Walden v Administration of Norfolk Island
[2007] NFSC 7
•24 JULY 2007
SUPREME COURT OF NORFOLK ISLAND
Walden v Administration of Norfolk Island [2007] NFSC 7
PROPERTY – property listed in the Heritage Register – whether land is adversely affected by its inclusion – whether land be removed from the Register – 1988 Conservation Management Plan – operation of the Heritage Act 2002 – heritage proposal and variation process – operation of the Norfolk Island Plan 2002 – whether unlawful acquisition of property without compensation – procedural fairness – whether decision-maker under a duty to notify person affected of any rights of challenge – whether criteria must be applied to the portion in question
The Constitution (Cth) s 51 (xxxi)
Heritage Act 2002 (NI) ss 6, 7, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15
Land Titles Act 1996 (NI)
Norfolk Island Act 1979 (NI) ss 13, 19
Norfolk Island Planning Act 2002 (NI)
Norfolk Island Planning and Environment Board Act 2002 (NI)
Chapman v Luminis Pty Ltd (No 4) (2002) 123 FCR 62 Considered
Commonwealth of Australia v Tasmania (1983) 158 CLR 1 Cited
Mutual Pools and Staff Pty Ltd v The Commonwealth (1994) 179 CLR 155 Cited
Secretary, Department of Health v Harvey (1990) 21 ALD 393 Cited
ETHELYNE YVONNE WALDEN v ADMINISTRATION OF NORFOLK ISLAND
SC 11 OF 2006KIEFEL J
24 JULY 2007
BRISBANE (BY VIDEO LINK) (HEARD ON NORFOLK ISLAND)
IN THE SUPREME COURT
NORFOLK ISLAND
SC 11 OF 2006
ETHELYNE YVONNE WALDEN
PLAINTIFFADMINISTRATION OF NORFOLK ISLAND
DEFENDANT
JUDGE:
KIEFEL J
DATE OF ORDER:
24 JULY 2007
WHERE MADE:
BRISBANE (BY VIDEO LINK) (HEARD ON NORFOLK ISLAND)
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The plaintiff’s application is dismissed.
2.The plaintiff is to pay the defendant’s costs of the action, including any reserved costs, such costs to be taxed failing agreement.
IN THE SUPREME COURT
NORFOLK ISLAND
SC 11 OF 2006
ETHELYNE YVONNE WALDEN
PLAINTIFFADMINISTRATION OF NORFOLK ISLAND
DEFENDANT
JUDGE:
KIEFEL J
DATE:
24 JULY 2007
PLACE:
BRISBANE (BY VIDEO LINK) (HEARD ON NORFOLK ISLAND)
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
The plaintiff is the registered proprietor of land at Beefsteak Road, Norfolk Island described as Portion 91b of Lot 4, Section 18, pursuant to the Land Titles Act 1996 (NI). The land was transferred to her by her father, Mr George Olsson, in 2002. The property (‘the Beefsteak’) is some 10.61 hectares in size and is unimproved, apart from some fencing. A small triangular portion of the land, on its north-east corner is contained within the Kingston and Arthur’s Vale Historic Area (the ‘KAVHA’) and listed in the Heritage Register established under the Heritage Act 2002 (NI) (the ‘Heritage Act’). The plaintiff’s case is that the land is adversely affected by its inclusion in each of the KAVHA and the Heritage Register. Amongst the orders that she seeks is one that it be removed from the Register.
BACKGROUND
In April 1980 the Australian Government published the Kingston and Arthur’s Vale Historical Area Management Plan. A map of the Area, which is some 250 hectares, appeared as Figure 1 of the Plan. A copy of it is attached to these reasons. That part of the plaintiff’s land coming within the boundary of the KAVHA is highlighted and appears to the upper right of the words ‘Ridge Line Contour’. This is confirmed by another map forming part of the records of the Australian Government Department of the Environment and Heritage. It will be observed that the eastern and southern boundaries of the KAVHA follow the shoreline. Mr Anderson, the current Project Manager of the KAVHA, says that the western boundary runs from the high water mark along the ridge west of Watermill Creek up to the 90 metre contour. The ‘Digest of Archaeological Report and Conservation Recommendations’, contained in Appendix 8 to the 1980 Management Plan, suggests that the western boundary follows the boundaries of the Old Longridge Road, which was used during the First and Second Convict Settlements and became disused in the 1850’s. The non-coastal boundaries of the KAVHA appear within Area E as shown on a Site Plan to the 1980 Management Plan. Area E is described as ‘land above 100 ft contour and Stockyard Valley’.
