Note: Where available, the PDF/Word icon below is provided to view the complete and fully formatted document
 Download Current HansardDownload Current Hansard   

Previous Fragment    Next Fragment
Friday, 6 December 1985
Page: 3188

Senator GARETH EVANS (Minister for Resources and Energy) —I present the Government's response to the Senate Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence's report on Australia's defence co-operation with its neighbours in the Asian-Pacific region and seek leave to make a statement relating thereto and to incorporate the statement in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The statement read as follows-

I present the Government's response to the Report of the Senate Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence on the reference:

`Australia's defence co-operation with its neighbours in the Asian-Pacific region, with particular reference to the present scope, purpose, effectiveness and flexibility of such co-operation.'

The statement to the Parliament of 23 May 1985 which presented the Government's response to the report of the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence on `The Australian Defence Force: Its Structure and Capabilities', outlined the changes over the last decade or so that had led to Australia adopting its independent defence posture and the importance of relationships with our regional neighbours in adopting that posture.

The Government welcomes the Senate Foreign Affairs and Defence Report on Defence Cooperation which draws attention to elements of our defence relations with regional countries, all of which require careful monitoring and constant evaluation to permit soundly based judgements of their continuing relevance and effectiveness. The Report also highlights aspects of the management of regional defence relations that are only poorly understood by the community at large. At the same time, in focussing almost exclusively on one component of our regional defence co-operative activities-the Defence Co-operation Program or DCP-the Report could give the inattentive reader a wrong impression of the role and significance of the DCP in our bilateral relationships.

In this response to the Committee's Report I would like to provide a balance for this unintentional emphasis given to the DCP, and to clarify the role of the DCP in the broader pattern of defence relations between Australia and our neighbours, setting it in the context of our broad defence planning and by-lateral defence relationships, and then deal in detail with the specific issues the Committee has raised.

Finally, in these introductory observations, I make clear that the Government shares the Committee's concerns that the DCP should achieve its aims. On 28 March 1985 the Minister for Defence announced the appointment of a consultant to review the DCP, including the findings of Parliamentary Committees which have examined the DCP in recent times, and to report within 12 months. He is now at work.

Regional Defence Objective and Priorities

Our regional defence objectives are to contribute to the maintenance of regional stability, to consolidate acceptance of Australia as an obvious and legitimate participant in deliberations on issues that affect regional security and, as appropriate, to encourage and assist with the development of countries' defence self-reliance. Our partners in these defence co-operative arrangements range from the fifth largest country in the world to the micro-states of the South Pacific, some of which do not have defence forces.

In meeting these objectives, the co-operative arrangements and activities are designed to:

a. exchange and share knowledge, information and the benefit of experience in the development of military organisations, capabilities and skills;

b. provide opportunities for the Australian Defence Force to gain experience in operating in the regional environment;

c. provide opportunities for the Australian Defence Force and the defence and de- fence-related forces to partner countries to enhance their understanding of each other's military environment and organisations, and methods of operation, and to operate together;

d. demonstrate the competence of the Australian Defence force to manage and operate modern military equipment; and

e. develop an acceptance of Australia as a regional centre for, and source of, defence technological and industrial competence.

The Place of the DCP Within Our National Defence Objectives

The DCP is maintained to support Australian national defence objectives. There are no DCP objectives that stand in isolation from these broad defence objectives in our relations with participating countries. Correspondingly, there are no DCP activities that are conducted in isolation from the full range of Defence activities that comprise bi-lateral defence relationships and which include the posting of Australian defence personnel overseas under formal defence agreements, regular high level consultations by Ministers and senior officials, ship and aircraft visits and combined exercises involving the three Services.

With some countries therefore, the DCP complements, and is complemented by, other forms of often extensive practical defence activities. In combination, all these elements together support shared objectives, thereby contributing to the overall furtherance of Australian strategic and defence interests. Some examples of major non-DCP activities help clarify this point:

a. Malaysia-Five Power Defence Arrangements (FPDA) (and land sea/air exercises under its umbrella); Butterworth, the Integrated Air Defence System (IADS), and Defence-to-Defence consultations;

b. Singapore-FPDA, IADS, Army and Air Force training in Australia;

c. Brunei-training in Australia; and

d. PNG-the Supply Support Arrangement. The PNG Department of Defence may draw on the Australian Supply Support system to support defence equipment held in common.

In other countries the DCP provides the major platform on which bi-lateral defence relationships are being progressively developed.

Also outside the DCP, are a range of defence co-operative activities with the U.S. and N.Z., both of which share our interest in the maintenance of security, stability and peace in the region. I do not propose to detail these activities as they are already a matter of public record. It is sufficient to emphasise that these activities complement those with the other countries of the region.

Our defence objectives, and our capacity to support them with DCP activities, vary significantly among countries and between regions, depending upon local culture and traditions; political systems; the role and significance of the military; the extent to which English is used or understood; the size and nature of previous military support programs; and the number, skills and energies of Australian defence personnel working in the countries concerned.

In allocating financial and manpower resources to implement policies using the DCP, we have established priorities based on Australia's strategic and defence interests; participating countries' preferences; and the nature and scope of other bilateral defence co-operative activities outside the DCP; and where relevant, countries' capacity to absorb defence assistance and conduct mutually beneficial defence activities. The scope and variety in the DCP reflecting these elements is clearly reflected in the attachment to the detailed comments I will subsequently table. I draw honourable senator's attention specifically to the wide and diverse range of activities encompassed in any one year resulting from the inter-relationship between the needs of our partner countries and Australia's defence objectives.

The DCP with PNG attracts the largest share of funds. By virtue of its location PNG is a major factor in Australia's long term defence planning. Use of PNG by a country hostile, or potentially hostile to Australia would greatly complicate the defence of Australia, particularly the north and east coast and adjacent maritime approaches. This first priority reflects Australia's historical ties with PNG and our continuing commitment to assist with the development of an effective PNG Defence Force that is capable of supporting national sovereignty and the task of nation building. This is achieved through the stationing of specialist ADF personnel and units in PNG to assist with national development; and the provision of military training and support for combined exercises and military exchanges.

Indonesia also rates highly in the program. Its proximity to Australia, and its potential for long term defence power, mark it clearly as the most strategically significant nation to Australia among those in the archipelagos lying across our northern approaches. Indonesia has a pivotal role in the long term security and stability of the region. Both because of the interests we share, and because of Indonesia's strategic potential, Australia has an abiding interest in maintaining a constructive working relationship with the Indonesian defence organisation. While other avenues of bi-lateral defence contact with Indonesia are developing, the DCP is, and shall remain for the medium term, the predominant channel for bi-lateral defence activity.

