BHP Billiton Minerals Pty Ltd, Itochu Minerals & Energy of Australia Pty Ltd and Mistui Iron Ore Corporation Pty Ltd/Angus Abdullah and Others on behalf of Njamal, Ginger Bob on behalf of Birrimaya/Western Australia
[2005] NNTTA 40
•7 June 2005
NATIONAL NATIVE TITLE TRIBUNAL
BHP Billiton Minerals Pty Ltd, ITOCHU Minerals & Energy of Australia Pty Ltd and Mistui Iron Ore Corporation Pty Ltd/Angus Abdullah and Others on behalf of Njamal, Ginger Bob on behalf of Birrimaya/Western Australia, [2005] NNTTA 40 (7 June 2005)
Application No: WF05/2
IN THE MATTER of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth)
- and –
IN THE MATTER of an inquiry into a Future Act Determination Application
BHP Billiton Minerals Pty Ltd, ITOCHU Minerals & Energy of Australia Pty Ltd and Mistui Iron Ore Corporation Pty Ltd (Applicant/grantee party)
- and -
Angus Abdullah and Others on behalf of Njamal, (WC99/8) (Njamal native title party)
and
Ginger Bob on behalf of Birrimaya (WC95/60) (Birrimaya native title party)
- and -
The State of Western Australia (Government party)
FUTURE ACT DETERMINATION
Tribunal: Hon C J Sumner, Deputy President
Place: Perth
Date: 7 June 2005 (Corrigendum dated 23 December 2005)
CORRIGENDUM
Corrections to the Future Act Determination made on 7 June 2005:
Cover Sheet and paragraph [3]
– NNTT File Number for Njamal should read WC99/8 not WC95/60; and
– NNTT File Number for Birrimaya should read WC95/60 not WC99/8.
Paragraph [17], page 8 – the sentence ‘Five out of the nine named applicants have signed it.’ is corrected to read ‘Five out of the nine named members of the native title claim group have signed it.’
Paragraph [18], page 9 – the sentence ‘Ms Kaye also confirmed that, notwithstanding Mr Ginger Bob’s infirmity, the decisions made by the Birrimaya native title party was done in accordance with their usual practice.’ is corrected to read ‘Ms Kaye also confirmed that, notwithstanding Mr Ginger Bob’s infirmity, the decisions made by the Birrimaya claim group was done in accordance with their usual practice.’.
Paragraph [19], page 9 - the sentence ‘I wish to observe, however, that the Birrimaya native title party should put its affairs in order as soon as possible by replacing Mr Ginger Bob as applicant on the claim.’ is corrected to read ‘I wish to observe, however, that the Birrimaya native title claim group should put its affairs in order as soon as possible by replacing Mr Ginger Bob as applicant on the claim.’.
Paragraph [22], page 10 – the first paragraph of the determination is corrected to read:
[22] By consent the determination of the Tribunal is that the acts, namely the grant of Mining Leases 45/1015, 45/1016. 45/1017, 45/1018 and 45/1019 to BHP Billiton Minerals Pty Ltd, ITOCHU Minerals & Energy of Australia Pty Ltd and Mistui Iron Ore Corporation Pty Ltd, can be done (consent determination) subject to the following conditions to be complied with by the Grantee Party and Njamal Native Title Party:
The Hon C J Sumner
Deputy President
23 December 2005
NATIONAL NATIVE TITLE TRIBUNAL
BHP Billiton Minerals Pty Ltd, ITOCHU Minerals & Energy of Australia Pty Ltd and Mistui Iron Ore Corporation Pty Ltd/Angus Abdullah and Others on behalf of Njamal, Ginger Bob on behalf of Birrimaya/Western Australia, [2005] NNTTA 40 (7 June 2005)
Application No: WF05/2
IN THE MATTER of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth)
- and –
IN THE MATTER of an inquiry into a Future Act Determination Application
BHP Billiton Minerals Pty Ltd, ITOCHU Minerals & Energy of Australia Pty Ltd and Mistui Iron Ore Corporation Pty Ltd (Applicant/grantee party)
- and -
Angus Abdullah and Others on behalf of Njamal, (WC95/60) (Njamal native title party)
and
Ginger Bob on behalf of Birrimaya (WC99/8) (Birrimaya native title party)
- and -
The State of Western Australia (Government party)
FUTURE ACT DETERMINATION
Tribunal: Hon C J Sumner, Deputy President
Place: Perth
Date: 7 June 2005
Catchwords: Native title – future act – application for determination for the grant of mining leases – named applicants not signed agreement – competence of Birrimaya applicant to sign agreement – native title parties as a whole consent to the determination – determination that the act may be done with conditions.