In 1988 a Conservation Management Plan was prepared by consultants for the Australian Government and made available to the Administration of Norfolk Island. It has formed the basis for subsequent action on Norfolk Island. The revised draft is dated 24 June 1988. It refers, in its ‘Brief History’, to the ‘Kingston-Arthur Vale Survey Region’, which follows the boundaries of the KAVHA on the map to the 1980 Management Plan:
‘This plan defined a conservation area around Kingston generally based on the 90m contour, the outer boundary of some leasehold blocks and the sea (see Fig 2). This area is hereafter called ‘the place’. It includes the most historically significant area of Norfolk Island but excludes other places of importance.’
The purpose of the report was said to be to provide revised and additional policies about the appropriate conservation of the place. In the discussion of the objectives (at 2.1) it is said that because the place is a ‘cultural landscape’, considerations of the preservation of the associations, the fabric and use of a place apply ‘not only to buildings but also to landform, layout, landscape elements and vegetations’. It was observed that there was a need to prevent detracting development, uses and other activities within the place and the setting of the place. It suggested that the objective of the 1980 Management Plan, to conserve the KAVHA, be expanded more specifically. In ‘Conservation Policy Statement’ it is said that:
‘The [KAVHA] should be retained as a conservation area and the emphasis of the use of the place as an historic area worthy of careful conservation management should be maintained.
The setting of the place should be protected from inappropriate works and activities.
All of the fabric of the place including landform, layout and vegetation in existence before c.1945 should be conserved and interpreted to the public …
New works and activities should only occur as a result of conservation and interpretation activities or only as follows:
·to introduce new services to compatible uses
·to provide signs and small structures necessary to the compatible use of the place
·to adapt interiors of buildings …
·to make new plantings within the specific areas defined herein
No buildings of substantial size should be built at the place …’
In October 1980 the KAVHA was placed on the Commonwealth Register of the National Estates. A Memorandum of Understanding, signed on 11 August 1989 and subsequently revised with effect from 1 July 1994, between the Commonwealth of Australia and the Norfolk Island Administration, recognised the 1988 Conservation Management Plan and established the KAVHA Board of Management. A further Conservation Management Plan has since been prepared but not approved. The 1988 Plan remains relevant. The role of the KAVHA Board is said to be the co-ordination of the interests of the two governments and the provision of advice with respect to conservation management.
In August 2003 the Heritage Act came into effect. Section 6 of that Act provided for the establishment of the Norfolk Island Heritage Register. It was to list ‘objects and places of significance to the heritage of Norfolk Island’. The executive member, the person holding office under s 13 of the Norfolk Island Act 1979 (NI) (the ‘Norfolk Island Act’), was to make the Register by statutory instrument. Once made, it was capable of variation by application by a person or upon the executive member’s own initiative (s 7). The procedures to be undertaken with respect to a variation were the same as those provided for the making of the Register. Before making the Register, the executive member was required to take ‘all reasonable steps to give the owner of each object or place in the heritage proposal, notice of the proposal’: s 11. The notice was required, by that section, to:
‘(a)specify the object or place proposed to be listed on or removed from the Heritage Register; and
(b)indicate where and when the proposal is available for inspection; and
(c)include a statement about the interim effect of the proposal under section 18; and
(d)invite submissions from the owner about the proposal.’
Section 12 required the invitation of public submissions, by notice published in the Gazette and such other measures necessary to ascertain public opinion, about the proposal to make the Register. Section 14 required the Chief Executive Officer to send the proposal, and any submissions received with respect to it, to the Norfolk Island Planning and Environment Board, which is a body established under the Norfolk Island Planning and Environment Board Act 2002 (NI).Upon receipt of the Board’s recommendation on the heritage proposal, s 14 required the executive member to decide whether to make the Register or withdraw the proposal. The decision was to be made no earlier than 28 days following notification on the receipt of recommendations where a person is appointed for that purpose under s 13 of the Heritage Act. When considering any objection to the heritage proposal the executive member was required to give ‘utmost consideration’ to the significance of the object or place the subject of the proposal (s 14(6)). The criteria for the making or variation of the Heritage Register were contained in s 15:
‘Criteria for making or variation of the Heritage Register
15.(1) In considering a heritage proposal, the executive member shall determine the heritage significance of the proposed heritage item against the criteria for entry in the Heritage Register, listed in the Schedule and any other matters, prescribed by the Regulations.
