What’s wrong with Tasmania, Australia’s freeloading state?
For most Tasmanians a darker reality lies behind the seductive tourism brochures showcasing the state’s pristine wilderness, gourmet-magazine articles celebrating its burgeoning food culture, and newspaper stories gasping at a world-leading art museum. Tasmania ranks at the bottom among Australian states on virtually every dimension of economic, social, and cultural performance: highest unemployment, lowest incomes, languishing investment, lowest home prices, least educated, lowest literacy, most chronic disease, poorest longevity, most likely to smoke, greatest obesity, highest teenage pregnancy, highest petty crime, worst domestic violence. It seems not to matter which measure is chosen, Tasmania will likely finish last.
Why Tasmania is such a long-term underperformer, and what might done to improve, are important questions — not only for Tasmanians but also for the nation as a whole. In fact, it can be argued what’s happening in Tasmania is not an exception but a microcosm for a major part of Australia; it is already typical of non-metropolitan regions and might represent more of Australia’s future. One advantage in Tasmania, however, is that because it is both a “region” and a state, data and other information are available that allow us more clearly to see patterns that remain buried among bigger aggregates in other states, which elsewhere combine the big cities with non-urban regions into a comforting average.
The underlying problem is simple but intractable: Tasmania has developed a way of life, a mode of doing things, a demographic, a culture and associated economy, that reproduces underachievement generation after generation.
Everyone knows the problems; they are manifest, reported day after day. The reality is that Tasmania has bred a dominant social coalition that blocks most proposals to improve. Problems and challenges are debated endlessly, with no resolution. Most discussion avoids mention of the uncomfortable truths at the source of underperformance.
Ultimately, Tasmania doesn’t change because its people don’t really want to. They don’t need to change because their way of life is mainly financed by the mainland. Far from helping overcome this pattern, the nation’s resource-boom prosperity is enabling and cementing Tasmania’s under-achievement. It’s allowing the government to pay an ever-expanding proportion of the population not to work; it’s driving up wages, materials, transport, regulation, exchange rates, and other costs that make Tasmania’s traditional industries uncompetitive; and it’s allowing government to subsidise non-performing industries.
The result is that Tasmanians face little incentive or pressure to change. Unlike New Zealand, which has no rich big brother and must find ways to earn its own living, Tasmania enjoys a permanent and ongoing transfer from mainland cousins that reinforces failure.
The difficulties are most obvious in the economy. Tasmania’s unemployment rate in October 2012 stood at 7.7%, by comparison to the Australian average of 4.9% — a difference of nearly three percentage points or, expressed more starkly, a rate of joblessness more than a third greater. In 2012, the poor performance of the Tasmanian economy was a dominant topic in local public discussion. It felt depressed. Traditional industries, particularly forestry and energy-intensive manufacturing based on hydro-electricity were in sharp decline, while tourism and service sectors were sluggish and appeared unable to pick up the slack.
The fate of the forest-products industry was emblematic of Tasmania’s challenges. Plunging global wood chip prices, rising Australian exchange rates, wages set by booming mining industries, tightening environmental regulation, and internationally effective campaigns by environmentalists, combined to lose customers in high-paying markets such as Japan and Europe and make the industry uncompetitive in growth markets such as China. The industry collapsed as revenue dived and costs spiralled. It had became increasingly uneconomic to harvest the trees, transport them for processing, transform them into sawn timber, plywood, or wood chips, freight them to markets and replant the harvested areas. It was estimated in 2012 that Tasmania would lose $50-100 per tonne on exported wood chips at prevailing world market prices, and the industry needed to export two million tonnes to break even. The state-owned entity that managed the public forests, Forestry Tasmania, was haemorrhaging cash, at the rate of an estimated $30 million a year.
“It is important to understand what it is about Tasmanian culture and society that permits such an abrogation of responsibility, a refusal to confront reality.”
Page 1 of 5 | Next page
Categories: TAS
You must be logged in to post a comment.
