Post-match report: Tasmania

With electorate results progressively being declared, I will start appending my election guide entries with overviews of results for each seat. All five seats in Tasmania have been declared, so that seems a good place to start.

Bass provided Labor supporters with cause for nagging doubt during the early part of the count, with the smaller booths outside Launceston delivering a seemingly insufficient swing. In Scottsdale the swing to Labor was below the required 2.6 per cent, and Liberal member Michael Ferguson in fact picked up a small swing in Bridport. The turning point came when the big Launceston booths began to report, with Labor swings as high as 7.6 per cent at Summerhill and 8.1 per cent in Newnham. The other notable feature of the result was a big surge to the Greens who were able to monopolise the anti-pulp mill vote, pushing their support up from 8.1 per cent to 15.3 per cent at the expense of both major parties. This was reasonably consistent throughout the electorate with the interesting exception of Scottsdale, where the increase was only 0.8 per cent. Nothing particularly remarkable happened in George Town, the centre closest to the actual site of the mill.

The pattern of voting across Braddon was remarkably similar to the 2001 election, with voters reverting to type after the convulsion of Labor’s forestry policy in 2004. A large number of booths have produced double-digit swings first one way and then the other, including Acton in Burnie and East Devonport, along with the smaller town booths of Montague, Latrobe, Smithton. Coastal centres outside of the big towns, such as Wynyard, Somerset, Penguin and Ulverstone, followed relatively small swings to Liberal in 2004 with relatively small swings to Labor this time. However, Sid Sidebottom’s overall margin of 1.4 per cent (from a two-party swing of 2.6 per cent) is substantially lower than his 6.0 per cent from 2001. Predictions that the Mersey Hospital would boost the Liberals in Davenport at the expense of a backlash in Burnie received fairly modest support, Burnie collectively swinging 4.4 per cent compared with 1.2 per cent in Davenport. Despite a quite healthy lift on the Greens’ primary vote from 5.6 per cent to 8.1 per cent, Braddon remains their weakest Tasmanian seat.

Lyons produced a superficially status quo result, except that Liberal renegade Ben Quin gouged 9.6 per cent of the primary vote directly at the Liberals’ expense. However, this obscures big swings to Labor concentrated in the southern part of the electorate, particularly just outside Hobart at Brighton and New Norfolk. The 1.3 per cent lift in the Greens’ vote was the smallest in the state, presumably because much of the pulp mill protest vote was absorbed by Quin. Both major parties were slightly down slightly on the primary vote in Denison, the slack being taken up by a 4.0 per cent lift for the Greens. This converted into a 2.3 per cent two-party swing to Labor. Franklin was one of only four seats in the country to swing to the Coalition, due to the loss of retiring Harry Quick’s personal vote and perhaps also lingering static surrounding Kevin Harkins’ disendorsement. The Labor primary vote was down from 46.4 per cent to 41.4 per cent while the Liberals were up from 37.7 per cent to 41.0 per cent, with the Greens up from 11.1 per cent to 14.4 per cent. The Liberal two-party swing was 3.1 per cent.

A couple of other updates are in order:

• As most of you are aware, a recount began today in McEwen following Labor candidate Rob Mitchell’s six vote win over Liberal member Fran Bailey. Progressive results will not be posted, so I guess we all just have to wait a week until the AEC tells us what has happened.

• In other close result news, rechecking has reduced Liberal member Andrew Laming’s lead in Bowman to just 64 votes, although there does not seem to be any dispute that he has won the seat.

• A definitive result in O’Connor will have to await a full distribution of preferences, which to my limited knowledge is yet to be published in any electorate. There still remains a mathematical possibility that Nationals candidate Philip Gardiner can overhaul Labor’s Dominic Rose with Greens and other preferences and then defeat Liberal member Wilson Tuckey on Labor preferences. However, the possibility has been diminished by a weak Nationals performance on declaration votes, which has reduced their election night total of 18.4 per cent to 17.7 per cent, leaving a 2.7 per cent deficit against Labor that will need to be closed through Greens and other minor party preferences.