(2) The executive member may only include a proposed heritage item in the Heritage Register, whether by making or variation of the Register, if –
(a)the Board has assessed the item, determined that the item is of heritage significance to the heritage of Norfolk Island and recommended the item be included in the Heritage Register; and
(b)in the opinion of the executive member, the item meets three or more of the criteria for entry in the Heritage Register.’
(c)
A ‘heritage item’ is defined to mean ‘an object or place listed on the Heritage Register’. The Schedule to the Act provides the following criteria:
‘The criteria to be used in assessing whether or not an object or place should be listed in the Heritage Register are whether the object or place has special significance in Norfolk Island –
1. For the evolution of Norfolk Island’s natural or cultural history.
2.Because it demonstrates, rare or endangered aspects of Norfolk Island’s natural or cultural heritage.
3.Because it provides information that will contribute to an understanding of Norfolk Island’s natural or cultural history.
4.In demonstrating the principal characteristics of the range of landscapes, environments or ecosystems, the attributes of which identify them as being characteristic of their class.
5.By virtue of aesthetic characteristics or through technical, creative, design or artistic excellence, innovation or achievement valued by the Norfolk Island community.
6.Because it has a strong or special association with the Norfolk Island community for social, cultural or spiritual reasons.
7.Because it has a special association with the life or works of a person or group of persons that have been significant in Norfolk Island’s natural or cultural history.’
Mr Davidson, the Acting Land Use and Environment Manager in 2003, says that the notification of the proposal to make the Heritage Register included Administration officers telephoning landowners whose properties might be affected. They were offered meetings with the officer to explain the process being undertaken. A ‘Heritage Information Package’ was circulated to all landowners. In the letter which accompanied those materials, which was sent to the plaintiff and other landowners on 14 August 2003, it was explained that the Administration had agreed with the Commonwealth to establish a heritage regime and that a key element of it was the Heritage Register. It had been agreed with the Commonwealth that places currently listed on the Register of the National Estate, as their property was, would be listed on the Heritage Register. A copy of the Draft Norfolk Island Heritage Register document, sections of the Norfolk Island Plan that deal with heritage, and the criteria for making or varying the Register, as set out in the Heritage Act, were enclosed. It was said that the community would be invited to make submissions and they were invited to view the Register and to make comments.
Notices inviting public submissions were gazetted on 15 August 2003, 29 August 2003, and 5 September 2003. Public submissions were sought by 12 September 2003. The Chief Executive Officer forwarded a summary of the submissions which had been received to the Norfolk Island Planning and Environment Board. Amongst them was a letter from the plaintiff, dated 3 September, objecting to the whole of Portion 91b being listed and asking that the Administration’s ‘area of interest’ be clearly identified. She said that she understood that only the area which could be seen from Kingston was involved. She asked for confirmation that the listing would not mean that her property was available for the public to access. Mr Davidson replied on 5 September 2003, advising her of the remainder of the process to be undertaken towards a decision and allaying her concerns about public access.
In its report to the Minister for Land and the Environment of 8 December 2003 the Norfolk Island Planning and Environment Board reiterated many of the statements which it had previously made concerning the importance of the KAVHA. It said that the Area was significant for its association with four distinct settlement periods in one place: the pre-European Polynesian occupation; the First and Second Settlements during the convict era (1788-1814; 1825-1855); and the Pitcairn period (1856 – present), the Third Settlement. It referred to the group of buildings and ruins in the KAVHA. It said that they and the ‘Landform and cultural landscape elements’ were significant as an outstanding example of the development of global convict transportation. The Area was said to be valued as one of a small number of sites which were landmarks of Australia’s historical development and regarded as rare, being the site of the earliest European settlement of Australia and the southwest Pacific. It contained the landform and remnant landscape features of the Second Settlement period. It said that:
‘The drama of its landform, sea and panoramic views creates a picturesque setting enhanced by visual links integral to the functioning of the First and Second penal settlement. Whereas, the subsequently undeveloped character and part ruinous configuration contribute to the romantic landscape … KAVHA holds significant symbolic, ceremonial, religious, lifestyle and cultural association in a unique built and natural environment.…’
The Board concluded that the KAVHA met all seven of the statutory criteria.
