8HHd$ ]H^H`H8d"D]^H`8H8d ]^H`8 $da$H8d  ]^H`8 (d@Av?op"JKȺtȐfXJȐJh`M@B*OJQJphhkX@B*OJQJphh`M@B*OJQJphhkX@B*OJQJphh`M@B*OJQJphhkX@B*OJQJphhkX@B*OJQJphhkX@B*OJQJphhkX@B*OJQJphhkX@B*OJQJphhkX@B*OJQJphh`MB*OJQJphhkXB*OJQJphh`M>x5noptu*g/g㹫ǙseWIhkX@B*OJQJphh`M@B*OJQJphhkX@B*OJQJphhkX@B*OJQJphh`MB*OJQJphhkXB*OJQJphh`MhkX@B*OJQJphhkX@B*OJQJphhkX@B*OJQJphh`M@B*OJQJphhkX@B*OJQJphhkX@B*OJQJphhkX@B*OJQJphu Jn[Hd$D]H^`Hd$ ]H^`8d$`]^`8 $dda$8d  ]^`88d$ ]^`8 8d" ] ^`8 8d"D] ^`8Hd"`]^`H L B&"]ǻǭǃuugYKGh`Mh`M@B*OJQJphhkX@B*OJQJphhkX@B*OJQJphhkX@B*OJQJphh`M@B*OJQJphhkX@B*OJQJphh`M@B*OJQJphhkX@B*OJQJphhkXB*OJQJphhkX@B*OJQJphhkX@B*OJQJphhkX@B*OJQJphh`M@B*OJQJph5t1mIJ~w5vɻɭɻui[M׻hkX@B*OJQJphh`M@B*OJQJphhkXB*OJQJphhkX@B*OJQJphhkX@B*OJQJphh`M@B*OJQJphhkX@B*OJQJphhkX@B*OJQJphhkX@B*OJQJphhkX@B*OJQJphhkX@B*OJQJphhkX@B*OJQJphh`MB*OJQJphOBOPQUVI1rǹǫseչWIhkX@B*OJQJphh`M@B*OJQJphhkX@B*OJQJphhkX@B*OJQJphh`MB*OJQJphhkXB*OJQJphh`Mh`M@B*OJQJphhkX@B*OJQJphhkX@B*OJQJphhkX@B*OJQJphhkX@B*OJQJphhkX@B*OJQJphh`M@B*OJQJphPQVz`{hhH8d  ]h^H`8HHd)`]H^H $da$HH8d'D]H^H`8HH8d$ ]H^H`8HH8d$D]H^H`8HH8d"`]H^H`8 $da$HH8d$]H^H`8 <y1gV$dǹ㭟ǑugYK=h`M@B*OJQJphhkX@B*OJQJphhkX@B*OJQJphh`M@B*OJQJphhkX@B*OJQJphhkX@B*OJQJphhkX@B*OJQJphhkX@B*OJQJphhkXB*OJQJphhkX@B*OJQJphhkX@B*OJQJphhkX@B*OJQJphhkX@B*OJQJphh`M@B*OJQJph!ayz"_`] )*ֺ֐tfXXJX<hkX@B*OJQJphh`M@B*OJQJphhkX@B*OJQJphhkX@B*OJQJphhkX@B*OJQJphhkX@B*OJQJphh`M@B*OJQJphhkX@B*OJQJphhkX@B*OJQJphh`M@B*OJQJphhkX@B*OJQJphhkX@B*OJQJphh`MB*OJQJphhkXB*OJQJphh`M`*34:5GvcH8d$]^H`8hH8d" ]h^H`8H8d"D]^H`8HH8d$ ]H^H`8Hd]^H $dda$H8d ]^H`8HH8d$]H^H`8HHd"H]H^H YO6u23459:y45ǹǫ㫁}r`N@h`M@B*OJQJph#h`M@B*CJOJQJRHsph#hkX@B*CJOJQJRHsphjhOhkXUh`Mh`M@B*OJQJphhkX@B*OJQJphh`M@B*OJQJphhkX@B*OJQJphhkX@B*OJQJphhkX@B*OJQJphhkX@B*OJQJphhkX@B*OJQJphhkX@B*OJQJph5 `L@FGyǫ㏁seWGhO@B*CJ OJQJphh`M@B*OJQJphhkX@B*OJQJphh`M@B*OJQJphhkX@B*OJQJphh`M@B*OJQJphhkX@B*OJQJphhkX@B*OJQJphh`M@B*OJQJphhkX@B*OJQJphhkX@B*OJQJphhkX@B*OJQJphhkX@B*OJQJph'()*h`M@B*OJQJphh{^hOhO@B*CJ OJQJphhO@B*CJOJQJph'()*H8d$]^H`8 . & +D(R( 9!4 "R#$% + 0R( 9!"#$% (R( 9!"l#$% (R( 9!"#$w% (R( 9! "#$% (R( 9!0"#$w% (R( 9!"#$w% (R( 9!"#$% (R( 9!"#$w% (R( 9!"#$w% (R( 9!"#$m% (R( 9!"#$% (R( 9!"#$% (R( 9!"#$% (R( 9!"#$w% (R( 9!"#$m% (R( 9!"#$w% (R( 9!"e#$% (R( 9!"u#$m% (R( 9!"u#$v% (R( 9!"u#H$% (R( 9!"u#$v% (R( 9!"u#$l% (R( 9!"u#$% (R( 9!"u#$% (R( 9!"u#$% (R( 9!"u#$c% (R( 9!"u#$w% (R( 9!"u#$Y% (R( 9!"v#$% (R( 9!"u#$w% (R( 9!"u#$% (R( 9!"u#$% (R( 9!v"#$% (R( 9!"u#$Y% (R( 9!"u#$% (R( 9!"u#$c% (R( 9!"u#$% (R( 9!"u#x$% (R( 9!"u#$% (R( 9!"