• Two other strong performances by independents should be noted. In Calare, Gavin Priestley might overtake Labor on preferences and leave John Cobb of the Nationals with a fairly narrow win on two-candidate preferred. However, Cobb’s 48.5 per cent primary vote is high enough that he does not face a serious prospect of defeat. In neighbouring Parkes, independent Tim Horan has polled 20.7 per cent. This is unlikely to be enough for him to overhaul Labor’s 25.4 per cent on preferences, which is just as well for Nationals candidate Mark Coulton who has pulled up short of a primary vote majority on 46.8 per cent.

Author: William Bowe

William Bowe is a Perth-based election analyst and occasional teacher of political science. His blog, The Poll Bludger, has existed in one form or another since 2004, and is one of the most heavily trafficked websites on Australian politics.

379 comments on “Post-match report: Tasmania”

Comments Page 3 of 8
1 2 3 4 8
  1. The twice-the-size-of-the-Senate provision relates only to the allocation of seats given to the six states.

    I don’t believe there is any scope to change the method of allocation here.

    The reason why the size of the Senate is greater than half the size of the HoR is because the add-ons, i.e. the territories, have just as many Senators as Reps.

  2. David W.

    Section 24 of the Constitution provides that the number of members of the House of Representatives must be twice the number of senators, or as near as practicable.

    By my reckoning they could go to 155 which would improve things somewhat. And Canberra should get 3 divisions.

  3. Adam Says:
    December 12th, 2007 at 10:22 pm

    What’s really curious about the wet Liberals is why they let their natural refuge and easy cop-out protest vote recepticle, the Democrats, die. Now they have nowhere to go.

    Hopefully we will all face up to our responsibilities and do something about the liberal party. Unfortunately mad right wing nutters will be as difficult to deal with as the mad left.

  4. Kirribilli Removals Says:
    December 13th, 2007 at 12:01 am

    It’s pretty much shuffling the deck chairs around as usual, and if you really want to know what the planet is likely to look like in a few thousand years or so, take a peek at Mars.

    Planet earth will chew up mankind and go on as if we never existed, and thats the point, we we want this short period of stability to last we need to take some care.

  5. Albert, I repeat: there is no scope for changing the number of seats allotted to the states without increasing the size of the Senate.

    Your “reckoning” that the size of the House could be arbitrarily increased to 155 seats is no more than a baseless assertion. (An hour beforehand you said 158.)

    Regarding the ACT: parliament can manipulate the number of seats allotted to the territories. As they did with the NT in 2004. Giving the ACT an extra seat would be in keeping with that precedent, though it would be condemned as a partisan manouvre by the Rudd government.

  6. The full text of Rudd’s address to the UN climate change conference in Bali.
    Source: The Australian

    concluding with …

    The Government I lead is only 10 days old. It is a Government that is realistic about the difficult challenges ahead, particularly in the two years leading up to the Copenhagen conference. It is a Government now prepared to take on the challenge, to do the hard work now and to deliver a sustainable future.

    The community of nations must reach agreement. There is no Plan B. There is no other planet that we can escape to. We only have this one. And none of us can do it alone. So let’s get it right.

    The generations of the future will judge us harshly if we fail.

    But I am optimistic that with clarity of purpose, clear-sightedness, courage and commitment we can prevail in this great task of working together to save our common planet.

  7. The debate about HoR vs Senate seat numbers of course begs the question, why bother with the Senate at all? What purpose does it serve, apart from frustrating the Government of the day (esp Labor Govts) in the carrying out of their mandate. They are generally an ‘unrepresentative swill’, to quote the Master (spoken reverentially) and any idea about them being a house of review on behalf of the states is poppycock, they are there to carry out the agenda of whichever party controls the numbers. Some states have abolished their upper houses aeons ago and the sky has not yet fallen. It is an idea that originated in the dim distant past, and deserves to be consigned to the dustbin of history.