32 Responses
Comments page: 1 |
Source Article from http://www.crikey.com.au/2013/01/30/whats-wrong-with-tasmania-australias-freeloading-state/?wpmp_switcher=mobile
Define “improve”?
by klewso on Jan 30, 2013 at 1:26 pm
buy a dictionary mate.
by Phen on Jan 30, 2013 at 1:41 pm
I’ll have to, someone’s ripped that page out of my “Gunn’s Gay” version.
by klewso on Jan 30, 2013 at 2:27 pm
The author – his ‘body’ and this academic blinkered view of whats wrong is – are exactly whats wrong. The commonwealth all but shut down Tasmanian commercial fishing – Hundreds of tassy jobs, subsidising supposed economic reform of fisheries and funding unis intent on venting frustration from not being able to tackle forestry – closing fisheries instead. Then there was the brainless decision to convert the valuable timber of Tasmania into woodchips – instead of timber – another few hundred jobs gone. Then the feds think it would make a good mine – especially the Tarkine – another few hundred or even few thousand tourism jobs lost. Now the forestry and academic land managers thinking they can ‘channel blackfellas’ – is burning the place to a crisp as it highlights how it operates with colonial impunity – and supported by greens who think knowledge of how the bush works comes from universities where botanists burn to get more plants. The rest of Tasmania loses water,fish and tourists and gets bad publicity and burned landscapes. Tasmania and Tasmanian’s punch well above their weight against all this. the best thing the mainland could do is take back it more recent visitors, evict forestry completely to a sheltered workshop offshore somewhere and restore the fishing industry – banning marine bureaucrats from ever setting foot on the island – and ban think tanks on the way back across bass strait. Anyway – the same is happening on the mainland it just takes longer to screw a bigger island – but we have got a good start with wrecking the barrier reef and turning the rest of the ‘big island’ into a quarry that belches foul water – so Tassy my ‘win’ by standing still economically.
by Wombat on Jan 30, 2013 at 2:46 pm
Of course, one of the reasons for Tasmania’s underperformance status that those with talent, drive, and education do what happens in most regional areas. They leave. It breaks my heart. I’d be interested to see a response to this article from the Tasmanians in the Crikey stable (we know who you are!).
by MD on Jan 30, 2013 at 3:24 pm
opinion reported as fact.. no thanks Griffith REVIEW
by steven nobol on Jan 30, 2013 at 3:26 pm
I think West is a bit hard on Tasmanians. In fact more than a bit hard.
West says provocatively that “It is important to understand what it is about Tasmanian culture and society that permits such an abrogation of responsibility, a refusal to confront reality.” However, his evidence on this score is not only at odds with what I have found on the ground – but weak in terms of evidence in the paper.
More than that I think his conclusions are based on an erroneous assumption about Tasmania’s place in our national life and economy. That doesn’t mean it can’t lift its game in terms of social outcomes and productivity where it has advantages but I see no reason why Tasmania should be compared to other States with better outcomes – any more than any other similar sized region – just because its history has bequeathed that it is a State.
West has a cheap go at Tasmania being culturally shallow.
Admittedly my recent trip driving around the island hardly counts as in-depth research but I was very pleasantly surprised by the cultural richness of the place and what I can only describe as the modern feel of many of the places we visited. The old stereotypes of the six fingered married cousins were obviously hiding in their wood huts in the mountains out of sight.
More than anywhere else in Australia, in Tasmania there is a strong sense of history and of the need to preserve natural and man-made heritage. In the coutryside one finds rich treasure troves of local made produce of the highest quality – and not expensive! And not just food but local art and bookstores to die for. There is also quite wonderful modernity in the cities where you can eat and drink in style which is anything but backward. And as for MONA which West scoffs at – not only is it truly world class – it is packed with Tasmanians soaking up the cultural impact. So I completely reject the label of cultural shallowness. If it is there it would seem it is fast disappearing! (and MONA is helping Tasmanians see the benefit in that, if those I spoke to are any guide).
Perhaps what West – and anyone else who thinks similarly – needs to do is to stop thinking about Tasmania as an island when trying to dissect it socologically, and accept that it is not so different to many regions of Australia. How different is Tasmania, for example, as a retirement village to other coastal regions of Australia which are likewise not ‘economically productive’?
The fact that the eastern mainland coast might be full of multi-millionaire retirees, whereas Tasmania’s retirees are less well-off should not be regarded as evidence that Tasmania is not lifting its weight! On the contrary, it means that Tasmania is providing the kind of haven for poorer retirees that these mainland regions no longer provide. The need for the nation to subsidize them with pensions should be seen as no more a burden than having a national capital with public servants all in one place in Canberra (Note I’m from Canberra) or ensuring other subsidies to regionally-based industries deemed to be of national priority.