On 19 December 2003 notice was given in the Norfolk Island Government Gazette of the tabling of a Heritage Register which had been made on 9 December 2003. The Register included the KAVHA, amongst other areas, on Norfolk Island. In the ‘Description’ of the KAVHA it was said that ‘the stark contrast of the convict built buildings against the backdrop of rolling hills and re-vegetative slopes enhances the uniqueness of the area’. The Register did not contain a map of the KAVHA, but a detailed description of it was provided. Two witnesses, Mr Anderson to whom I have earlier referred, and Mr Bailey of the Australian Government Department of the Environment and Heritage, say that the current boundaries of the KAVHA follow those established in the 1980 Management Plan. A recent survey of that part of the plaintiff’s land thought to be in question confirms that it is within the ridge line there referred to.
In February 2004 the Norfolk Island Planning Act 2002 (NI) came into effect. It provided for the establishment of a Norfolk Island Plan. The Norfolk Island Plan 2002 was approved by the Legislative Assembly on 25 February 2004. Clause 110 of the Plan ‘Use or development in the Kingston and Arthur’s Vale Historic Area’ provides:
‘(1)The area shown on the Heritage Items Regulatory Map as the Kingston and Arthur’s Vale Historic Area (KAVHA) and described in clause S1.1 of Schedule 1, has been identified in recognition of its internationally significant contribution to the archaeology, history, landscape, cultural and built heritage significance of Norfolk Island. KAVHA is seen as a critical element in the cultural landscape and heritage of Norfolk Island. Preservation of the integrity of KAVHA requires special consideration.
(2)KAVHA is that area so described in the Norfolk Island Heritage Register.
(3)In addition to the provisions of clauses 105-109 inclusive, which relate to items listed in the Norfolk Island Heritage Register, clauses 110(4)-(7) inclusive apply to use and development of land within KAVHA.
(4)The specific objectives of the Plan in relation to KAVHA are to:
(a)maintain and preserve the archaeological, historical, landscape, cultural and built heritage significance of KAVHA;
(b)ensure that inappropriate development is prohibited in KAVHA; and
(c)encourage appropriate use to be made of existing facilities within KAVHA.
(5)Use or development should further the objectives of clause 110(4) by:
(a)encouraging use or development within KAVHA that is consistent with the KAVHA Conservation Management Plan; and
(b)avoiding use or development that is not in keeping with the archaeological, historical, landscape, cultural, and built heritage significance of KAVHA.
(6)Where there is any inconsistency between the intent of the applicable zone as shown in this Plan, and the intent of the Conservation Management Plan, the intent of the Conservation Management Plan shall prevail.
(7)Any development application that relates to land within the area of KAVHA shall be referred to the KAVHA Board of Management for comment. The Executive member prior to determining the development application shall consider any representations that the KAVHA Board of Management submits within 28 days after the notice is sent.’
Schedule 1 to the Norfolk Island Plan contains a reference to lands under the following description:
‘The following listing of blocks and any subdivision thereof are subject to the provisions of clause 110. The list of lots includes those included currently wholly or partially within the area known as KAVHA and included in the Norfolk Island Heritage Register.’
Portion 91b is amongst the blocks of land in the list which follows.
The plaintiff’s lands are contained in the Rural Zone under the Norfolk Island Plan. It is not necessary to set out the table of use or development in that zone. No construction is permitted as of right. The use or development of a dwelling house is a ‘permitted use or development’, which is earlier defined to mean a use or development which requires the approval of the Norfolk Island government. Other uses require consent.
THE PLAINTIFF’S CASE
Prior to the institution of these proceedings the prospect of the KAVHA being listed as having world heritage status seemed imminent to the plaintiff. That perception is no longer maintained. The relief that the plaintiff seeks does not have regard to that process. The focus of the plaintiff’s case is upon the removal of that part of Portion 91b, contained within the KAVHA from the Heritage Register.