  8. Glad to see the bagging of Scottsdale has stopped, since my family comes from there. It’s a big logging area and Michael Ferguson was a good candidate. Jodie Campbell was lucky to get in. Re Franklin – it’s big and disparate electorate that includes a hugely growing area around Kingston, which is Eric Abetz’s power base. It’s full of Dutch Reformed people and retirees. And it includes the Huon Valley – another big logging area. Campaigning there for YR@W was quite confronting at times.

    And as far as our Labor Government goes, they’ll be lucky to win next time – Workchoices was a huge factor last time, and now we have Federal protection, given Lennon’s growing unpopularity, I think they’ll struggle to hold power.

    I can only see the Greens getting stronger here, thankfully. We have lots to protect.

  9. Not surprised by Tassie – ALP clean sweep, although Braddon should be the first to fall in the event of a pro-Lib swing next election (if such happens).

    Overall, I was disappointed, but not overly surprised, when Swan and Cowan swung to the Coalition – I wish my fellow Sandgropers would stop giving the impression that they care more about money than morality. Also, the failure of the “doctors’ wives” was hardly news to me – they’ve failed to deliver in every election since 1998. Psephs should stop harping on about them – they say “We’ll vote Labor/Green/Democrat”, and then look at their chequebook balance and vote Lib.

    But hey, what am I complaining about? Rudd won! *does happy squirmy dance*
    Also, he should find it easy to get re-elected, probably with a swing to him, unless the Libs come up with a viable leader. They’ve got a bad problem – Nelson is a turncoat (and hence very easy for Labor to hammer), and Turnbull will be forced to choose between the far-Right votes and the “wet” votes, due to his ownership of a “wet” Liberal seat. This, my Tory friends, is where a formalised system of factions within the Party would have helped you. Note, for instance, that Rudd was able to appeal to the “battlers” in Qld, SA and NSW (he’s from the right-wing Labor Unity faction), while Gillard (from the soft Left faction), as his deputy, was able to campaign heavily in Victoria and suburban NSW to great effect – people were speculating that Labor would gain no seats in Vic (due to high margins enjoyed by sitting Lib members), and here they are with at least two extras.

  10. 108
    Basil Fawlty

    [Some states have abolished their upper houses aeons ago and the sky has not yet fallen.]

    Actually I think only Queensland has no upper house. Need I say more.

  11. #98

    Whether Victoria needs to lose a seat or not, it will still need to be redistributed under the seven year rule. The last redistribution was in 2002, so it’s likely one will commence during this term.

    The WA redistribution will be fascinating. From the booth maps, it seems all of the marginal seats in Perth contain a mix of very strong Lib and very strong Labor areas. So even minor changes to the boundaries of Swan, Stirling, Cowan, etc could produce a big political impact.

  12. Sydney equivalent of Melbourne Ports is Lowe, in both seats the old Liberal areas have drifted notably towards Labor but the Liberals are kept in the running (just) by waterfront development.
    Will the Victorian and Commonwealth electoral boundaries ever cross the Yarra to include Southbank with the CBD?

  13. Further to Adam’s post waaay back at #54 regarding Bob Day (otherwise known as the Moneybags of Makin) and his expensive campaign; a few people that were helping out late in the day at my booth in Hindmarsh told me that Bob Day’s people were handing out free food at the booth they were attending early on polling day. Is that a breach of the electoral act ? Something tells me it probably is.

  14. I know that I’ve said it before in other posts, but there really needs to be electoral reform to allow one vote, one value in this country. And there should be a referendum to break the nexus between the House and the Senate. We do not need any more senators, but we should have more members in the Reps. The US gets by with two senators per state, why on earth do we need 12? Canberra and other large seats are badly served by the present system.

  15. Bet you Bob McMullan has his eye on electoral act changes to produce a third ACT seat.The issue was raised in the debate over the changes to enable the NT to retain its second seat.