While I accept that Tasmanians should be taking obvious challenges like increasing their wine export quotas etc I don’t think their ‘failure’ to do so is linked to some psychological defect. Indeed the unstated suggestion in West’s argument – quite appalling in my view – is that Tasmanians are like this because they like being uneducated. To the extent that this it true of Tasmanians it is probably no more true of other similarly isolated regions of Australia denied educational opportunities.
West says a survey found that for many Tasmanians their self-definition of being a ‘real Tasmanian’ meant being un-educated. OK, that is not, in my view, what I think is healthy for self-respecting Tasmanians to feel is quintessential about themselves but I wonder how this compares with other regional parts of Australia? Remote (and not so remote) parts of Queensland and WA perhaps? And where was that show in Sydney again – oh yes Sylvannia Waters – defined by education you reckon?!
It seems to me that if there is mendicant mentality in Tasmania the source of it can easily be discerned and that is that Tasmania is overgoverned. It is not that Tasmania’s lack qualities not shared by other Asutralians it is that they have politicians whose numbers are such as to make them more politically sigificant than they should be.
I believe we could see improvements in Tasmania’s focus on productivity in key industrys if it was freed of the structural burden of so many politicians. What I am saying is that while it might be an island it would be better if politically it became a Commonwealth Territory like the ACT and the Northern Territory. With fewer politicians Tasmanians might find they are electorally less important to the nation which will throw themselves back on their own resourcefulness more. But it would also be one which would better allow us as a nation to see Tasmania as an integral part of the nation which fulfils a unique role. The ACT but more especially the Northern Territory are recipients of Commownealth funding in recognition of their uniqueness which the lack of Commonwealth political representation does not otherwise safeguard. Tasmania could be the same and with its status as a Territory might be spared the kind of pop-psychology denunciations of the kind made by West in this article.
by Chris Williams on Jan 30, 2013 at 3:33 pm
Wombat, you’re echoing back a lot of the article (although you mention forestry a lot, which is relatively insignificant) while somehow disagreeing with its conclusions. This is not to say that your arguments aren’t valid, but you seem to be missing the picture that the article has drawn.
MD makes a valuable point, which also reflects the “regional” nature of Tasmania. It is for that reason that the higher-value industries need more shepherding by the government, for there will be nobody to work in them if they keep moving “to the mainland” once they get a decent education.
by Wexford on Jan 30, 2013 at 3:38 pm
I can’t speak to the accuracy of the causes of the problem proposed here, but it is clear to me that there are a lot of economic opportunities there for Tasmania that are currently being missed.
For example: I have friends who are honey connoisseurs and have been raving about the wonders of Tasmanian leatherwood honey. I thought I would give it a try, so I dropped round to a local store that specializes in stocking products with a regional identity – eg Margaret River wines, dried fruit from the South Australian riverlands. There was South Australian and Victorian honey, but nothing from Tasmania. I started looking, and in an shop crammed with things that proudly identify themselves as from every state and NZ, the only Tasmanian product was smoked salmon.
No cheeses – even from King Island. No craft ciders, no wines, none of the other things Tasmania’s rich soils would produce in abundance. I started looking elsewhere, and while I eventually found the honey, and good cheeses Tasmanian cheeses are pretty easy to get, most of the other things seem to be really hard to get and lack promotion.
I don’t know exactly what the solution is, but there have to be plenty of jobs there for the taking if they could just find ways to export quality foods across Bass Strait.
by Stephen Luntz on Jan 30, 2013 at 3:47 pm
The biggest export by value from Tasmania is young university graduates. They have cost Tasmania (and the Commonwealth) a motsa. Just when they are ready to produce, they leave.
Quite a few get to their late thirties or forties and get to hankering to return.
Any strategy to invigorate Tasmania would have to include ways of encouraging repatriation of the investment in graduates.
by Boerwar on Jan 30, 2013 at 3:53 pm
I’m shaken.
We have an economic rationalist writing an erudite case for economic change in Tasmania in Crikey! What’s going on?
Tasmania, land of the freeloader and home of the luddite.
Australia’s only Green-run government.
