Dorothy Tucker on behalf of the Narnoobinya Family Group/Western Australia/Image Resources NL
[2010] NNTTA 99
•12 July 2010
NATIONAL NATIVE TITLE TRIBUNAL
Dorothy Tucker on behalf of the Narnoobinya Family Group/Western Australia/Image Resources NL, [2010] NNTTA 99 (12 July 2010)
Application No: WO09/1024
IN THE MATTER of the Native Title Act1993 (Cth)
- and -
IN THE MATTER of an inquiry into an expedited procedure objection application
Dorothy Tucker on behalf of the Narnoobinya Family Group (WC97/40) (native title party)
- and -
The State of Western Australia (Government party)
- and -
Image Resources NL (grantee party)
DETERMINATION THAT THE ACT IS AN ACT ATTRACTING THE EXPEDITED PROCEDURE
Tribunal: Hon C J Sumner, Deputy President
Place: Perth
Date: 12 July 2010
Native title – future act – proposed grant of exploration licence – expedited procedure objection application – whether act is likely to interfere directly with the carrying on of community or social activities – whether act is likely to interfere with sites of particular significance – whether act is likely to cause major disturbance to land or waters – expedited procedure attracted.
Legislation:Native Title Act 1993 (Cth), ss 29, 31, 151(2), 237
Mining Act 1978 (WA), ss 63(aa),
Aboriginal Heritage Act 1972 (WA)
Cases:Butcher Cherel and Others on behalf of the Gooniyandi Native Title Claimants/Western Australia/Faustus Nominees Pty Ltd, NNTT WO04/89, [2007] NNTTA 15 (1 March 2007), Daniel O’Dea
Champion v Western Australia [2005] NNTTA 1; (2005) 190 FLR 362
Dann v Western Australia [1997] FCA 332; (1997) 74 FCR 391
Dorothy and Thelma Tucker on behalf of the Narnoobinya FamilyGroup/Western Australia/Comet Resources Ltd, NNTT WO04/252, [2005] NNTTA 38 (31 May 2005), Daniel O’Dea
Little & Others v Oriole Resources Pty Ltd [2005] FCAFC 243; (2005) 146 FCR 576
Maitland Parker and Others on behalf of Martu Idja Banyjima/Western Australia/Derek Noel Ammon, NNTT WO05/753, [2006] NNTTA 65 (2 June 2006), Hon C J Sumner
Parker on behalf of the Martu Idja Banyjima People v State of Western Australia [2007] FCA 1027
Parker v State of Western Australia [2008] FCAFC 23; (2008) 167 FCR 340
Smith v Western Australia [2001] FCA 19; (2001) 108 FCR 442
Walley v Western Australia [2002] NNTTA 24; (2002) 169 FLR 437
Representative of the
native title party: Ms Dorothy Ann English (Tucker), Narnoobinya Family Group
Representatives of the Mr Domhnall McCloskey, State Solicitor’s Office
Government party: Mr Greg Abbott, Department of Mines and Petroleum
Representative of the
grantee party: Mr Shannon McMahon, McMahon Mining Title Services Pty Ltd
REASONS FOR DETERMINATION
On 12 August 2009, the Government party gave notice under s 29 of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) (the Act) of its intention to grant exploration licence E28/1895 (the proposed licence) to Image Resources NL (the grantee party) and included in the notice a statement that it considered that the grant attracted the expedited procedure (that is, one which can be done without the normal negotiations required by s 31 of the Act).
The proposed licence comprises an area of 102.45 square kilometres located 103 kilometres easterly of Kambalda in the Shire of Dundas/Kalgoorlie-Boulder City. It is overlapped at 79.03 per cent by the registered native title claim of the Narnoobinya Family Group (WC97/40 – registered from 4 June 1997) and 100 per cent by the registered native title claim of the Ngadju (WC99/2 – registered from 28 September 2000).
On 14 December 2009, Dorothy Tucker on behalf of the Narnoobinya Family Group (WC97/40) (the native title party) lodged an expedited procedure objection application with the Tribunal. No objection was lodged by the Ngadju claimants. Dorothy Ann Tucker is one of the persons named as the applicant in the Narnoobinya Family Group native title claim but now goes under the name of Dorothy Ann English.