    The current formula will permanently disadvantages the ACT getting equitable representation.

    an extra seat can be added without upsetting the Senate nexus

  16. Anyone heard Radio National’s Media report describing the evolving relation between blogs that provide a better analysis of polls than the newspapers that own the polls and the poor reaction of one Shanahan to them (along with other observations made on this blog long ago)?

  17. Just had a look at the results for Lingiari. Turnout increased over 2004 by 3.63%. But despite that only 4 out of 5 electors voted – 81.34%

    That’s astoundingly low – would that be because so many voters live too far away from polling booths?

  18. Late counting in the Vic Senate is flowing to the ALP away from the Libs. Small changes only. But with maybe 1.7-2% of the vote to go, the trend could see the 5th and 6th places swap over again between Lib and ALP. That could be interesting.

  19. dyspnoeia, it’s because Lingairi has much the highest proportion of Indigenous people of any electorate, many of them living in communities only very slightly connected to post-conquest Australian society. Although voting is theoretically compulsory, it’s not enforced in such communities, and rightly so.

  20. dyspnoeia @124

    Could you please elucidate why the 5th and 6th place Vic Senate swapping over would be of interest? Does that put the Greens in with a chance for the 6th?

  21. Re bee dongers, the male bee genitals literally explode and snap off inside the queen. Afterwards, the males do what any of us would if our testes exploded and our penis snapped off – they wander off to the corner and die. And bees have one of the largest dongers proportional to body size in the animal kingdom!

  22. 118
    La Nina to break the nexus between the House and the Senate problem’

    Ron says:
    ain’t going to change without bipartisan support
    the same issue arises with having Reps with 4 year terms resulting in Senators with 8 years.

    After THIS election however , a referendum on a fixed day for the election would probably pass even if the libs opposed it !!!!!!!!
    (as the public were fed up with the whole of 2007 being election mode)

    But that ain’t going to happen either as its not a big issue

  23. Dyspnoeia- I don’t know if your name refers to the medical term for “shortness of breath” but if it does, the correct spelling is dyspnoea (or dyspnea if American).

  24. I think every state except SA will be redistributed before the next election.

    Tas, WA and Vic are due, Qld will gain a seat and NSW will lose one.

    If the calculation was done now based on the latest figures (30 Jun 07) NSW is already down to 48 seats and it’s only going backwards.

    WA and Qld look the most interesting redistributions to me. Qld is always interesting because it is so volatile.

  25. David W @ 106: “Regarding the ACT: parliament can manipulate the number of seats allotted to the territories. As they did with the NT in 2004. Giving the ACT an extra seat would be in keeping with that precedent, though it would be condemned as a partisan manouvre by the Rudd government.”

    I’m not convinced of that, Canberra (southern city electorate) has fallen twice to Libs, it is not as Labor ‘safe’ as the northern city electorate (Fraser).

    The first time it fell to Malcolm Fraser’s govt in the 1975 landslide, but that was a brand new electorate then, only being established in the 1974 redistribution.

    The most recent time it was lost to the Libs was in a by-election in 1995 with a >16% swing against Labor. Presumably, that was mostly due to the incumbent Ros Kelly debacle.

    The third seat of Namadgi, was cut such that it included most of the rural farming areas south of the city, and at the time, most of the outlying southern mortgage belters (making a mini-Lindsay region, of rapid outer urban population growth being the rationale for cutting it in the first place) and, was only narrowly won by Labor.

    I believe Canberra is the largest federal electorate, and while usually its rusted-on Liberal population is outnumbered by the rusted-on Laborites, is historically only “fairly safe”, not “very safe”. Cutting it will reduce the margin.

    And as history shows on a couple occasions, the sleepy huge electorate of Canberra, can be cattle-prodded to wake up. Back in the 95 by-election, my observation of local Canberran electoral attitudes was along the lines of, “yeah OK, we’re usually very comfy to sleep and yawn away, be ignored and forgotten by both sides for years, but Don’t Piss Us Off, or you will see double-digit swings.”
    The combination of Keating and Ros, was a pretty big piss-off to cause a 16% swing.