In the South West Pacific, the DCP is intended to encourage the strategic perspectives of independent states to accord with our own, and to reduce the potential for destabilising competition in the region by extra-regional powers. Through the DCP we encourage acceptance of Australian defence activities as a natural component of the Australian presence in the region; enable ADF personnel to gain broader working experience than is available to them in the Australian Service environments; and obtain information about conditions and developments in the region. The DCP is intended to complement and supplement the much larger civil aid program and is developed, in consultation with the Australian Development Assistance Bureau to assist, where appropriate, with the expansion of the national infrastructure with defence and national security applications in those countries.

Other ASEAN countries-Malaysia, Thailand, Singapore, the Philippines and Brunei-account for most of the remainder of DCP resources, with Malaysia and Thailand the main partners in this group. In all five countries the DCP is directed towards achieving-to varying degrees-the objectives set out in paragraphs 6 and 7 above. Newly independent Brunei is now being included in the DCP in a small way.

Outside our area of primary strategic interest, limited DCP resources are used to maintain defence contacts with India, Burma, Pakistan, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka to support Australia's diplomatic and political interests. Officers of the Department of Defence have visited the Indian Ocean Island States of Mauritius, the Seychelles and the Maldives to examine options for establishing limited programs of defence co-operation with these countries, and are now preparing proposals for the Government to consider.

In response to the Committee's request for more information on the DCP, I am tabling with this response details of the Program for the period 1 July 1984 to 30 June 1985 and also details of defence co-operative activities conducted outside the DCP for the same period. As I said earlier, to appreciate fully the scope of the bilateral relationships in the defence field all Australia's defence co-operative activities in the region need to be taken into account.

Against this background, I think honourable senators will recognise the difficulties of quantifying defence objectives in the region, or of quantifying to what extent DCP activities contribute to their achievement. In the management of the program, we ensure however that projects and activities undertaken under the DCP make a contribution towards meeting some or all of the objectives which I set out earlier. While we can and do measure the financial, materiel and human resources in those contributions it is difficult to conclude that such simple arithmetic is a totally accurate measure of achievement of policy objectives. Informed qualitative judgment is still required, both in determining what resources should be devoted towards meeting our policy objectives, and in assessing to what extent those resources contribute to the achievement of those objectives. That is not to say however, that we should dismiss quantification because it is too difficult. Scarce resources are involved. The Department of Defence is giving attention to developing methods to quantify more effectively the benefits of the DCP, to provide a more substantive basis for making qualitative judgements, and Mr Cooksey in his review, is also considering this matter.

But the program is not a unilateral one: we could not seek to impose projects and activities on regional countries to meet our objectives to the exclusion of theirs. As the Program title states, the DCP is cooperative: the realisation of Australian defence policy objectives needs to be both sensitive and responsive to the policy objectives of the participating countries. Accordingly, machinery has been established, including annual DCP review conferences and day-to-day consultations between our defence representatives in the region and their hosts, to negotiate the selection of projects and activities for inclusion in the Program which meet the objectives of both regional countries and us. Through this machinery, proposals for new projects or activities are considered, accepted with or without amendment, or rejected.

Comments on the LCP by other Recent Parliamentary Committees

Before tabling the Government's detailed response to the criticisms in the Report, I would draw attention to comments on our defence cooperation by other Parliamentary Committees. The report of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence on the `Australian Defence Force: Its Structure and Capabilities', tabled 23 May 1985 noted that the Committee considered that the current nature and level of Australia's defence commitments to its region of interest were satisfactory given the nature of our security interests and our limited capacity to influence military events or expectations. The Committee noted that Australia's present relatively low key approach to regional defence cooperation adequately demonstrated our interest in the region without attempting to impose on it our own solutions or values. It also served both Australia's interests and those of ASEAN nations.

The Report of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence on `Australia and ASEAN: Challenges and Opportunities', tabled 9 October 1984 noted that the Committee considered there was value in continuing defence cooperation programs (with ASEAN states) provided they were monitored regularly to ensure that they served Australia's interests and fulfilled local defence requirements.

I table the Government's response to the Committee's report. It is in the form of specific comments on the principal conclusions and observations of the Committee.


1. The Committee's Report acknowledges (page 5) the importance to Australia's security of South East Asia and the South Pacific.

`. . . South East Asia and South West Pacific, is Australia's primary area of strategic interest. It is fundamental to Australia's interest that there be stability in both of these regions . . .'

2. The Committee also observes (page 27) that `Australia's principal strategic interest in the South Pacific is to ensure that our sea communications with Japan and the Americas remain open' (page 27) and that `the cornerstone of our strategic interests in South East Asia is support for ASEAN, which has been highly effective in enhancing regional stability and prosperity' (page 39).

3. The Government generally endorses these assessments except that it does not agree that regional stability should be considered ``fundamental'' to Australian security interests in the sense that the Committee intends. The obvious corollary is that should instability arise in the region then Australia's security would be directly threatened. The Government's assessment is that instability in the region would not, by itself, pose a direct threat, though it could provide the conditions for such a threat to emerge. Accordingly the Government's policies, and the resources allocated in support of those policies, reflect assessment that regional stability is important to Australia's strategic interests, to the enhancement of Australia's security, and creates and supports conditions for broad-based regional political, economic and cultural activity and co-operation, as well as defence co-operation.

4. The McIntosh Report is focusing on the DCP, reached the general conclusion that the Committee supported the concept of the DCP while being critical of some aspects of its management and effectiveness (page 72).

5. The Committee's criticism centred on its perception that Departments had not sufficiently explained the objectives of the DCP and the criteria for measuring the Program's effectiveness. These criticisms are set out and commented upon in the paragraphs that follow.

6. Evidence presented to the Committee was often inadequate. Departments did not fully grasp the opportunity of the Committee's hearing to provide information of the DCP and facilitate public debate (page 53).

Response a. This point seems unfair and is difficult to reconcile with remarks made by the Committee Chairman to officials from both Defence and Foreign Affairs who were thanked for having answered all the questions and having been forthcoming with the information which they provided (Official Hansard Report, 23 Feb 84, pages 43, 44 and 74).

b. In the light of the Chairman's comments and as the oral evidence provided by officials supplemented written Departmental submissions and as the Committee did not seek any additional information from either Defence or Foreign Affairs following the 23 February 1984 hearings, it is difficult to see how officials can fairly be blamed for not having fully grasped the opportunity to provide information on the DCP and facilitate public debate.