Legislation:Native Title Act 1993 (Cth), ss 25-44, 31, 35, 38, 39, 41(3), 109, 155, 203B, 203BB, 203BC
Cases:Cable Sands (WA) Pty Ltd/Mr Benjamin Nannup and Others (South West Boojarah People)/Western Australia, NNTT WF02/3, [2002] NNTTA 84 (7 May 2002), Hon C J Sumner
Evans v Western Australia (1997) 77 FCR 193
Minister of Mines (WA) v Evans & Others [1998] NNTTA 5; (1998) 163 FLR 274
Monkey Mia Dolphin Resort Pty Ltd v Western Australia [2001] NNTTA 50; (2001) 164 FLR 361
Mr Glen Councillor & Others on behalf of Hutt River/Mr Keith Councillor and Others on behalf of the Naaguja People/Mr Dennis Comeagain and Others on behalf of the Mullewa Wadjari Community/Western Australia/Victoria Diamond Exploration Pty Ltd/Grange Court Pty Ltd, NNTT WF04/7, [2004] NNTTA 38 (10 June 2004), Hon E M Franklyn QC
Mt Gingee Munjie Resources Pty Ltd/Victoria/Graham (Bootsie) Thorpe, Lindsay Gordon Mobourne, Regina Lillian Rose, Robert James Farnham, on behalf of the Gunai/Kurnai People, NNTT VF03/1, [2003] NNTTA 125 (22 December 2003), Hon C J Sumner
Portman Iron Ore Limited/Alan Jones and Others on behalf of Ballardong People and Carlene Sceghi and Others on behalf of Central West Goldfields People/Western Australia, NNTT WF02/16, [2002] NNTTA 134 (8 July 2002), Hon C J Sumner
Re Koara People (1996) 132 FLR 73
Hearing dates: 20 May 2005; 31 May 2005
Counsel for the Njamal
and Birrimaya native title
parties: Ms Pamela Kaye, Pilbara Native Title Service
Representatives of the
grantee party: Mr Geoff Gishubl and Ms Jean Bursle, Blake Dawson Waldron Lawyers for BHP Billiton Iron Ore Pty Ltd
Counsel for the
Government party: Mr Trevor Creewel, State Solicitor’s Office
Representative of the
Government party: Ms Paola O’Neill, Department of Industry & Resources
REASONS FOR FUTURE ACT DETERMINATION
Background
On 25 February 2004, the Government party gave notice under s 29 of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) (‘the Act’) of future acts, namely the grant of Mining Leases M45/1015, M45/1016, M45/1017, M45/1018 and M45/1019 under the Mining Act 1978 (WA) to C I Minerals Australia Pty Ltd, Mistui Iron Ore Corporation Pty Ltd and BHP Billiton Minerals Pty Ltd, represented by BHP Billiton Iron Ore Pty Ltd. On 30 April 2004 the change of name of CI Minerals Australia Pty Ltd to ITOCHU Minerals & Energy of Australia Pty Ltd was registered.
The proposed leases are future acts covered by s 26(1)(c)(i) of the Act and cannot be validly done unless the right to negotiate provisions of the Act are complied with (Part 2, Division 3, Subdivision P (ss 25-44)). All proposed leases are situated in the Shire of East Pilbara and the area, location and percentage to which each of the proposed leases overlaps the relevant native title claim is as follows:
M45/1015 – 655.26 hectares, 21 kilometres south east of Shay Gap; 100% overlap with the Njamal native title claim boundary;
M45/1016 – 981.95 hectares, 21 kilometres south east of Shay Gap; 100% overlap with the Njamal native title claim boundary; 0.2% overlap with the Birrimaya native title claim boundary;
M45/1017 – 733.84 hectares, 21 kilometres south east of Shay Gap; 100% overlap with the Njamal native title claim boundary;
M45/1018 – 102.84 hectares, 20 kilometres south-east of Shay Gap; 100% overlap with the Njamal native title claim boundary; 38.7% overlap with the Birrimaya native title claim boundary; and
M54/1019 – 536.4 hectares, 12 kilometres east of Shay Gap; 100% overlap with the Njamal native title claim boundary.