Tasmania where anyone with get-up-and-go, gets-up-and-goes.
by David Hand on Jan 30, 2013 at 3:57 pm
Plus, worst of all – Ricky Ponting is from there.
by Phen on Jan 30, 2013 at 4:00 pm
Having just returned to the ‘mainland’ to live after a two-year stint of residing in Hobart for personal reasons – something I was able to do as I run my own business and my clientele are based on the Australian mainland or overseas – I do not think Jonathan’s West’s comments are harsh. They are realistic. And he offers positive solutions to the state’s inbuilt inertia.
His point about education particularly resonated with me. The state schools finish at Year 10. Students who wish to go on to Years 11 and 12 must go to various colleges set up in the cities to complete their education so that they can go to university. This immediately disadvantages students living in the impoverished rural areas who cannot afford to be educated in Town. No wonder kids are under-educated. The expectation that Year 10 is the end of formal schooling is reinforced in the local papers which publish endless photos of school formals for 15-year-olds.
I attended school in Hobart at the time when the ‘matriculation colleges’ were being introduced. At the time it was thought to be a good thing as it provided a ‘segue’ between school and university. I thought it was a good idea then. It worked well for me, but I was in a demographic that suited it. As it was, as soon as I’d completed my matric (as it was known) I went to university on the mainland. Many people did. Many people still do, as Jonathan infers by saying “In addition, some parents don’t encourage their children to become educated for fear education would make them more likely to leave the island.” And many people don’t come back.
I believe Tasmania is a wonderful place to live if you have an income and/or are employed. If you don’t you are shackled in all the ways the article mentions.
I just hope that people can see beyond the article’s accurate assessment of Tasmania’s thinking, and take on the valuable suggestions he makes about how the state could improve itself.
by taz on Jan 30, 2013 at 4:09 pm
David (11) – you mean like David Walsh? The creator of MONA who the Monthly Magazine of July 2011 informs us was a “working-class boy from Hobart’s struggle-town suburb of Glenorchy.” http://www.themonthly.com.au/arts-letters-amanda-lohrey-high-priest-david-walsh-and-tasmania-s-museum-old-and-new-art-2918
You mean that sort of get up and go?
by Chris Williams on Jan 30, 2013 at 4:11 pm
Amusing how defensive people have gotten reading this. Argue with Jonathan’s opinions as much as you like, the statistics speak for themselves.
Tasmania lags behind on almost every statistic available, health, education, welfare dependence and social metrics, efficiency of government services, economic growth. The list goes on.
Any proposal to effect change in Tasmania is always met with opposition, from any industry development (eco-tourism, residential, forestry, aquaculture, further hydro-industrialisation) through to redeveloping the waterfront for shared use, or to petty issues such as red awnings and heritage issues, or trying to replace a 30 year old concrete eyesore at 10 Murray St. Anything involving real estate development is exceedingly difficult. Any change proposed (Tas Tomorrow reforms, 4 school terms, amalgamating councils, rezoning land, reforming sewage/water) is met with violent opposition and almost always fails.
Yes, we are over governed. 29 local councils and 2 houses of state parliament for 500k people. Yes there is a localism and regional “Nth vs NW vs Sth” mentality. But beyond the lethargy or psyche of the average Tasmanian, we also suffer from the same thing that affects Australia and most developed 1st world democratic countries – political leadership. Except in Tasmania it is more pronounced than elsewhere in Australia due to the smaller talent pool.
These problems are inherently solvable, but there is no political vision, leadership or capacity to institute change. The stock we have of political leaders in Tasmania is depressing to say the least. No one has any real policy ambitions, and in the State Opposition’s case, no actual policy position. But it is almost not their fault, it is a result of the career opportunity in Tasmania and high achievers leaving for Melb, Syd or abroad. So it comes down to experience, and if you took out all the state politicians who were previously State sector employees, union officials or lawyers, there would be very few left with any outside experience to bring to the table.
How do we solve these problems? Change will not occur that results in a negative impact on people, unless the alternative is worse. So unless the Feds threaten to significantly change the policy of horizontal fiscal equalisation, State government will not change, reform or evolve.
There is a fundamental belief that Tasmanians are entitled to the standard of living, wages and social entitlements as “mainland” Australia, such as health, education, job opportunities and welfare.