The plaintiff and her father have consistently maintained an objection to the inclusion of the land in question in the Commonwealth National Register and subsequently the Norfolk Island Heritage Register. It is not necessary to detail that correspondence or the many meetings they have attended in that regard. The relevance of this evidence is that at no time did they acquiesce in the process of listing.
The plaintiff has not applied for any development permission or approval in connexion with that part of Portion 91b which is included in the KAVHA. Her concern is that any application for the construction of a dwelling house by her, or later her children, would be doomed to failure. She has applied, under the Heritage Act, to vary the Heritage Plan by the removal of the land from the Register. A decision upon that application has however been postponed pending the outcome of these proceedings.
The plaintiff’s case, as pleaded, was wide-ranging. At the hearing it was said to be approached in three ways:
1.The first argument concerns the placing of the plaintiff’s land on the Heritage Register. It was submitted that she was denied procedural fairness because she, and other landowners to be affected, were simply told that they could make submissions. They were not advised that they had a right to seek review of the decision to make the Register. It is also submitted that no attempt was made to assess her land against the criteria in the schedule to s 15 of the Heritage Act. It may be inferred that the KAVHA generally was considered. The relief sought is to remove the plaintiff’s land from the Heritage Register and require its inclusion to be the subject of reconsideration.
2.The plaintiff seeks to clarify the position of Portion 91b with respect to the Norfolk Island Plan, by way of a declaration. It is pointed out that the reference to Portion 91b appears to be to the whole of it, not just the triangular part.
3.The third argument has regard to the Heritage Act and the Norfolk Island Plan 2002. It is submitted that together they operate to substantially affect freehold rights. The restrictions upon development and use which they impose differ from those applying to other freehold landowners, are discriminatory and amount to an unlawful acquisition of property without compensation, contrary to s 19(2) of the Norfolk Island Act. This submission calls into question their validity, or the validity of parts of them, and of the Heritage Register.
Whether there has been an Unlawful Acquisition of Property Without Compensation
Section 19(2)(a) of the Norfolk Island Act provides that the power of the Legislative Assembly, in relation to the making of laws, does not extend to the making of laws: ‘authorising the acquisition of property otherwise than on just terms’.
Cases involving s 51(xxxi) of the Australian Constitution are apposite. They hold that an acquisition by the Commonwealth involves more than an adverse affect upon proprietary rights: Commonwealth of Australia v Tasmania (1983) 158 CLR 1 (The ‘Tasmanian Dams’ Case). Even the extinguishment, modification or depreciation of rights in relation to property does not involve its acquisition; there must be some identifiable and measurable countervailing benefit or advantage accruing to the Commonwealth for there to be an acquisition of property by it: Mutual Pools and Staff Pty Ltd v The Commonwealth (1994) 179 CLR 155 at 185. The fact that it acted for political purposes and in the public interest is not sufficient for this purpose: Chapman v Luminis Pty Ltd (No 4) (2002) 123 FCR 62 at 270 [734]. That case involved the making of a declaration for the protection of an area of land under the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Act 1984 (Cth) which had the effect of preventing the construction of a bridge necessary to the development of land. Von Doussa J held (at [745]) that a law directed towards the adjustment of competing rights and claims within the community is not capable of characterisation as a law with respect to the acquisition of property. The zoning of land under a local government statute has been held to involve the adjustment of claims between citizens in a field that needs to be regulated in the common interest and not an acquisition of property: The Tasmanian Dams case 158 CLR at 283 per Deane J. Such a process may necessarily require landowners to be treated differentially.
The Heritage Act establishes a regime for the identification of places and objects of heritage significance. It is not suggested that this was not a proper subject for legislation. The Norfolk Island Plan utilises town planning powers to control development in heritage areas, in a similar way to other town planning controls, such as zoning. Those powers are utilised towards the purpose of conservation and management of places of heritage significance. It cannot be said that that is an improper purpose in any sense. The plaintiff’s principal argument was that her land had, effectively, been taken away from her without compensation. However, she retains ownership of the land affected, although the uses to which it may be put may now be more limited. It cannot be concluded that the defendant has acquired the land, within the meaning of s 19(2) of the Norfolk Island Act, having regard to the authorities referred to above. I add that it is not obvious at this point that the plaintiff’s land has been ‘sterilised’. Development on the portion in question is not prohibited, although it may be quite seriously restrained by the objectives of maintaining visual aspects of the landscape in the KAVHA. In any event the evidence does not go so far as to show that the balance of Portion 91b cannot be effectively utilised.