The native title parties in respect of these proceedings are:
Mr Angus Abdullah, Mr Barry Taylor, Mrs Biddy Norman, Mr Colin Malana, Mr Dan Murphy, Mr Eddie McPhee, Mr Ernie Johnson, Mrs Jan Taylor, Mr Johnson Taylor, Mr Kevin Allen, Mr Maurice Coppin, Mr Peter Coppin, Mr Rodney Monaghan, Mr Teddy Allan, Ms Alice Mitchell and Ms Lorraine Williams on behalf of the Njamal People (WC95/60 – registered from 3 June 1999) (‘the Njamal native title party’)
Mr Ginger Bob on behalf of the Birrimaya People (WC99/8 – registered from 10 October 1995) (‘the Birrimaya native title party’)
On 5 May 2005, being a date more than six months after the s 29 notice was given, Blake Dawson Waldron (on behalf of the grantee party) made an application pursuant to s 35 of the Act for a future act determination under s 38 in relation to the proposed leases. The grantee party asserted that agreement had been reached regarding the doing of the acts with both native title parties. In the case of the Njamal native title party, three of the named applicants had not executed the State Deed (agreement prepared to satisfy s 31(1)(b) of the Act between all negotiation parties) or the Ancillary Agreement between the grantee party and native title party (Njamal Yarrie Agreement). With respect to the Birrimaya native title party, the application stated that the applicant, Mr Ginger Bob, did not execute any agreement (State Deed or Ancillary Agreement – Birrimaya Yarrie Agreement) as a consequence of his infirmity. The applicant requested that, in view of the agreements reached, the future act determination be made by consent.
On 19 May 2005, Blake Dawson Waldron submitted a draft minute of consent in the following terms:
‘MINUTE OF PROPOSED CONSENT DETERMINATION UNDER SECTION 38 OF THE NATIVE TITLE ACT 1993 (CTH)
1. The Government Party has complied with the requirements of s.31(1)(a) of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth).
2. The Government Party, the Native Title Party and the Grantee Party has complied with the requirements of s.31(1)(b) of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth).
3. The Government Party, the Grantee Party and the Njamal and Birrimaya Native Title Party consent to a determination under s.38 of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) that the “acts” being the grant of mining leases 45/1016 and 45/1018 can be done.
4. The Government Party, the Grantee Party and the Njamal Native Title Party consent to a determination under s.38 of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) that the “acts” being the grant of mining leases 45/1015, 45/1016. 45/1017, 45/1018 and 45/1019 can be done (consent determination) subject to following conditions to be complied with by the Grantee Party and Njamal Native Title Party:
(a)The Njamal Native Title Party (subject to condition (b)) is bound by the Yarrie Continued Operations and Infrastructure Works Agreement (Njamal Yarrie Agreement) as if it had been executed by all parties (including by Johnson Taylor, Barry Taylor and Eddie McPhee) on and from the date of the consent determination and any reference in the Njamal Yarrie Agreement to the date of the execution of the agreement by all parties or to the “Commencement Date” are to be read as if they were a reference to the date of the consent determination.
(b)The Grantee Party (subject to condition (a)) is bound by the Njamal Yarrie Agreement as if it had been executed by all parties (including by Johnson Taylor, Barry Taylor and Eddie McPhee) on the date of the consent determination and any reference in the Njamal Yarrie Agreement to the date of the execution of the agreement by all parties or to the “Commencement Date” are to be read as if they were a reference to the date of the consent determination.
(c)The Njamal Native Title Party must use its best endeavours to procure the full execution of the Njamal Yarrie Agreement by the Njamal Native Title Party as soon as possible after the date of the consent determination.
(d)The Grantee Party must execute the Njamal Yarrie Agreement upon satisfaction of condition (c).’