In accordance with standard practice the Tribunal gave directions to parties to provide contentions and documents for an inquiry to determine whether or not the expedited procedure is attracted. These directions allow a four month period, after the s 29 closing date for the lodgement of objections (14 December 2009), for parties to discuss the possibility of reaching an agreement which could lead to disposal of the objection by consent.
During the preliminary conference on 2 February 2010, Mr Shannon McMahon, representative for the grantee party advised that Image Resources NL had in accordance with the Government party’s policy, executed the Regional Standard Heritage Agreement (RSHA) with Ngadju which covers 100 per cent of the proposed licence. The grantee party requested the matter proceed to determination by the Tribunal.
The Government party lodged its contentions and evidence on 18 and 25 March 2010. Following an extension of time, contentions and affidavit evidence of the native title party were lodged on 17 May 2010 and contentions of the grantee party lodged on 24 May 2010. Further information was provided by the grantee party on 7 July 2010.
The parties agreed that this matter could be determined ‘on the papers’ (i.e. without holding a hearing) and I am satisfied that the objection can be adequately determined in this way (s 151(2) of the Act).
Legal principles
Section 237 of the Act provides:
‘237 Act attracting the expedited procedure
A future act is an act attracting the expedited procedure if:
(a) the act is not likely to interfere directly with the carrying on of the community or social activities of the persons who are the holders (disregarding any trust created under Division 6 of Part 2) of native title in relation to the land or waters concerned; and
(b) the act is not likely to interfere with areas or sites of particular significance, in accordance with their traditions, to the persons who are the holders (disregarding any trust created under Division 6 of Part 2) of the native title in relation to the land or waters concerned; and
(c) the act is not likely to involve major disturbance to any land or waters concerned or create rights whose exercise is likely to involve major disturbance to any land or waters concerned.’
In Walley v Western Australia [2002] NNTTA 24; (2002) 169 FLR 437 (Walley), I considered the applicable legal principles (at 439-449 [7]–[23]) and the nature of exploration and prospecting licences and conditions to be imposed, including what activities are permitted by it and what limits are placed on those activities (at 449-454 [24]–[35]). I adopt those findings for the purposes of this inquiry, while noting that the Mining Act 1978 (WA) has since been amended and the standard conditions to be imposed on the exploration licence in Walley (at 453-454 [34]) have been strengthened.
Standard condition 2 now requires that backfilling and rehabilitation of the land must be carried out no later than six months after excavation unless otherwise approved by the Environmental Officer, Department of Mines and Petroleum (DMP). Standard condition 4 is also to be read with s 63(aa) of the Mining Act 1978 which requires approval by the Environmental Officer, DMP, of a program of work lodged by a grantee party in the prescribed manner before ground disturbing equipment can be used. Before assessment, the program of work for exploration, among other things, requires a grantee party to provide information from the Register of Aboriginal sites; advise whether the proposal intersects the boundary of registered sites; and consult with the Department of Indigenous Affairs and obtain advice from that department that the proposed activities are acceptable.
With respect to issues arising under s 237(b), I adopt the findings of the Tribunal in Maitland Parker and Others on behalf of Martu Idja Banyjima/Western Australia/Derek Noel Ammon, NNTT WO05/753, [2006] NNTTA 65 (2 June 2006), Hon C J Sumner (Maitland Parker) at [31]–[38], [40]-[41]. (See also the Federal Court dismissal of a native title party appeal from this determination in Parker on behalf of the Martu Idja Banyjima People v State of Western Australia [2007] FCA 1027 and Parker v State of Western Australia [2008] FCAFC 23; (2008) 167 FCR 340.)
Evidence in relation to the proposed act
Government party documentation establishes the following notable underlying land tenure on the proposed licence.
Vacant Crown land (79 per cent overlap); and
Pastoral Lease 3114/1251 (MADOONIA DOWNS) (21 per cent overlap).
A map prepared by the Tribunal’s Geospatial section shows that there are no Aboriginal communities within or in the vicinity of the proposed licence area.
Department of Indigenous Affairs (DIA) documents provided by the Government party reveal no registered sites under the Aboriginal Heritage Act 1972 (WA) (AHA) within the proposed licence area.