7. There was an appearance that the activities of the DCP were occuring in a policy vacuum (page 54).

Response a. In addition to the written evidence of policy guidance provided for the development of the DCPs with participating countries, officials elaborated in oral evidence, noting the objectives of assisting relevant countries with developing defence self-reliance or, where appropriate, their national infrastructure. See in particular Defence officials' oral evidence (Official Hansard Report 23 February 1984-pages 5, 8, 10, 11, 18, 25) and Foreign Affairs officials' oral evidence (same Hansard Report-pages 47, 50).

b. The Committee's view appears to have emerged from a lack of distinction between defence objectives as put by Defence Departmental submissions and oral evidence by officials, and flow-on benefits to Australia's foreign relations with the region as a whole as described by the Department of Foreign Affairs. The DCP is a vehicle of international defence policy which is in turn a component of Australia's foreign policy. The benefits of rounding out bi-lateral relations, promoting goodwill, and in some cases assisting social and economic development, generally flow from the establishment of sound de- fence relations, but are not primary objectives of defence policy, nor are they key criteria against which the DCP is developed or judged.

8. There was an over-dependence on a simplistic objective of assisting countries' `national independence' as a guiding principle for determining the content of the DCP (page 55).

Response a. All countries participating in the DCP are independent. The issue of promoting their national independence in the sense of the Committee's view does not therefore arise. It is clear from a reading of the full evidence given to the Committee that `national independence' refers to the capacity of states to achieve defence self-reliance and independently to protect their sovereignty through such measures as suit their particular circumstances.

9. Human rights considerations could be a valid criterion in the assessment of DCPs and that these considerations should be explicit rather than implicit (page 58).

Response a. As presented in evidence to the Committee, DCPs are established and maintained for defence purposes. Governments of the day establish policy guidelines for officials, and decide through Ministerial responses to recommendations from officials, how human rights considerations should be applied to particular projects and activities that are proposed for inclusion in the Programs.

b. The Government's position on human rights abuses is public and clear: we do not condone them anywhere and would not accept any proposals under the DCP which threaten human rights.

c. Proposals which relate to another country's defence capabilities, and which in no way raise obvious considerations of human rights, now or potentially, are considered and where consistent with our policy objectives, and feasible, are approved. Additionally, in the South Pacific the DCP has been used to provide training and equipment support for police and para military forces in the Solomon Islands, Vanuatu, Western Samoa and Kiribati.

d. Proposals for activities under the DCP are considered by the Department of Defence in consultation with the Department of Foreign Affairs in the light of the prevailing human rights' situation in the country involved in the proposal, and the extent, if any, to which the assistance to be provided might be used in the abuse of human rights. If judged necessary the proposal is then referred for decision to the Minister for Defence as the responsible minister of the Government of the day, who may further consult other Ministers or Cabinet as he sees fit, before making a decision.

e. In their deliberations, it is incumbent on Defence and Foreign Affairs officials to assess proposals on the basis of the policies and practices of the Australian and regional country governments of the day. These officers cannot make recommendations now about the possibility of a defence capability for a regional country being used at some unknown time in the future, for activities that the Australian Government at that time might not approve of, or that might be directed away from the primary purpose of de- fence to internal security and possible abuses of human rights.

10. The Committee lacked sufficient evidence to recommend whether the Department of De- fence or ADAB should have over-riding responsibility for civil projects in the South Pacific involving Defence personnel (page 59).

Response a. Regular meetings are held between the Departments of Defence and Foreign Affairs to co-ordinate action under the Defence Co-operation Program and Bilateral (Civil) Aid Programs in the South Pacific. In general, and in keeping with policy objectives, Defence considers tasks which contribute to South Pacific countries' capacity to support their national sovereignty, which develop infrastructure with de- fence and national security applications, and which provide the ADF with opportunities to gain first hand experience of working in their countries.

b. Australian defence contributions to national development projects in PNG and the South Pacific are a charge to the Defence vote. In these circumstances, and while ADAB has a role in the development of such projects, it is important that the Minister for Defence be seen to be in control of the use of manpower and funds that might otherwise be used for other Defence purposes. It is also preferable from a legal point of view and for morale and disciplinary reasons, that the Minister for Defence have over-riding responsibility for the deployment of Australian defence personnel overseas.

c. It should also be noted that requests for the use of defence resources for national development projects in PNG and the South Pacific invariably pass through the central National Planning Office of the country concerned, and therefore reflect the participants' preferences for such requests to be met under the DCP.

11. The DCP was not a suitable means for promoting Australian defence industries (page 61).

Response a. Any support for Australian de- fence industries that emerges from DCP activities does so as a secondary benefit, deriving from projects and activities conducted primarily for defence reasons, and through giving preference to Australian companies where equipment and technical expertise not available in the ADF is provided. An example of how this support might arise was given in Defence officials' oral evidence on page 21 of the Official Hansard Report of 23 February 1984.

b. As a separate issue, the Government has been concerned for some time to improve the promotion and export of the products of the Australian defence industry. On 28 March this year a consultant, Mr R. Cooksey was appointed to review the current policy.

12. The provision of patrol boats to some South Pacific states seemed likely to cause long term budgetary problems (page 62).

Response a. As was made clear in the statement by the Minister for Defence to the Parliament on 9 May 1985, the Government is very much aware of this possible problem.

b. Potential budgetary problems in running craft such as patrol boats, has been a key factor in the development of the South Pacific Patrol Boat Project. It was precisely for this reason that the Government explored with all countries the longer term financial implication of such vessels, and with their agreement sought to develop a craft of commercial design.

c. Pacific countries participating in the Project are fully aware of the need to take account of the likely operating costs of the vessel. Some smaller island countries have decided not to participate precisely because operation of the vessels would be too costly for them.

13. There was a lack of information on the DCP in the public arena for scrutiny by the Parliament and public. The Committee proposed that explanatory notes on the DCP for annual Estimates hearings be expanded to provide information on each activity under nine separate headings (pages 64-65).