The Tribunal has power to make a determination with the consent of the parties and it will normally be appropriate to do so where the parties (and particularly the native title party) are legally represented and those representatives have advised the Tribunal of the consent. The Yamatji Marlpa Barna Baba Maaja Aboriginal Corporation (‘Yamatji’) is the designated representative body under the Act for both native title parties and has represented them in these proceedings via their Pilbara region service arm, the Pilbara Native Title Service (‘PNTS’). The Tribunal will hear the parties to satisfy itself that the consent determination is appropriate (Monkey Mia Dolphin Resort Pty Ltd v Western Australia [2001] NNTTA 50; (2001) 164 FLR 361).
The inquiry
On 20 May 2005 the Tribunal conducted a hearing at which the representatives of the grantee and both native title parties indicated that a meeting of the Njamal claimant group was scheduled for the week commencing 23 May 2005. The three remaining applicants were to be given the opportunity to sign the Njamal Yarrie agreement and State Deed at this meeting, thereby resolving issues relating to that native title party and consequently the hearing was adjourned until after this meeting. Ms Pamela Kaye, for the native title parties, also advised that she intended to provide an affidavit dealing with the process whereby the native title parties’ consent to the doing of the acts was obtained.
At this hearing I indicated that the circumstances of this application as they relate to the Birrimaya native title party were different from those previously dealt with by the Tribunal. That is, it is the sole named applicant for this claim, about whom there are questions about whether he has the capacity to execute the agreements, raising concerns about the extent to which the native title party can be said to have consented to the doing of the act and this determination. I requested Ms Kaye to provide additional information by way of affidavit or letter, as to the nature of Mr Ginger Bob’s infirmity and how consent was obtained. An affidavit of Pamela Kaye was lodged with the Tribunal on 27 May 2005 addressing this issue and the processes of obtaining the consent of both native title parties to the doing of the acts.
In response to a Tribunal request, Blake Dawson Waldron provided a copy of the Njamal Yarrie agreement and submissions elaborating on why it considered that the condition sought was within the Tribunal’s power to impose.
At the adjourned hearing convened on 31 May 2005, following further submissions by the parties, I indicated that it was appropriate to make the consent determination as sought. At the request of the grantee party and with the consent of the other parties I made the following confidentiality order under s 155 of the Act:
‘That the Njamal Agreement be treated as confidential by the Tribunal and not released or disclosed by the Tribunal to any person except as required by law.’
All parties confirmed their consent to the determination in the terms of the draft Minute. Ms Kaye, as a legal practitioner, advised that she was satisfied that she had been properly instructed by the native title parties to consent to the determination:
Findings with respect to the Njamal native title party
Ms Kaye’s affidavit sets out, from her personal knowledge, the Njamal native title party’s decision making process and steps taken in that process leading to the claim group’s decision to agree to the Njamal Yarrie Agreement.
Ms Kaye deposes that 13 of the 16 named applicants have signed the Njamal Yarrie Agreement. It appears that Johnson Taylor, Barry Taylor and Eddie McPhee have not signed. It is not clear whether this is because they oppose the agreement or there have been logistical difficulties in obtaining their signatures. Nevertheless, I am satisfied that the Njamal native title party have consented to the determination with conditions in accordance with a process of the kind referred to in s 203BC(2)(b) of the Act.
The situation is not dissimilar to that in Monkey Mia where there was a refusal of 2 of 38 named applicants to sign the relevant agreement and other similar matters where the Tribunal considered it was appropriate to make a consent determination. The Tribunal has held that a native title party is not each person named as part of the applicant and registered native title claimant but is all those persons acting jointly (Monkey Mia at [19]; Mt Gingee Munjie Resources Pty Ltd/Victoria/Graham (Bootsie) Thorpe, Lindsay Gordon Mobourne, Regina Lillian Rose, Robert James Farnham, on behalf of the Gunai/Kurnai People, NNTT VF03/1, [2003] NNTTA 125 (22 December 2003), Hon C J Sumner at [13]-[37]). Individuals named as part of the applicant must act in accordance with the instructions of the claim group as a whole.
The Njamal Yarrie Agreement deals with many of the issues which the Tribunal has previously included as conditions of a determination (eg. Minister of Mines (WA) v Evans & Others [1998] NNTTA 5; (1998) 163 FLR 274 at 315-332) and which are customarily included in agreements of this kind. It deals with a number of the matters in s 39(1)(a) of the Act which the Tribunal is required to take into account in making a determination. It provides for an ongoing process of consultation between the native title and grantee parties in relation to the impact of mining operations on native title rights and interests and about employment, training and business opportunities; compensation; funding for managing impact on Aboriginal heritage and the environment; and access to areas of the mining leases subject to operational and safety constraints. The existence of this agreement confirms that a consent determination is appropriate.