Government party documents indicate two live prospecting licences held by Westex Resources Pty Ltd which encroach the proposed licence by 1.8 per cent, one live exploration licence held by Integra Mining Ltd which encroaches the proposed licence by 0.5 per cent and one pending exploration licence applied for by Anglogold Ashanti Australia Ltd which encroaches the proposed licence at 100 per cent. Previous mineral exploration and activity has been evidenced in the area of the proposed licence between 1971 and 2009.
The grant of the proposed licence will be subject to the standard conditions imposed on the grant of all exploration licences in Western Australia (see Maitland Parker at [21] Conditions 1-4). Two additional conditions require that the pastoral lessee is notified of the grant of the licence and of certain exploration activities (conditions 5-6).
The following Endorsements (which differ from conditions in not making the licensee liable to forfeiture of the proposed licence for its breach) will be imposed:
1.The licensee’s attention is drawn to the provisions of the Aboriginal Heritage Act 1972 (WA) and any Regulations thereunder; and
2.The licensee’s attention is drawn to the Environmental Protection Act 1986 (WA) and the Environmental Protection (Clearing of Native Vegetation) Regulations 2004, which provides for the protection of all native vegetation from damage unless prior permission is obtained.
In its contentions the grantee party sets out its intentions to comply with all relevant legislative requirements, including the Aboriginal heritage and mining regimes.
The initial work proposed by the grantee party includes geophysical surveys, geological mapping, soil sampling, rock chip sampling, and broad spaced reconnaissance drilling, the majority of which the grantee party says will be non-ground disturbing. While this evidence relates to the initial work, the grantee party has not said that exploration will be restricted to it. The possibility exists that more extensive ground disturbing activity, based on the rights granted pursuant to an exploration licence will occur depending on the results of initial investigation. I have made my determination on that basis.
Evidence provided by the native title party
The submissions of the native title party include the affidavit of Ms Dorothy English (Tucker) (‘DT affidavit’) affirmed on 14 May 2010 made in the following terms:
‘I Dorothy Ann English of Unit 26/444 Marmion Street Myaree WA 6154 the applicant and member of the Narnoobinya Family Group. Do solemnly and sincerely affirm that this is my name and to the best of my knowledge the contents of this my affidavit is true.
WO09/1024
Applications for Exploration Licences, E28/1895 Image Resources NL
1. The Narnoobinya Family Group (Native Title Party WC97/40) makes this submission regarding the potential effects of granting this Exploration Licence and the proposed exploration activities by Image Resources NL on our native title rights and interests as described in Section 39 of the Native Title Act. The Country in response of which this tenement is intended to be issued is the country over which there is an existing claim for recognition of Native Title pursuant to the Native Title Act 1993.
2. We are descendents of the original inhabitants of our great / grandmother Anna White and Topsy Whitehand, Our claim stems from these connections and from the traditions that have been handed down to us. These include religious beliefs and practices, avoidances and knowledge of sacred sites.
3. Pursuant to traditional Aboriginal Law and Custom the country forms part of the cultural heritage from which Aboriginal people draw their identities. These are passed through generations of Aboriginal people who have traditional connection to that country. The Family group ancestor’s and forbears travelled and lived through and around these areas. Their special places, which have great spiritual importance and significance. Any disturbance to them, would badly affect both the health and well being of our traditional country and of our family members who are linked to the country. Other places are traditional living places of our old people and the locations of important events in our history that are essential to our continuing contact with traditional country and ancestors.
4. Any ground disturbance of that country interferes with the Aboriginal heritage sites and our culture traditions. In the same way as Temple Mount in Israel is so filled with emotion and significance for Jews and Palestinians so too are our artefacts and traditions important. Consequently any disturbance of scared beliefs causes anguish to our people.
5. The Narnoobinya native title rights and interests, according to traditional law and customs mean that we are custodians of sites and must protect and care for the country, which includes this area. The proposed licence and activities also must avoid damage to flora and fauna, and landscape features. These features are basic to our enjoyment of our native title rights, interests, use of country and natural resources. Our traditional cultural responsibilities include managing the use of these lands and resources to insure the ongoing good health of the country for our people and descendents in the future.
6. We also need to make sure that the proposed activities do not compromise our freedom of access to continue to travel through and may conduct activities in our traditional country. Narnoobinya country is a fragile environment, and we do our best to make sure that our precious natural resources and water supplies are not destroyed. Tracks follow our ancestors’ traditional travelling routes and Dreaming Tracks between rock holes and other water sources. As Traditional Owners, we have to make sure those proposals to introduce more heavy vehicles, people and activities along these tracks do not damage these sacred and environmentally crucial places, or threaten our cultural way of life that depends on the preservation of these places and our regular access to them.