We are not, unless we equally contribute to earning and maintaining those benefits as a whole.
by Jared Hill on Jan 30, 2013 at 4:29 pm
I’m lucky enough to live in Tasmania and even luckier that I do so by choice. This is spot on in so many ways it is frightening to read. Well done!
by WTF on Jan 30, 2013 at 4:30 pm
DH “Australia’s only Green-run government”? Greens hold the balance of power much like the Lib Democrat’s do in the UK, so how exactly do they run the government?
I suppose you would prefer a Liberal government like that of the dodgy and incompetent Robin Gray found to be deceitful and dishonest by a Royal Commission, or perhaps even Labor’s (Gunn’s can you do me a cheap reno) Paul Lennon?
by Microseris on Jan 30, 2013 at 4:52 pm
Jared (15)
You really feel that Tasmanian leadership is so much worse than political leadership anywhere else? (I’m with Microseris (17) on this one.)
I’m not going to argue that it might be marginally worse but it can’t possibly be so bad to account for Tasmania’s statistics.
That’s why I think the problem is structural. Tasmania gets the largesse – and the outlook it has – because it has lots of political representation and therefore clout in Canberra. It is this political power which ‘dis-incentivises’ its productivity.
This is why Tony Abbott can offer a local hospital there $1billion in order to buy government, and inefficient industries get propped up with massive subsidies.
The Northern Territory, by comparison, might be getting huge payouts for supporting aboriginal communities but it is targeted assistance. By contrast with Tasmania there is little incentive on any federal political leader to try and massively buy off the NT because the handful of local politicians will rarely if ever constitute a significant block of numbers.
Same as with the ACT’s four polticians. The ACT gets subsidised for the upkeep of the parliamentary triangle and a nod for the additional health and education costs it bears from people in surrounding NSW but otherwise its “go fend for yourself”, which creates the incentive to be leaner, more productive and occasionally innovative – no matter how bad the leadership might be! And believe me its been world-beatingly bad here in the ACT at times! (Having said that minority government has plans to lead us into another round of massive overspending – but this will be our debt problem not the rest of the nation’s problem)
So I think the numbers do matter.
by Chris Williams on Jan 30, 2013 at 5:14 pm
Summary of Chris Williams’ post: Brian Harradine.
by Holden Back on Jan 30, 2013 at 5:27 pm
@Chris.
I agree, my comment about political leadership was less about blame for letting the status quo continue downwards, but there is no ability to drive structural reform to fix it.
It would be interesting if Tasmania was hit by a new Abbott Government stick that effectively threatened the removal of horizontal fiscal equalisation by redistributing the GST on a per capita basis. I am not suggesting that wouldn’t be exceedingly bad for Tasmania in the short term, but as I said, people won’t accept hard decisions and adverse change unless the alternative is worse….
There is no doubt the whole democratic system of pork barrelling exists. Howard was a master of it (Bass and Braddon in Tasmania’s north for instance have gold plated highways for a very small population, compared to Denison and Lyons in the mid and south of Tas which is the main highway), and middle class welfare nationally is another example. Trying to sway an electorate with a hospital in Devenport against all state planning and policy, which then got handed back to the state..another sad example.
I agree, there is little incentive to change when there is a big bucket of money going to the consolidated revenue of State Government budgets.
Although that said, I don’t agree there is much political clout in Tasmania. Maybe its been different the last 2 years under minority Fed government and Wilkie popping his head up every 2-3 months, but if Red or Blue had a large majority, Tasmania’s 5 seats would basically see us forgotten about on the Federal level. This issue is at a local level when any citizen can ring/email a local alderman or minister and get on their back, and these politicians are too concerned with dealing with petty issues rather than perhaps telling the individual their personal issues come second to the greater good of society?
by Jared Hill on Jan 30, 2013 at 5:39 pm
For heaven’s sake folks. Tasmania is like a remote town in East Gippsland. It is cut off from the rest of the nation.
It is a place where, it could be said, the intelligentsia is represented by the local librarian. Anyone who can actually think is called a leftie, and a reader of Crikey. Beanies are endemic and, the jewel is the major art gallery whose excellence-I’m told- only reinforces the mediocrity of the rest of the island. Mentally, the politicians are second-class Queensland pollies; (and more second class than that is not possible) Nine months of the year the sea is cold and grey. And, as the author says, anyone wanting to succeed has to go he big smoke to do so. The fishing industry has taken over the position timber-and the Hydro Electricity Corporation used to have. Older people from the mainland frequently opt out by going to live there. And young people nearly go mental for lack of something to do. And the neighbour’s news is your news before it actually happens. Both places live off the benefit of the mainland government.