The parties did not seek to make the actual terms of the Njamal Yarrie Agreement a condition of the Tribunal’s determination. The Tribunal has a broad discretion to make a determination by reference to the criteria in s 39 of the Act and its scope and purpose (Evans v Western Australia (1997) 77 FCR 193 at 213; Re Koara People (1996) 132 FLR 73 at 93). The power is limited by s 38(2) which prohibits a condition that payments be made to a native title party based on the amount of profits made, income derived or things produced. Further the Tribunal cannot make an actual determination of compensation but can only make a condition that compensation be paid into trust pending a final determination (s 41(3)). In this case no specific conditions of this kind are being sought and the determination agreed between the parties is similar to those previously made (Monkey Mia (at [23]); Portman Iron Ore Limited/Alan Jones and Others on behalf of Ballardong People and Carlene Sceghi and Others on behalf of Central West Goldfields People/Western Australia, NNTT WF02/16, [2002] NNTTA 134 (8 July 2002), Hon C J Sumner (at [12]); Cable Sands (WA) Pty Ltd/Mr Benjamin Nannup and Others (South West Boojarah People)/Western Australia, NNTT WF02/3, [2002] NNTTA 84 (7 May 2002), Hon C J Sumner (at [9])). Accordingly, a determination in the terms sought, being that the grantee and Njamal native title party be bound to the Njamal Yarrie agreement as though it were fully executed and that the Njamal native title party use best endeavours to secure full execution of this agreement, is appropriate.
Findings with respect to the Birrimaya native title party
With respect of the Birrimaya native title party Ms Kaye’s affidavit provides details of their decision making process generally and in relation to this matter. There is a Birrimaya working group comprising 12 Birrimaya persons who are authorised to deal with among other things agreements with mining companies. This group met numerous times during 2004 about the Birrimaya Yarrie Agreement. A Birrimaya claim group meeting was also convened on 7 April 2005 where the group unanimously resolved to enter into the Birrimaya Yarrie Agreement. Five out of the nine named applicants have signed it. In relation to Mr Ginger Bob’s particular circumstances, Ms Kaye states the following:
‘27. During the course of the Birrimaya community meeting it became apparent that Ginger Bob’s infirmity may mean that he was not hearing and/or comprehending the explanation about the terms of the Birrimaya Yarrie Continued Operations Agreement and legal advice that was being provided. After being provided with legal advice on the implications of executing a document if you don’t have capacity the Birrimaya community, after some discussion in “language” decided that those people who were named as the native title claim group [comprising the group on whose behalf the claim is expressed as being brought – Ginger Bob, Selina Brown, Anthony Ginger, Bruce Thomas, Lindsay Ginger, Lisa Ginger, Renae Ginger, Jason Ginger, Marissa Ginger and their biological descendents] and who were present at the meeting would execute the Birrimaya Yarrie Continued Operations Agreement on behalf of the Birrimaya people. Selina Brown, Anthony Ginger, Marissa Ginger, Bruce Thomas and Lindsay Ginger executed the agreement on 7 April 2005.
28. I am satisfied that on the basis of the resolution of the Birrimaya people at the Birrimaya community meeting that they have consented to the grant of mining lease applications 45/1016 and 45/1018. Birrimaya have, subject to the Birrimaya Yarrie Continued Operations Agreement given their consent to a determination that the mining leases be granted.’
Ms Kaye was properly concerned about the capacity of Mr Ginger Bob to give effect to what the claim group had authorised. During the hearing she elaborated on the nature of the infirmity suffered by Mr Ginger Bob. He is elderly and in permanent care being both very hard of hearing and poor sighted such that Ms Kaye was concerned that Mr Ginger Bob had not fully comprehended even explanations given to him in ‘language’ with the aid of maps. Further, medical advice was obtained which confirmed Mr Ginger Bob has suffered a stroke, which has reduced his ability to speak clearly, again leading to doubts as to his level of comprehension. Ms Kaye also confirmed that, notwithstanding Mr Ginger Bob’s infirmity, the decisions made by the Birrimaya native title party was done in accordance with their usual practice. On the basis of Ms Kaye’s evidence I am satisfied that the Birrimaya native title party have consented to the determination with conditions in accordance with a process of the kind referred to in s 203BC(2)(b) of the Act.