7. It is the objector’s contention that the impact upon Native Title by the proposed activity allowed pursuant to the tenement is such that it is a matter that should be negotiated with registered claimants for Native Title. The objector thus contends that subsection 237(a) if the Native Title Act applies to the decision to seek application of the expedited procedure.
8. The objector contends that the area of this tenement should be the subject of a heritage protection agreement and surveys. These are to be conducted with Aboriginal participants in order that the cultural landscape of the proposed tenement are which could be associated with traditional stories, sites of significance, old hunting grounds are not unnecessarily disturbed.
9. Ethnographic and archaeological surveys will determine whether places of special significance are threatened. We note that the Department of Industry and Resources are interested in such agreements and surveys being carried out.
10. Given the acts allowable by the said license, we believe it could interfere and/or damage cultural heritage and our connections with that country, unless the Grantee party does a heritage protection survey to avoid any damage or interference to these sites of cultural significance. A heritage survey and a heritage agreement will resolve matters for us.
11. The Narnoobinya Family Group is not opposed to exploration activity but ask that the Grantee Party take care not to damage the land and the sites within it. Given that the license broadly covers what the Grantee can do to the land it is essential that the grantee undertake proper survey of this tenement. The Narnoobinya Family Group is willing to help the Grantee in a Heritage Protection Survey before the Grantee commences their operations.
12. Further mineral exploration and possible future mining activities on this exploration licence areas need to be conducted in such a manner so as to avoid damage or disturbance to places that have particular cultural and historical significance to the Narnoobinya Family Group, and which form an essential part of our cultural identity and ongoing traditions and practices.
13. Significant places should be protected under the Aboriginal Heritage Act. We don’t want mineral explorers damaging our cultural heritage places, or wasting time and money exploring at places that could not be mined in any case because of their cultural significance.
14. The proposed exploration activities would also involve increased 4WD and foot or horseback has only ever travelled heavy vehicle traffic and making new tracks in previously undisturbed country that. We are concerned to be closely involved in managing these activities so that they do not damage our traditional country and way of life.
15. We look forward to being contacted for further negotiations regarding this matter.’
The affidavit evidence of Ms English (Tucker) is uncontested and I accept it. Ms English (Tucker) is listed as one of the persons comprising the Narnoobinya Family Group applicant for native title and I am satisfied that she has authority to speak for country on behalf of the native title party.
The material provided by the native title party included contentions lodged by post and filed personally by Ms English (Tucker) which she said were signed by her even though they did not actually contain her signature. As these were filed personally by Ms English (Tucker) I have accepted as evidence some aspects of them where they deal with matters of fact.
Community or social activities (s 237(a))
The Tribunal is required to make a predictive assessment of whether the grant of the proposed licence and activities undertaken pursuant to it are likely to interfere with the community or social activities of the native title party (in the sense of there being a real risk of interference) (see Smith v Western Australia [2001] FCA 19; (2001) 108 FCR 442 at 449-450 [23]) (Smith). Direct interference involves an evaluative judgement that the future act is likely to be the proximate cause of the interference and must be substantial and not trivial in its impact on community or social activities (Smith at 451 [26]). The assessment is also contextual, taking account other factors which may already have had an impact on a native title party’s community or social activities (such as mining or pastoral activity) (Smith at 451-452 [27]).
The evidence establishes that some prospecting and exploration activity has occurred in the area of E28/1895 and vicinity over the years up to and including the present day and that pastoral activities are conducted on part of it. I accept that these activities will already have interfered to some extent with any traditional community or social activities of the native title party even if the state of the evidence means that this is not a very significant factor in this case.
The contentions of the native title party (NTPSC page 6) identify that the native title party has connection to the area of land pertaining to the proposed licence which includes connections maintained through hunting game, collecting bush food and medicines, as well as looking after and maintaining sites. The contentions refer to hunting kangaroo, emus, goanna, bobtails and gathering bardie grubs, quandong, gulgulas, ngadjun, ‘pig face’ and other berries. Generations of the native title party are said to have performed ceremonies and gathered food in the area and been employed in station activities. Although these contentions identify some community and social activities of the native title party they are not specific as to how often they are carried out or the number of persons involved. The reference to past generations does not assist to provide specific evidence of contemporary activities.