Response a. The Government welcomes informed debate about regional defence cooperative activities, including DCP, and as far as practicable, would be glad to have more publicity given to these activities and to the impressive role being played by ADF personnel overseas. Sympathetic consideration will therefore be given to any constructive suggestions in this direction which may emerge from the current consultancy study referred to earlier.

b. Publication of the activities of the DCP in isolation from other activities could reinforce the misconception that the DCP represents the sum total of our co-operative activities with regional countries. Annex A (pages 16 to 24) to this response provides details of defence cooperative activities with regional countries, other than those conducted under the DCP but which are complemented and supplemented by the DCP. Annex B (pages 25 to 38) sets out the content of DCPs with all partner countries, covering the period 1 July 1984-30 June 1985. Future De- fence Reports will include the information covered by these pages, for the relevant year. In addition the information covered by Annex B (pages 25-36) will form part of the explanatory notes for the bi-annual Senate Estimates hearings.

14. There appeared to be no effective monitoring of the effectiveness of the DCP at the various stages of the Programs (page 72).

Response a. The Committee does not make clear what it means by `effectiveness'. In one context effectiveness means fulfilling Australian defence objectives through the DCP; in this context the processes of development and monitoring are comprehensive and regular as follows:

(i) Proposals for activities under the DCP are considered and approved against the defence policy objectives set out in the Ministerial statement.

(ii) Programs are developed and monitored in annual detailed consultations with participating countries.

(iii) Programs are monitored on a day-to-day basis by Australian Defence representatives in ASEAN countries, and PNG, and in the South Pacific by Australia's diplomatic representatives in collaboration with the Defence Adviser resident in Suva (see next point).

(iv) Development and monitoring of DCPs with South Pacific countries has been extended by the appointment, in August 1984, of a Pacific Defence Adviser, resident in Fiji and accredited as well to other independent South Pacific countries, and by liaison between the Department of Defence and the newly established ADAB Pacific Regional Team of four civil aid experts, based in Sydney.

(v) Within the Department of Defence, the objectives and performance of the Programs are under continual review, and are given particular attention in the preparation of the annual FYDP, the Draft Estimates and the Additional Estimates.

b. In another context, effectiveness means the extent to which we fulfil the objectives of each project or activity. Here different processes of development and monitoring apply:

(i) Objectives for each project and activity are set in consultation with participating countries.

(ii) Those objectives range from major projects involving the development of a new capability or the enhancement of an existing capability, to the standard objectives of a training course run at an ADF school.

(iii) With regard to courses, trainees from regional countries are assessed in the same way as ADF students, and course reports prepared accordingly.

(iv) With regard to projects, subject to the agreement of the participating country, all endeavours are made to retain participation in the project until the objective is achieved.

(v) The criteria applied for assessing whether the objective is achieved are the standards of the ADF (and Australian defence industry where applicable), with allowance made for the needs, environmental conditions and modes of military operations and management applying in participating countries.

(vi) Projects are monitored by Defence and Foreign Affairs staffs in participating countries, and Defence personnel visiting the countries.

(vii) Participating countries continue to express satisfaction with the DCP, and continue to look to Australia for training and co-operation in new projects under the Program.

c. It needs to be emphasised that projects conducted in regional countries are properly controlled by those countries, but that their success depends on a high level of co-operation to achieve project objectives. Once achieved and Australian participation ceases, then the continuing effectiveness of the capability established or enhanced under the project, is the sole responsibility of the regional country.

15. It was incumbent upon Departments concerned to established a `more professional and consistent approach' to the delivery of defence co-operation with our neighbours, and to consult them frankly on their requirements (page 72).

Response a. No evidence or argument was contained in the Committee's report that the Departments as a whole or the officials of the Departments and members of the Australian Defence Force are other than professional in their approach to the management of the DCP.

b. As was pointed out in Department of De- fence written evidence, DCPs are developed to respond to the individual needs of participating states. As indicated above, annual meetings are held to discuss requirements and set priorities to the benefit of both parties. Frequent consultation takes place between Australian Defence and Foreign Affairs representatives and the countries, between these meetings.

Other Matters

16. The Committee's report raises a number of other matters on which comment is made in the paragraphs that follow.

A Nuclear Free Zone in the South Pacific

17. As a general comment the Report appears to be concerned with highlighting differences of opinion among the Pacific Forum members to the neglect of the achievements that have been made. In fact considerable progress has been made and a draft South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty was presented to the Forum meeting in Rarotonga in August 1985.

18. The Forum endorsed the text of the Treaty and opened it for signature. Heads of Government of Australia, Cook Islands, Fiji, Kiribati, New Zealand, Nuie, Tuvalu and Western Samoa signed the Treaty at Raratonga, and PNG has since signed it. The Forum understood that other countries would be in a position to sign after they had subjected it to their normal constitutional processes.

Indian Ocean

19. As noted in the Committee's report, the terms of reference did not include possible de- fence co-operation with Indian Ocean states. For that reason, no mention was made in the Departmental submission of matters concerning the Indian Ocean.

20. The Government is yet to consider ways in which the Australian Defence Force might contribute through the DCP to an enhanced Australian involvement in the Indian Ocean region. RAN ship visits took place over June/July this year and a Defence Team has recently visited the region on a feasibility study into possible activities under the DCP with Indian Ocean Island States of Mauritius, the Seychelles, and the Maldives. The results of this study, have yet to be considered, but the Government will take the views of the Committee into account in doing so.

21. A program with the Indian Ocean Island States could involve a re-ordering of priorities so that no additional funding would be required.

22. It is not correct to state, as the report does, that implementation of a program of de- fence assistance in the region would necessarily involve more expenditure on the DCP.

Annexes: A. Defence Co-operation Activities with Regional Countries other than Defence Co-operation Programs 1 July 1984-30 June 1985

Annexes: B. Defence Co-operation Program (1 July 1984-30 June 1985)

Annex A


1 JULY 1984-30 JUNE 1985

(a) Papua New Guinea

(i) Defence Representation-Port Moresby, Canberra

(ii) Senior Level Consultations-

a. The Commander Papua New Guinea Defence Force and the Papua New Guinea Secretary for Defence visited Australia.

b. The Chief of the General Staff visited PNG.

(iii) Ship Visits-

HMAS Supply-Lae

HMAS Jervis Bay-Port Moresby

HMAS Parramatta-Madang

HMAS Torrens-Port Moresby

HMAS Warrnambool-Madang

HMAS Tarakan-Madang, Port Moresby

HMAS Curlew-Port Moresby

HMAS Dubbo-Port Moresby

(iv) Aircraft Visits-

a. RAAF long range maritime patrol flights were undertaken out of Port Moresby.

b. Regular RAAF C130 flights were undertaken to Port Moresby; and short range transport deployments which included training flights within PNG.

c. Ten Army Aircraft visited PNG for training.