#$c% j 666666666vvvvvvvvv666666>6666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666hH6666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666662 0@P`p2( 0@P`p 0@P`p 0@P`p 0@P`p 0@P`p 0@P`p8XV~ OJPJQJ_HmH nH sH tH @`@ NormalCJ_HaJmH sH tH DA D Default Paragraph FontRiR 0 Table Normal4 l4a (k ( 0No List PK![Content_Types].xmlN0EH-J@%ǎǢ|ș$زULTB l,3;rØJB+$G]7O٭V$ !)O^rC$y@/yH*񄴽)޵߻UDb`}"qۋJחX^)I`nEp)liV[]1M<OP6r=zgbIguSebORD۫qu gZo~ٺlAplxpT0+[}`jzAV2Fi@qv֬5\|ʜ̭NleXdsjcs7f W+Ն7`g ȘJj|h(KD- dXiJ؇(x$( :;˹! I_TS 1?E??ZBΪmU/?~xY'y5g&΋/ɋ>GMGeD3Vq%'#q$8K)fw9:ĵ x}rxwr:\TZaG*y8IjbRc|XŻǿI u3KGnD1NIBs RuK>V.EL+M2#'fi ~V vl{u8zH *:(W☕ ~JTe\O*tHGHY}KNP*ݾ˦TѼ9/#A7qZ$*c?qUnwN%Oi4 =3N)cbJ uV4(Tn 7_?m-ٛ{UBwznʜ"Z xJZp; {/<P;,)''KQk5qpN8KGbe Sd̛\17 pa>SR! 3K4'+rzQ TTIIvt]Kc⫲K#v5+|D~O@%\w_nN[L9KqgVhn R!y+Un;*&/HrT >>\ t=.Tġ S; Z~!P9giCڧ!# B,;X=ۻ,I2UWV9$lk=Aj;{AP79|s*Y;̠[MCۿhf]o{oY=1kyVV5E8Vk+֜\80X4D)!!?*|fv u"xA@T_q64)kڬuV7 t '%;i9s9x,ڎ-45xd8?ǘd/Y|t &LILJ`& -Gt/PK! ѐ'theme/theme/_rels/themeManager.xml.relsM 0wooӺ&݈Э5 6?$Q ,.aic21h:qm@RN;d`o7gK(M&$R(.1r'JЊT8V"AȻHu}|$b{P8g/]QAsم(#L[PK-![Content_Types].xmlPK-!֧6 0_rels/.relsPK-!kytheme/theme/themeManager.xmlPK-!0C)theme/theme/theme1.xmlPK-! ѐ' theme/theme/_rels/themeManager.xml.relsPK] 1**14&<$+;39@FM'U[8ch pwGˆ;epQ4*  * W   ՞  ) S }  џ  % O y  ͠  ! K u  ɡ   G q  Ţ   C m     ? i " 6s^ $'(,j25;;>A&EJIN@QVZ^,bdi{k os x}eGyg v4[,/5*|~R <%,@;^GR]fp9%֦w\lu`*}L++# @*v(   * V _x0000_s0#" `? DB (  g "?DB   g "?B S  ?4**. /T@( t "tJQDFGKmuYaB L OUy~0:>Edjov]`gl@D)39@:!>!!!I"T"""""$$%%{&}&&&''))))+%+,,,,//88g;p;==??BBUC_C FFK'K>KDKVK_KLLTTUUaaaaaacceff fXf_fiifjljkkpp ssPsWstt}}} È08hqГؓ%r~y!Zbpwqs ^k*259 =E(+}RXy|B L  */ !"$$$2(4(@3C3&7(7HHMM[[5]C]^^,eLeooppuuvw{{LPІmtь0Վ܎wILjru~LO`j49:=(+3333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333&&<<$$++;3;399@@FFMM'U'U[[,e,ehh p pwwGGˆˆ;;eeppQQ55+`MkX^n}O{^O@555*h@UnknownG*Ax Times New Roman5Symbol3. *Cx Arial?= *Cx Courier NewE=  Lucida Console7.@ CalibriA$BCambria Math"qha'a'#M(z#w(z!20}CHX $P`M2!xx  David Mason David MasonOh+'0$ px    David Mason Normal.dotm David Mason2Microsoft Office Word@@ @ (#M՜.+,0 hp  $鱨վz}  Title  !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz{|}~Root Entry F 7 1TableX)WordDocumentSummaryInformation(DocumentSummaryInformation8CompObjr  F Microsoft Word 97-2003 Document MSWordDocWord.Document.89q