Further, the affidavit evidence provided by Ms English (Tucker) lacks specificity as to the type and scope of social and community activities that are carried out by members of the native title party. Ms English (Tucker) deposes that the native title party’s ‘traditional cultural responsibilities include managing the use of these lands and resources to insure the ongoing good health of the country for our people and descendents in the future’ (DT affidavit para 5). The native title party has not provided evidence with enough specificity to suggest the type of community and social activities that are currently conducted over the area of the proposed licence by the native title party nor is there any reference to the frequency with which those activities might occur or the number of people involved in them.
The size of the proposed licence is 102.45 square kilometres and the area of the Narnoobinya Family Group claim is approximately 64166.12 square kilometres. Consistently with previous Tribunal decisions, I find that the size of the proposed licence area in the context of the much larger native title claim area also make it less likely that the proposed exploration activity will interfere with whatever community or social activities are carried out by the native title party.
The Tribunal must have regard to the fact that the grantee party’s access to the area would be temporary and limited to the areas in which exploration is taking place as significant ground disturbing exploration will only occur at any one time over a small area. In general the Tribunal has found that, because of its relatively limited and temporary nature, exploration activity is not likely directly to interfere with a native title party’s community or social activities except in an incidental and insubstantial way and this is such a case.
Taking all these factors into account I find that the exploration activity will not directly interfere with the community or social activities of the native title party in a substantial or more than trivial way.
Sites of particular significance (s 237(b))
The issue the Tribunal is required to determine is whether there is likely to be (in the sense of a real risk of) interference with areas or sites of particular (i.e. more than ordinary) significance to the native title party in accordance with their traditions. As stated, the Register kept under the AHA shows no registered sites within E28/1895, but this does not mean there may not be other sites or areas of particular significance to the native title party over E28/1895 or in the vicinity. The Register does not purport to be a record of all Aboriginal sites in Western Australia and the Tribunal will consider whether there is evidence to support the existence of relevant sites in particular matters. The AHA protects all Aboriginal sites, whether on the Register or not.
The regulatory regime based on the AHA has been described on numerous occasions by the Tribunal (see Maitland Parker (at [31]-[38], [40]-[41])). While the Tribunal has usually found that the site protective regime based on the AHA is sufficient to ensure that interference with sites of particular significance is unlikely, each matter must be considered on its own facts (see Butcher Cherel and Others on behalf of the Gooniyandi Native Title Claimants/Western Australia/Faustus Nominees Pty Ltd, NNTT WO04/89, [2007] NNTTA 15 (1 March 2007), Daniel O’Dea (at [81]-[91])). The Tribunal must consider, based on the facts of particular cases and the nature and extent of sites of particular significance, whether this protective regime is sufficient to make it unlikely that there will be interference with sites of particular significance found to exist.
Neither the contentions of the native title party nor Ms English’s (Tucker) affidavit evidence provide any evidence of Aboriginal sites located within the proposed licence area or any evidence of sites of particular significance to the native title party in accordance with their traditions.
Ms English’s (Tucker) affidavit and the native title party contentions assert that unless the grantee party engages with the native title party and agrees to conduct a heritage protection survey, sites of cultural significance may be damaged or be interfered with and this will damage the native title party’s cultural heritage and connection with that country. Furthermore, the native title party contends that ‘much of the country between Norseman and Israelite Bay contains sacred sites, and stories of ancestral spirits are still known, including jinaguthy, Girrakulba, and Kadaicha/Kundaitcha men (‘feathered foots’). Moreover, the sites contained within this stretch of country consist of blowholes, lakes, old campsites, rock paintings and water holes’ (NTPSC page 7).
The native title party is required to provide evidence in sufficient detail and specificity in order to allow the Tribunal to make the predictive assessment in accordance with s 237(b) of the Act. There is no evidence from the native title party (or otherwise) (including in their contentions) as to the existence of any Aboriginal sites specifically within the proposed licence area and there is no basis for making a finding that any sites of particular significance to the native title party exist within the proposed licence area. I can see no reason why the protective regimes under the AHA and the presumption of regularity should not be sufficient to ensure that there is unlikely to be interference with any sites of particular significance which may exist.