(b) Indonesia

(i) Defence Representation-Jakarta, Canberra

(ii) Senior Level Consultations-

a. Secretary-General, Indonesia Department of Defence and Secretary visited Australia.

b. Chief of the Naval Staff visited Indonesia.

c. Deputy Secretary B and the Chief Defence Scientist of the Department of Defence visited Indonesia.

(iii) Ship Visits/Exercises in Passing-

a. HMAS Stalwart-Ujung Pandang, Jakarta, Surabaya.

HMAS Vampire-Surabaya.

HMAS Canberra-Ujung Pandang, Jakarta.

HMAS Sydney-Ujung Pandang, Jakarta.

HMAS Yarra-Surabaya.

HMAS Stuart-Surabaya, Jakarta.

HMAS Orion-Surabaya.

HMAS Gawler-Surabaya, Ambon.

HMAS Cessnock-Surabaya, Jakarta.

HMAS Bendigo-Surabaya, Jakarta, Ujung Pandang.

HMAS Balikpapan-Benoa.

HMAS Assail-Benoa.

HMAS Warrnambool-Sorong.

b. Indonesian Navy ships Corvette ``KRI FATAHILLAH'', Destroyer Escort ``KRI NGURUHRAI'', Patrol ``KRI RENGKONG'', Patrol ``KRI KERIS'', Oiler ``KRI SAMBU'' visited Darwin.

(iv) Maritime Exercises-Seven RAN ships, RAAF MIRAGE aircraft and five Indonesian Navy ships took part in Exercise NEW HORIZON 84 in Australian waters in November 1984.

(v) Aircraft Visits-

a. RAAF Mirage aircraft staged through Indonesia to and from Butterworth.

b. Other RAAF aircraft staged through or visited Indonesia on several occasions.

c. An Indonesian Air Force C130 aircraft visited Australia.

(c) Malaysia

(i) Defence Representation-Kuala Lumpur, Canberra

(ii) Senior level Consultations-

a. The Chief of the Defence Force, the Chief of the Naval Staff and the Chief of the General Staff visited Malaysia.

b. Dr Mahathir, Malaysia's Prime Minister and Minister for Defence visited Australia.

c. The Deputy Secretary General (Development), Malaysian Ministry of Defence visited Australia.

d. Senior level discussions were held on arrangements for future RAAF use of Air Base Butterworth.

e. Defence-to-defence talks in Kuala Lumpur.

(iii) Australian Presence at Butterworth-

a. The Australian presence at Air Base Butterworth, comprised one Mirage Squadron; two P3 Orion long range maritime patrol aircraft; ancillary units; and an infantry company on rotation.

(iv) Ship Visits/Exercises in Passing-

a. HMAS Vampire-Kuantab, Lumut


(v) Maritime Exercise-Three RAN ships participated in Exercise STARFISH 85, hosted by Malaysia under the Five Power Defence Arrangements.

(vi) Land Exercises-

a. Australia and Malaysia participated in Exercises SOUTHERN SAFARI and PLATYPUS under the Five Power Defence Arrangements.

b. The Australian Rifle Company based at Butterworth participated in the ground force exercises, Exercise HARINGAROO, in Malaysia with the Malaysian Army.

(vii) Aircraft Visits-RAAF aircraft made frequent visits to Malaysia.

(viii) Air Defence Exercises-Australia and Malaysia participated in two major and two minor Air Defence exercises under the Five Power Defence Arrangements.

(d) Singapore

(i) `Defence Representation-Singapore, Canberra

(ii) Senior Level Consultations-

a. The Chief of Defence Force, the Chief of the Naval Staff, and the Chief of the General Staff visited Singapore.

b. The Singapore Chief of the General Staff visited Australia.

c. Defence-to-defence talks in Singapore.

(iii) Ship Visits/Exercises in Passing-


b. Two Republic of Singapore Navy (RSN) Tank Landing Ships visited Australia.

(iv) Maritime Exercises-RAN and RSN ships participated in Exercise STARFISH 85 hosted by Malaysia under the Five Power Defence Arrangements.

(v) Land Exercises

a. Australia and Singapore participated in Exercises SOUTHERN SAFARI and PLATYPUS under the Five Power Defence Arrangements.

b. Singapore Army units conducted training at Shoalwater Bay Queensland in the period September to November 1984.

(vi) Aircraft Deployments and Visits-

a. In addition to the periodic deployments of Mirage aircraft to Paya Lebar, RAAF aircraft regularly transmitted through and visited Singapore.

b. Forty seven Republic of Singapore Air Force (RSAF) aircraft visited Australia.

(vii) Aircraft Exercises-

a. Australia and Singapore participated in two major and two minor air de- fence exercises under the Five Power Defence Arrangements.

b. RSAF aircraft and supporting personnel and units conducted further unilateral training at RAAF Williamstown.

(e) Thailand

(i) Defence Representation-Bangkok, Canberra

(ii) Senior Level Consultations-

a. The Chief of the General Staff visited Thailand.

b. The Deputy Commander-in-Chief, Royal Thai Air Force visited Australia.

(iii) Ship Visits/Exercises in passing-HMA Ships YARRA and STUART visited Bangkok.

(iv) Aircraft Visits-Occasional visits to Thailand were made by RAAF aircraft. One Royal Thai Air Force aircraft visited Australia.

(f) Philippines

(i) Defence Representation-Manila

(ii) Ship Visits-HMA Ships, STALWART, CANBERRA, SYDNEY, YARRA, STUART and ORION visited Manila. HMAS ORION also visited Subic Bay.

(iii) Aircraft Visits-Occasional visits were made by RAAF aircraft.

(g) Brunei

(i) Defence Representation-From Kuala Lumpur

(ii) Senior Level Consultations-

a. The Chief of the General Staff visited Brunei

(iii) Ship Visits/Exercises in Passing-HMA Ships STUART, WARRNAMBOOL and CESSNOCK visited Muara.

(iv) Land Force Training-

a. Two companies of the Royal Brunei Armed Forces conducted training at the Land Warfare Centre, Canungra.

(h) South Pacific

(i) Defence Representation-From Suva

(ii) Ship Visits-

HMAS SUPPLY-Tarawa (Kiribati)

HMAS JERVIS BAY-Vila (Vanuatu), Lautoka (Fiji).