    The smaller swings in 2007 following the larger ones for Latham in 2004 is interesting, supports my theory of yes, Canberra is safe Labor, sure – but don’t piss ’em off 🙂

    Federal Labor may not want to cut it unless they have to, because its likely the ALP would then be up for a harder campaign battle in any new third ACT electorate, (and maybe also, in the original one remaining behind in the redistribution)

    The ACT Territory govt has 3 multi-member electorates – roughly cutting the city into thirds, with the largest middle-third having 7 members, the other two having only 5 members. The electorates do generally fall out much closer and far more marginal in local election runs, than in the federal seats, and Independents also do better locally.

    Perhaps just speculating, but maybe its because there aren’t many clearly identifiable ‘pockets’ of rich vs poor or class-distinction suburb splits like other cities. Its much more evenly distributed across the city, and however you might cut it, its likely to reduce the federal ALP margin as it does in local ACT elections.

    So in short, I don’t agree that a third ACT electorate in a redistribution, would be “condemned as a partisan manouvre by the Rudd government.”

  26. Rates Analyst @127

    Cheers for answering my question regarding the Viv Senate seats. Obviously, it was just wishful thinking on my part that the Greens would benefit.

  27. Albert Ross @103
    Section 24 has to be read in conjunction with High Court cases. The number of State seats is twice the number of STATE Senators. So its the population is divided by 144, not 152. The Territory seats use the same formula for allocation to Territory, but are in addition of the seats allocated to the States.

  28. #133

    * Possibly the presence of a more left-leaning leader would allow the Libs to go down better in the ACT, compared to Howard.

    * If the ACT is increased to three seats, you’ll see one seat taking in all the inner suburbs on both sides of the lake, and two seats covering the outer north and outer south. Most of the good Labor/Green areas would be in one very safe seat, with the other two taking in the more volatile newer suburbs. These two seats would probably be more winnable for the Liberals, although under normal circumstances would lean to Labor. At least it would make the ACT more exciting….

    * It’s a pity that electorates can’t cross state borders. The ACT is apparently just under the 2.5 quota mark, but if you included Queanbeyan and the Greater Canberra catchment there’d easily be enough people for 3 seats.

  29. Marcus says:

    Whether Victoria needs to lose a seat or not, it will still need to be redistributed under the seven year rule. The last redistribution was in 2002, so it’s likely one will commence during this term.

    Redistributions due within 12 months of the expiration of parliament are postponed until after the next election.

    The 7-year rule for Victoria kicks in in Feb 2010. It’ll be line ball as to whether it even gets underway. And even if it does, an election may be called prior to its completion.

    Rain: 1975 was one of the most lopsided elections in Australian history. 1995 was a by-election, notoriously fickle towards government at the best of times, compounded by the Kelly controversy.

    In other words, both were abberations.

    It’s instructive that all three ACT electorates were won by Labor in 1996. Despite 1996 being a dreadful election for Labor. And despite Namadgi having a sitting Liberal member.

    Put it another way: if Labor are troubled in the ACT, then they’re probably suffering far worse problems elsewhere.

  30. Bob McMullen has put up a proposal before that would allow the ACT to regain a third seat. I suspect it will be revived. Unlike the allocation of seats to the states, territory allocations are in legislation, not the constitution. A simple change to the formula, as was done to allow the NT to retain two seats, could be implemented for the ACT, creating a third seat.