How Much of Portion 91B is Affected
The second matter raised by the plaintiff concerns the construction of Sch 1 S1.1 of the Norfolk Island Plan. The first sentence of the section dealing with the KAVHA by itself suggests that the blocks of land listed are subject to the restrictions outlined in cl 110. Although it could have been more plainly expressed, it is however clear enough from the sentence which follows, that only so much of any block as is contained within the KAVHA, as appears from the Heritage Register, will be affected by cl 110. This is consistent with the operation of that clause. A declaration is not necessary. I do not understand the defendant to contend to the contrary of this construction. In any event the evidence does not provide a detailed description of the part of Portion 91b within the KAVHA.
The Inclusion of the Plaintiff’s Land in the Heritage Register
No authority was cited, in submissions for the plaintiff, to support the contention that procedural fairness required that she be told that she might seek review of the decision to make the Register. The Heritage Act makes provision for the matters which are to be notified to a landowner whose land might be affected by proposed Heritage Register. There is no dispute that they were complied with. No right of appeal, or a right to review the merits of the decision to make a Register, was provided by the statute. In such a case it may more readily be inferred that a person should be told of that right, for otherwise it may be rendered nugatory. There is however no general proposition that a decision-maker is under an implied statutory duty to notify persons affected of any general rights of challenge they may have: Secretary, Department of Health v Harvey (1990) 21 ALD 393 at 395. That is the effect of the plaintiff’s submission.
On one view the letter to the plaintiff and other landowners of 14 August 2003 suggests something of a foregone conclusion, as to whether lands within the KAVHA would be included in the Register. So much may in any event be inferred from the repeated statements of significance about the Area the process towards the making of the Register. This does not of course mean that proper consideration was not given to the matter by the executive member. The plaintiff does not suggest this as a ground affecting the validity of the decision to make the Register. Her complaint is that an individual assessment of the criteria was not made with respect to her land, or that part of Portion 91b within the KAVHA boundary. She submits that it is difficult to see how the criteria could be applied to that part of Portion 91b.
Section 15 of the Heritage Act, relevantly, requires the heritage significance of a ‘place’ to be assessed against the criteria listed. There is nothing in the terms, nor in the purpose, of the Act to suggest that a ‘place’ is intended to refer to each individual allotment within a larger setting. In the definition section it is a word used to differentiate something of heritage significance which is not an object. It might refer to a building or other feature, but it is not limited to a single item. The word encompasses a landscape, if it has the special significance required. If it were necessary, resort could be had to the 1988 Management Plan, for which the word ‘place’ had obviously been derived. It refers to a ‘place’ as including the landform or landscape and to the settling of a place.
The plaintiff’s case did not suggest that generally speaking, the KAVHA lacks the significance necessary for inclusion in the Register. Rather she is not satisfied that it needs to include that part of her land in it. Submissions made on her behalf suggest that its retention, despite her objection, is thought to be the result of an arbitrary selection of a boundary line. The answer to that may be that the ridge providing that boundary defines the extent of a person’s view from various points within the KAVHA. Indeed, that would appear to be the plaintiff’s understanding of the matter. These questions do not however arise on an application for review by this Court of the decision to make the Register, by reference to the boundaries earlier set for the KAVHA. The Court’s only concern can be with an error of law, of the nature of a jurisdictional error, and not with whether the inclusion of the plaintiff’s land is otherwise justified. The question that the plaintiff seeks to ventilate, whether that part of Portion 91b should be removed from the KAVHA as described in the Heritage Register, is more likely to arise in connexion with the plaintiff’s application to vary the Register.
CONCLUSION
There is no basis shown for orders of the kind sought by the plaintiff. Her application will be dismissed, with costs.
I certify that the preceding thirty (30) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Kiefel. Associate:
Dated: 24 July 2007
Counsel for the Plaintiff: Mr G J Atkinson Solicitor for the Plaintiff: McIntyres Lawyers Counsel for the Defendant: Mr W Richards Solicitor for the Defendant: Legal Services Unit, Administration of Norfolk Island Date of Hearing: 29 May 2007 Date of Judgment: 24 July 2007
4
0