HMAS ADELAIDE-Honiara (Solomon Is).

HMAS PARRAMATTA-Tarawa (Kiribati).

HMAS OXLEY-Apia (Western Samoa).

HMAS TOBRUK-Vila (Vanuatu), Funafuti (Tuvalu).

HMAS PERTH-Honiara (Solomon Is), Vila (Vanuatu), Suva (Fiji).

HMAS CANBERRA-Suva (Fiji), Nuku'alofa (Tonga), Apia (Western Samoa).

(iii) Ships Visits/Exercises in Passing-HMA Ships STUART, WARRNAMBOOL and CESSNOCK visited Muara.

(iv) Land Force Training-

a. Two companies of the Royal Brunei Armed Forces conducted training at the Land Warfare Centre, Canungra.

(i) South Pacific

(i) Defence Representation-From Suva

(ii) Ship Visits-

HMAS SUPPLY-Tarawa (Kiribati)

HMAS JERVIS BAY-Vila (Vanuatu), Lautoka (Fiji).

HMAS ADELAIDE-Honiara (Solomon Is).

HMAS PARRAMATTA-Tarawa (Kiribati).

HMAS OXLEY-Apia (Western Samoa).

HMAS TOBRUK-Vila (Vanuatu), Funafuti (Tuvalu).

HMAS PERTH-Honiara (Solomon Is), Vila (Vanuatu), Suva (Fiji).

HMAS CANBERRA-Suva (Fiji), Nuku'alofa (Tonga), Apia (Western Samoa).

HMAS FREMANTLE-Suva (Fiji), Apia (Western Samoa), Funafuti (Tuvalu), Honiara, Gizo, Vanikoro Island, Na One Islet (Solomon Island).

HMAS GEELONG-Suva (Fiji), Apia (Western Samoa), Tarawa (Kiribati), Honiara (Solomon Island).

HMAS WEWAK-Honiara (Solomon Island).

HMAS FLINDERS-Vila (Vanuatu).


(iii) Aircraft Visits-

a. Five RAAF aircraft undertook long range maritime patrols calling at Vila, Funafuti and Nadi.

b. Occasional RAAF C130 flights were undertaken during the year. These included several cyclone relief flights to Fiji and Vanuatu.

c. Two RAAF Iroquois helicopters were based in Vanuatu during cyclone relief operations.

Annex B


1 JULY 1984-30 JUNE 1985

(Expenditure shown in brackets)

(a) Papua New Guinea ($16.031m)

(i) Loan Personnel. Salary for 77 Australian Defence personnel on loan to the PNG Defence Force and administrative costs for all ADF DCP personnel in PNG. ($8.568m)

(ii) Australian Training and Technical Support Unit (ATTSU). Specialist advisory assistance to the PNGDF in the development of training systems and programs. (Seven personnel.) ($0.370m)

(iii) Southern Highlands Provincial Engineers. An Australian Army formed unit plans and supervises the province public works. (23 personnel.) ($1.441m)

(iv) Survey Assistance. Six Australian Army Survey personnel provide technical advice to the PNG National Mapping Bureau. ($0.372m)

(v) Weapons Refurbishment. The repair in PNG and the rebuild in Australia of unserviceable PNGDF rifles. ($0.149m)

(vi) Communications Terminals. Provision of a field mobile, telex system for the PNGDF. ($0.603m)

(vii) Nomad Project. Maintenance and spares associated with provision of Nomad aircraft to the PNGDF. ($0.492m)

(viii) Ambulances. Ten specially designed field ambulances for the PNGDF. ($0.165m)

(ix) Equipment Project. Including replacement of engineer plant, mine detectors, and medical and water purification equipment for the PNGDF. ($0.326m)

(x) Pacific Patrol Boat. Provision to cover initial expenditure on craft to be provided to the PNGDF. ($0.044m)

(xi) Oakey Nomad Maintenance. Maintenance of the two Nomad aircraft used for training PNGDF pilots at the Army Aviation Centre, Oakey, Qld. ($0.355m)

(xii) Other. Assistance including technical advice to the police in communications, RAAF transport, manpower and supply studies, and hydrography; and the annual DCP Review Conference in Port Moresby. ($0.285m)

(xiii) Combined Exercises. Participation by a PNGDF infantry company in an annual Exercise Wantok Warrior with Australian Army units in Queensland. ($0.167m)

(xiv) Training and Study Visits. Training in Australia for 273 PNG personnel including Joint and Single Service Staff Colleges; Navy Executive Officer and other professional officer, apprentice and trade courses; Army officer and NCO corps training, officer cadet, pilot conversion and technical trade training; Air Force pilot and flying instructor training, technical aircraft trade training; and visits to Australia by six officers to observe exercises and attend seminars, including the 1984 Annual DCP Regional Seminar. ($2.694m)

(b) Indonesia ($9.629m)

(i) Nomad Maintenance. The attachment of two civilian aeronautical engineers, a visit by three officers of the Australian Defence Force, and the provision of maintenance equipment, all as part of a joint project to develop maintenance self-sufficiency for the 17 Nomad aircraft operated by the Indonesian Navy. ($0.429m)

(ii) Topographic Survey. Towards the production of up-to-date maps, a joint Australian Army/Indonesian Army operation in the island chain west of Sumatra to acquire survey control; and aerial photography by RAAF in Irian Jaya. In addition, one Australian Army officer is attached to the Indonesian Armed Forces Survey Headquarters in Jakarta, and four Indonesian Army personnel undertook training in Australia. ($2.003m)

(iii) Patrol Boats. Provision of three ex-RAN Attack Class Patrol Boats to the Indonesian Navy for coastal surveillance of the Archipelago, and an exchange of visits on supply and support. Two of the Patrol Boats have been delivered to Indonesia and the third will be delivered in early 1986. ($4.708m)

(iv) C130 (Hercules) Engine Overhaul. The attachment of an aeronautical engineer and an equipment officer (both RAAF) in Indonesia, and an exchange of visits between Qantas and the Indonesian Air Force, towards the development of a joint project to enhance the Indonesian Air Force's capability to overhaul the engines of its Hercules aircraft. Four Indonesian Air Force personnel undertook training at Qantas. ($0.016m)

(v) English Language. An exchange of English language instructors, training of eight teachers of English-As-Second-Language at the Defence Cooperation Language School, and the provision of the Australian English Language Course for use in the language schools of the Indonesian Armed Forces. ($0.414m)