As pointed out at [8] above, the circumstances of the Birrimaya native title party extend the factual situations under which the Tribunal has been prepared to make a consent determination. In all prior cases, the applicant has comprised a group of more then one named individual who collectively represent the wider native title claim group. In such circumstances, the infirmity or incapacity of one named applicant does not impact substantially on the ability of the applicant as a whole to consent to the doing of an act or determination (Mr Glen Councillor & Others on behalf of Hutt River/Mr Keith Councillor and Others on behalf of the Naaguja People/Mr Dennis Comeagain and Others on behalf of the Mullewa Wadjari Community/Western Australia/Victoria Diamond Exploration Pty Ltd/Grange Court Pty Ltd, NNTT WF04/7, [2004] NNTTA 38 (10 June 2004), Hon E M Franklyn QC). Nevertheless, I am satisfied that the general principles, that were previously applied and led to a determination despite the non-consent or incapacity to consent of some named applicants, can be applied in these circumstances. The critical question is whether the claim group as a whole has properly decided to consent to the determination sought. I am satisfied that it has. I wish to observe, however, that the Birrimaya native title party should put its affairs in order as soon as possible by replacing Mr Ginger Bob as applicant on the claim.
In relation to both native title parties I also take into account that as the designated representative body under the Act, Yamatji has a formal role in protecting the interests of native title holders (ss 203B(4), 203BC(1)(a)), representing claimants in relation to their claim and related future act matters (s 203BB(1)(b)), being satisfied that persons they represent including native title parties understand and consent to a course of action (s 203BC(1)(b)) in accordance with the requirements of the Act (s 203BC(2)). The Tribunal is to carry out its functions in an informal and prompt way (s 109(1)) and is not bound by technicalities, legal forms or rules of evidence (s 109(3)). This does not mean that the Tribunal can act without evidence but it does mean that it has some flexibility to make a determination by consent, once satisfied that the fundamental issue of whether the claim group has consented is established. If this threshold issue is resolved there is scope for the Tribunal, in accordance with the direction in s 109(3), to find an acceptable way to give effect to the decision and not create obstacles to ensuring the objects of the Act are fulfilled.
The Birrimaya Yarrie Agreement contains similar provisions to those in the Nyamal Yarrie Agreement and I adopt the comments made above in para [15] to confirm that the consent determination is appropriate.
Determination
By consent the determination of the Tribunal is that the acts, namely the grant of Mining Leases 45/1015, 45/1016. 45/1017, 45/1018 and 45/1019 to BHP Billiton Minerals Pty Ltd, ITOCHU Minerals & Energy of Australia Pty Ltd and Mistui Iron Ore Corporation Pty Ltd, can be done (consent determination) subsequent to the following conditions to be complied with by the Grantee Party and Njamal Native Title Party:
(a)The Njamal Native Title Party (subject to condition (b)) is bound by the Yarrie Continued Operations and Infrastructure Works Agreement (Njamal Yarrie Agreement) as if it had been executed by all parties (including by Johnson Taylor, Barry Taylor and Eddie McPhee) on and from the date of the consent determination and any reference in the Njamal Yarrie Agreement to the date of the execution of the agreement by all parties or to the “Commencement Date” are to be read as if they were a reference to the date of the consent determination.
(b)The Grantee Party (subject to condition (a)) is bound by the Njamal Yarrie Agreement as if it had been executed by all parties (including by Johnson Taylor, Barry Taylor and Eddie McPhee) on the date of the consent determination and any reference in the Njamal Yarrie Agreement to the date of the execution of the agreement by all parties or to the “Commencement Date” are to be read as if they were a reference to the date of the consent determination.
(c)The Njamal Native Title Party must use its best endeavours to procure the full execution of the Njamal Yarrie Agreement by the Njamal Native Title Party as soon as possible after the date of the consent determination.
(d)The Grantee Party must execute the Njamal Yarrie Agreement upon satisfaction of condition (c).
Hon CJ Sumner
Deputy President
7 June 2005
14
8
0