I note that there is no evidence to suggest that the grantee party will not act lawfully and in accordance with the AHA. I accept the evidence of the grantee party that it understands its obligations under the AHA and will comply with it (GPSC paragraphs 4 - 16).
The Government party’s evidence is that the grantee party provided a statutory declaration to the Department of Mines and Petroleum (DMP) stating that the grantee party had offered to enter into a Regional Standard Heritage Agreement (RSHA) by executing and sending it to Ms English (Tucker) on 16 June 2009 and had also done the same with respect to the Ngadju claimants. There is no evidence to suggest that this did not occur. However, in its contentions the grantee party says that DMP only requires a RSHA to be signed in respect of one native title party where there is more than one overlapping claim and that it has complied in this respect by signing and forwarding a RSHA to the Ngadju native title party which has a claim overlapping the proposed licence area by 100 per cent.
In response to the Tribunal’s query on this apparent discrepancy in the evidence the grantee party advised that the ‘original offer of the RSHA to the Narnoobinya is no longer available as the grantee party have executed agreement over 100 per cent of the tenement with the Ngaju native title claim group’. It says this is in accordance with Government policy and that the grantee party does not consider it reasonable to have two heritage agreements in place. The Tribunal does not need to comment on whether the offer to enter into a RSHA with the Narnoobinya native title party is still open or has been formally withdrawn by the grantee party. What is important is that the evidence demonstrates the grantee party is aware of its obligations and is prepared to comply with Government policy in relation to the protection of Aboriginal sites. The fact that a cultural heritage survey will be carried out with Ngadju minimises the risk of interference with any sites of importance to Narnoobinya.
I find that there is not likely to be a real risk of interference with any sites of particular significance to the native title party in the proposed licence area.
Major disturbance to land and waters (s 237(c))
The Tribunal is required to make an evaluative judgment on whether major disturbance to land and waters is likely to occur (in the sense that there is a real risk of it) from the point of view of the entire Australian community, including the Aboriginal community, as well as taking into account the concerns of the native title party (Little & Others v Oriole Resources Pty Ltd [2005] FCAFC 243; (2005) 146 FCR 576 at [41]-[57]; Dann v Western Australia [1997] FCA 332; (1997) 74 FCR 391).
The Tribunal has always had regard to the overall circumstances of each case, including, in particular, the locality in which the exploration will take place as well as the remedial regulatory regime in place. It will consider whether there are any special topographical, geological or environmental factors which would lead members of the Australian community generally (as defined above) to think that exploration activities would result in any major disturbance to land or waters. In most cases, the Tribunal has held that exploration activity does not cause major disturbance to land or create rights whose exercise is likely to do so, but there have been exceptions (Champion v Western Australia [2005] NNTTA 1; (2005) 190 FLR 362 at 386-388 [74]-[79] and the cases cited therein).
The native title party contends that ‘the grant of the proposed tenement over the ground applied for will create rights the exercise of which will involve major disturbance to the land’ (NTPSC page 8) however they have not provided any evidence to suggest that there are any exceptional factors leading to a finding that major disturbance is likely. The area of E28/1895 has been the subject of exploration and prospecting and pastoral activity over part of it. The presumption of regularity applies in that there is no evidence that there will not be compliance with the Government party’s regulatory regime governing exploration activities; and the conditions imposed on the exploration licence dealing with ground disturbing activities include the standard requirement for rehabilitation of the land (standard conditions 1-4). In this case, I find that there is not likely to be major disturbance to land or waters or the creation of rights which would do so.
The affidavit provided by Ms English (Tucker) in this matter is in substantially the same terms as that provided on behalf of the Narnoobinya native title party by Thelma Vera Tucker in an earlier expedited procedure objection matter (Dorothy and Thelma Tucker on behalf of the Narnoobinya FamilyGroup/Western Australia/Comet Resources Ltd, NNTT WO04/252, [2005] NNTTA 38 (31 May 2005), Daniel O’Dea (at 23)). I agree with the findings of Member O’Dea that the evidence provided is insufficient basis for a determination that the expedited procedure is not attracted.
Determination
The determination of the Tribunal is that the grant of exploration licence E28/1895 to Image Resources NL, is an act attracting the expedited procedure.
Hon C J Sumner
Deputy President
12 July 2010
3
10
0