(vi) Communications Maintenance. A visit to Australia by an Indonesian Army team and the provision of field communications test equipment towards a joint project to upgrade the Indonesian Army's capability to repair field communications equipment. ($0.063m)

(vii) Sioux Helicopter. The attachment of an Army aeronautical engineer in Indonesia, the training of Indonesian Air Force technicians at the Army Aviation Centre, Oakey, and the provision of equipment under a joint project with the Indonesian Air Force to convert Sioux helicopters from piston to turbine power. Ten Indonesian Air Force personnel undertook training at the Army Aviation Centre, Oakey in Sept./Dec. 84; fifteen are currently undertaking English language training at RAAF LAVERTON and commence technical training at RAAF Wagga in August 1985. ($0.532m)

(viii) Mobile Photographic Laboratory. Development of a joint project to enhance the capability of the Indonesian Air Force to process and interpret aerial photography. ($0.001m)

(ix) Training and Study Visits. Training in Australia for 36 personnel including officer staff training at the Joint Services, Navy, Army and Air Force Staff Colleges and RAAF Flying Instructor and Air Traffic Controller training. Visits by 19 Indonesian personnel to Australia to study ADF technical training systems, defence financial and budgetary systems, Army logistics, and to plan and observe exercises, as well as attending the 1984 Annual DCP Regional Seminar. ($0.824m)

(x) Group Training. Thirty junior Infantry officers of the Indonesian Army attended a Combat Instructors course at the Land Warfare Centre, Canungra, and fifteen members of the Indonesian Air Force are attending technical training at RAAF Wagga ($0.824m)

(xi) Other. Visits and studies related to equipment trialling and development, hydrographic surveys, development of computer training courses, and helicopter maintenance; as well as the Annual DCP Review Conference. ($0.338m)

(c) South Pacific ($5.860m)

(i) Solomon Islands ($1.259m)

a. Police Communications Project. Radio equipment, training and technical assistance to expand and upgrade the Solomon Islands Police Communications System. ($0.394m)

b. Channel Clearance. Deployment of a RAN Landing Craft and a clearance diving team to Solomon Islands to clear shipping passages. ($0.569m)

c. Coastal Hydrographic Unit. Attachment of a RAN Chief Petty Officer and the provision of equipment and training to assist the Solomon Islands to establish the capability to chart its inshore waters. ($0.077m)

d. Bomb Disposal. RAAF transport and explosives for a UK Army bomb disposal team to clear an area for airport extensions. ($0.104m)

e. Medical Program. Provision of short term medical assistance, specialist anti-malarial courses and a feasibility study for an anti-malarial drug trial. ($0.082m)

f. Other. Includes survey computations costs as a result of previous surveys, mapping assistance; and visit for the DCP Review Conference. ($0.033m)

(ii) Vanuatu ($1.434m)

a. Field Engineering Project. Deployment of a troop of Royal Australian Engineers to remote Epi Island to construct a Regional Development Centre. ($0.317m)

b. Operation ALGUM. Survey/mapping operation to enable definition of Vanuatu's Exclusive Economic Zone and provision of aerial photography. ($0.441m)

c. Rural Water Supply. Three Australian Army Engineers, provide technical assistance on a project to ensure piped water supplies to every village. ($0.202m)

d. Port Vila Fire Service. The provision of two fire tenders, the attachment of an Army Warrant Officer and training for the Vanuatu Mobile Force fire service in Vila. ($0.290m)

e. Medical Program. Specialist village sanitation and anti-malarial courses run in Vanuatu. ($0.049m)

f. Other. Includes survey computation costs from previous survey operations, specialists in-country courses, and final costs of Phase I of the police communications project, the catering project and the Hydrographic survey of Vanuatu waters; the DCP Review Conference. ($0.135m)

(iii) Fiji ($0.776m)

a. Maritime Advisory Assistance. Two RAN personnel assist the RFMF Naval Division in naval operations and maritime technical areas. ($0,121m)

b. Rural Development Unit. The attachment of an Army Warrant Officer and provision of plant and workshop equipment to the RFMF Rural Development Unit. ($0.078m)

c. Survey and Mapping Assistance. An Australian Army Survey Major posted to the Fiji Department of Lands and a combined RAAF/Army aerial photographic survey. ($0.247m)

d. Combined Survey Operation. Costs of Fiji naval vessel support for a DCP survey operation in Kiribati. ($0.163m)

e. Other. Including diving equipment for the Naval Division and final costs for communications and catering projects; the DCP Review Conference. ($0.167m)

(iv) Kiribati ($0.687m)

a. Operation ANON. Australian Army Survey assisting Kiribati to define its Exclusive Economic Zone. ($0.682m)

b. Police Communications. Feasibility Study (0.005m)

(v) Western Samoa ($0.373m)

a. Police Communications. Equipment, technical assistance and training to expand and upgrade the Western Samoa police communications system. ($0.283m)

b. Search and Rescue Project. Equipment, training and technical assistance to the Western Samoa police in setting up an emergency operations squad. ($0.088m)

c. Hydrographic Survey. First half of an off-shore hydrographic survey of Western Samoan waters. ($0.001m)

d. Other. Computation costs relating to previous survey; DCP Review Conference. ($0.001m)

(vi) Tonga ($0.342)

a. Trade Training. Four Senior NCO technical experts provide classroom and on-the-job training for the Tonga Defence Force Trade Training Unit. ($0.196m)

b. Equipment for the Tonga Defence Force. Vehicles, maritime and fire fighting equipment. ($0.059m)

c. Other. Including costs relating to completion of survey operations, provision of training material, assistance with construction projects and computer management; DCP Review Conference. ($0.087m)

(vii) Other South Pacific ($0.457m)

a. Tuvalu. Australian Army Survey assistance to Tuvalu to define its Exclusive Economic Zone. ($0.271m)

b. Pacific Patrol Boat. Initial costs associated with the Pacific Patrol Boat Project. ($0.152m)

c. Other. Minor freight costs and DCP Review Conference.