Some people may regard the above paragraph as a nasty swipe at Tasmanians. It isn’t meant to be. It is merely what happens to a place which is cut off from the mainstream.
Perhaps an airlift could be organised to ‘bus’ people to the other parts of Oz for a large dose of reality.
by Venise Alstergren on Jan 30, 2013 at 5:55 pm
Imagine If Tassie were a Duty Free state with special banks like in Switzerland??? But, as the author observes, the Tassie maliase can be seen as a microcosm of large parts of Australia (indeed the World – look at Europe!)and by this I mean to say, and understand the situation to be, a function of a deculturalization process that has been festering and growing over several decades, resulting in a real loss of faith – faith in ourselves as a culture and as a civilization. Like most of the rest of the Western world, Australia and perhaps especially Tasmania, is hobbled with a bureaucratic nightmare preventing a freedom of spirit and anything that may suggest a gung-ho mentality. In other words, it has become almost impossible to do anything…
We cannot ‘fix’ Tasmania or even Australia without first deciding what it is that we are and what we want to do – that right has been removed and can never be got back, because there no-longer is anymore a “We” or an “Us” in this country, or, for that matter, in many countires invaded by Economic Rationalism and the demands of the Market Place for ever-increasing novelty and monetary exchange…
Multiculturalism is a function of this social reality and it has a severely debilitating effect upon our identity and our spirit, as distinct from old-fashioned cosmopolitanism. It is tantamount to being a Sin to be Proud and the Parliaments of this country are simply abrogating our sovereignty to the questionable values of the UN… Tasmania is, indeed, a microcosm of this state of affairs. But, like another reviewer has suggested, maybe it would be a good idea to encourage the return, the repatriation, of departed graduates unto Tasmania.
by David Joseph on Jan 30, 2013 at 7:02 pm
Time for some tough love maybe? The rest of Australia should secede from Tasmania and let them sink or swim accordingly….
by Phen on Jan 30, 2013 at 7:11 pm
Actually, Phen, moving there and seceding is exactly what I’m planning if Abbott wins the federal election!
by Jenny on Jan 30, 2013 at 8:30 pm
This article was extremely depressing basically because it seems right! Unfortunately both of my kids have left and live on the Mainland
by Randy ROSE on Jan 30, 2013 at 8:33 pm
Too much deadbeat hippy trash there. Expel them from the Commonwealth. Problem solved.
by Patriot on Jan 30, 2013 at 8:53 pm
JENNY: If Tony Abbott wins the next election I’m going to go and live in Argentina. I’ve even chosen the exact spot.
by Venise Alstergren on Jan 30, 2013 at 8:57 pm
Holden Back (19)
Brilliant! I must learn such brevity!!
Cheers
Chris W
by Chris Williams on Jan 30, 2013 at 11:07 pm
I’m curious to know if the people who are against this arrive have ever lived anywhere other than in Tasmania. Having lived in six different cities in Australia, including three capital cities other than Hobart I have to say I was slightly embarrassed at the Tasmania I returned to nine months ago.
Having spent the last nine years defending the island state to mainlanders I was sad to not only see that most of the things in this article are spot on but that Tasmanians themselves are in denial denial denial.
Tall poppy syndrome runs rampant here and when combined with an overabundance of bureaucracy the result is a state that is gradually becoming less intelligent, less motivated and less responsible. I have never witnessed so many people thinking that its all someone else’s fault.
Are these the hallmarks of narrowmindedness or lack of education? We have both here so you decide.
by Lucy Michaels on Jan 30, 2013 at 11:38 pm
* article, not arrive.
by Lucy Michaels on Jan 30, 2013 at 11:41 pm
The author states:
Tasmania’s wine is already disproportionately in the top quality bracket, so the total volume percentage is irrelevant. I hope the author’s other stats and suggestions are better grounded.
by Rortydog on Jan 30, 2013 at 11:43 pm
The solution is simple – merge Tasmania into Victoria to form a single economically viable State. And while we’re about it merge South Australia and Northern Territory for the same reason.
Australia is ridiculously over-governed and has some failing States: both problems solved with one solution.
by Graham R on Jan 31, 2013 at 12:22 am