(viii) South West Pacific Training

a. Training and Study Visits. Training in Australia for 100 personnel from Fiji, Tonga, Solomon Islands, Vanuatu, Kiribati and Western Samoa including the Australian Administrative Staff College, Mt Eliza; Navy Executive Officer and other professional officer courses, and hydrography, diving and underwater medicine training; Army officer and NCO corps training, officer cadet, survey and trade training. The Commander, Tonga Defence Service attended the 1984 DCP Regional Seminar. ($0.782m)

(d) Malaysia ($5.613m)

(i) Australian Army Advisory Team Malaysia. Ten Officers and four Warrant Officers in Malaysia participating with the Royal Malaysian Army in the development of tactics, logistics and training. ($1.638m)

(ii) Computer/Logistics. One RAAF and one civilian officer of the Department of De- fence participating in Malaysia in the development of computer systems for the logistic support of the Malaysian Armed Forces. ($0.156m)

(iii) Topographic Survey. One Australian Army officer is attached to the Directorate of National Mapping (Malaysia) on a project to computerise mapping. 16 Malaysian personnel attended training in Australia with the Royal Australian Army Survey Corps. ($0.178m)

(iv) Work Study. Exchanges of Australian and Malaysian defence personnel on the application of work study techniques to management. Two Malaysian Army Work Study Instructors undertook training in Australia. ($0.086)

(v) Defence Research. To facilitate the exchange of information on defence scientific and technological matters of mutual interest, an Australian Defence Scientist is attached to the Malaysian Defence Science and Technology Centre in Kuala Lumpur, and three Malaysian Defence Scientists undertook short attachments to Australian Defence research and development laboratories. ($0.116m)

(vi) English Language. An exchange of visits, and Teaching-English-As-Second- Language training for six officers at the Defence Co-operation Language School, RAAF Laverton, for English Language teachers in the Malaysian Armed Forces; and the provision of a language laboratory. ($0.076m)

(vii) Training and Study Visits. Training in Australia for 276 personnel, including Joint and Single Service Staff Colleges; Navy apprentice, diving, hydrography and underwater medicine training; Army corps training for officers and NCOs; Air Force flying instructor. Visits to Australia by 18 officers to study management, defence equipment acquisition planning and procedures, army armoured doctrine, nuclear/biological/chemical defence training, and to attend the 1984 Annual DCP Regional Seminar. ($3.347m)

(viii) Other. Visits on Hydrography, Quality Assurance, Cataloguing and the annual DCP Review Conference. ($0.016m)

(E) Thailand ($4.302m)

(i) Navy NOMAD. An Army and a civilian engineer are attached to the Royal Thai Navy to support four NOMADs provided to enhance Thailand's capability for maritime surveillance. ($2.602m)

(ii) Air Force NOMAD. Two civilian engineers are attached to the Royal Thai Air Force to support its 18 NOMAD aircraft. ($0.248m)

(iii) English Language. An exchange of visits, the attachment of a Thai officer and teaching English-As-Second-Language training for eight Thai officers at the De- fence Co-operation Language School RAAF Laverton, and the provision of an Australian English Language Course for use in the language schools of the Royal Thai Armed Forces. ($0.212m)

(iv) Defence Research. An Australian Def- ence Scientist is attached to the Thai Military Research and Development Centre Bangkok. ($0.109m)

(v) Propellant Plant. Australian Defence officials provided advice to Thailand on the design and specifications of a propellant plant to be established in Bangkok. ($0.026m)

(vi) Training and Study Visits. Training in Australia for 56 personnel including Joint and Single Service Staff Colleges; Navy diving and underwater medicine training; Army Ordnance, Artillery and Infantry training; Air Force flying instructor and pilot conversion. Visits by 11 officers to study Reserve Management and Training, and to attend the 1984 Annual DCP Regional Seminar. ($1.049m)

(vii) Other. Minor activity in vehicle workshops, helicopter overhaul munitions production and project management; and the Annual DCP Review Conference. ($0.056m)

(F) Singapore ($1.322m)

(i) Flying Instructors. Three RAAF Flying Instructors are attached to the Singapore Air Force. ($0.314m)

(ii) Training and Study Visits. Training in Australia for 24 personnel including Army officer cadet, Navy diving and under- water medicine and Air Force pilot conversion training and attendance by four officers at the 1984 Annual DCP Regional Seminar; visit to Singapore for Annual DCP Review Conference. ($1.008m)

(G) Philippines ($1.356m)

(i) NOMAD Maintenance. Three Army personnel and one civilian engineer were attached to the Philippines Air Force at Cebu on the development of maintenance and supply systems for NOMAD (The Army personnel returned to Australia in July 1985). Overhaul of six NOMAD engines in Australia. ($0.658m)

(ii) Training and Study Visits. Training in Australia for 70 Filipino personnel including Joint and Single Service Staff Colleges; Navy officer and technical trade training; Army officer and NCO corps training; Air Force Air Traffic Controller training. Visits to Australia by six officers to observe exercises and attend the 1984 Annual DCP Regional Seminar. ($0.680m)

(iii) Other. DCP Review Conference. ($0.018m)

(h) Brunei (Cost (minimal) included in Other Countries-Training)

(i) Training and Study Visits. Provision of training for four Bruneian personnel at the Overseas Joint Warfare course, Williamtown, in May 1985, and assistance for four officers to attend the 1984 Annual DCP Regional Seminar.

(i) Other countries ($0.497m)

(i) Training and Study Visits. Training in Australia for nine personnel from India, Pakistan, and Burma including training at Joint and Single Service Staff Colleges; Army corps and officer cadet training; and a visit to Australia by three Burmese officers to study Army and Air Force light aircraft operations and support.

(j) 1984 Annual DCP Regional Seminar (Costs included in individual country allocations).

(i) thirty officers representing Papua New Guinea, Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, Tonga, Brunei and New Zealand attending the 1984 DCP Regional Seminar at the Land Warfare Centre, Canungra, in November 1984. The theme of the Seminar was ``Individual Training in the Armed Forces''.

(k) DCP Training Support for Projects in Australia ($0.398m)

(i) NOMAD Training Aircraft. Modification of aircraft and the construction of additional hangars for the two NOMAD aircraft stationed at the Army Aviation School, Oakey, for DCP training purposes. ($0.131m)

(ii) Training Support Equipment. Provision of training aids and items of training equipment for Service schools in Australia in support of DCP training. ($0.254m)

(iii) Defence Co-operation Language School. Construction of a storage facility to house equipment and materiel prepared in support of English language training projects in regional countries, and maintenance of the accommodation facility at the De- fence Co-operation Language School (DCLS) Laverton. ($0.013m).

Senator GARETH EVANS —I move:

That the Senate take note of the paper.

I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.