  31. Geoff at 115

    Lowe is not similar to Melbourne Ports. The long term drift away from the libs is demographic – pre war the inner western suburbs of Sydney – Drummoyne, Ashfield, Croydon, Burwood were conservative voting middle class whilst Strathfield was swish – Summer Hill and Five Dock were lower middle class enough to give Labor a chance of winning in good years. Ashfield in particular saw downward social mobility as large houses were demolished and replaced by walk up flats – the anglo children of the pre war middle class moved to the North Shore – immigrants Italians first, everybody else and Chinese moved in later. Even in the 60’s what is now Lowe was covered by 3 seats – Lowe, Evans and Parkes. The population has been largely static (or declining) as everywhere else got bigger. The liberal vote has held up pretty well in Strathfield, probably got better in Drummoyne as it has gentrified – and increased greatly in Mortlake which was once industrial but now has expensive flats along the river (on the old factory sites). The shift to the ALP has been largely due to the non anglo population grwoing and the growth of the seat to the south which has always been prime ALP territory.

    If there was a Sydney equivalent of Melbourne Ports, it would probably be Wentworth.

    As for your suggestion of the seat of Melbourne crossing the river and taking in southbank. Why not? or Melbourne Ports taking in Docklands. Until 1984, Melbourne Ports took in Richmond after all.

  32. I’ve lived in Melbourne Ports, on and off, all my life. St. Kilda now, but I grew up in Port Melbourne and it makes me sad now whenever I go to the Port and see Beacon Cove. It looks like a great location for a horror movie to me. The old Anglican church is now a Starbucks. Even though I’m an aetheist that just seems wrong to me. I’m not surprised that 70% of St. Kilda-ites vote Labor, although it’s interesting given that the suburb has changed so much in the last 10 years.

  33. Antony,

    Do you think this is likely, or politically wise? At least with NT the major parties could hide behind community of interest arguments; that NT was too large and diverse for one seat ,etc. ACT is tiny and if population growth does not demand an extra seat, it would look pretty self-serving for Labor to just legislate for one. Obviously if population growth does demand an extra seat, that’s a different story.

    BTW, do you have any opinion on allowing electorates to cross state borders? Apart from community of interest arguments (Broken hill with SA, Albury-Wodonga, Canberra-Queanbeyan) the extra flexibility may help prevent the creation of large, disparate rural electorates like we saw at the recent NSW redistribution.

  34. If they expand the Senate to 14 per state then the NT could have its second seat without a legislative prop-up and the ACT would get its third seat and Tasmania would be less over represented in relation to the mainland.

    A third seat in the ACT would also mean that of the ACT Legislative Assembly was allowed to expand to 21 seats then they could have three House of Reps electorates that were the same as the three seven member electorates.

  35. The Electorates are allocated by state which means they can’t cross state boundaries. And given more people vote in each ACT electorate than vote in the NT all up, and they’d still have more people per seat if a third was allocated than Tasmania or the NT, I think you could sort that one out on equity grounds.

  36. Sorry if this is a dumb question, but does the AEC try to redistribute boundaries so that seats become “closer” or do they just do it by population basis?

  37. Being highly active in the Canberra electorate community during the Ros Kelly era, I can confirm that 1995 was simple a ‘whiteboard’ reaction.

    Liberal Brendan Smyth was elected only because of the short time before another election was due. The people of Canberra (electorate, not city) were prepared to sacrifice their normal Labor vote to ensure the message was loud and clear not to take us for granted.

    However, with the calling of the national election, we reverted to type and elected Labor MP, and former Kelly staffer, Annette Ellis, who has been there since. The primary reason Ellis didn’t get the gig first time round was because she was too close to Ros Kelly (as her staffer) and electing her was tantamount to giving Ros the OK, which we wouldn’t do. (The 1995 by-election was only the second time in more than 20 years that I didn’t vote Labor).

    Smyth, by the way, has been living off his moment of glory in 1995 ever since, recently dumped as Liberal leader in the ACT Government.

    The city of Canberra, which encompasses the outlying suburbs , or satellite towns, is Labor through and through – look at the Senate vote for confirmation of this. A third electorate taking in the city and expensive inner suburbs may be a chance of going Liberal, but you must remember that the ‘old’ public servants, who bought early and well, and were brought up under the old PSU, live here in relatively high numbers still.

    Many of the new-wealthy moving into those areas are Greens voters, not conservatives. Something to do with the education levels and social conscience in Canberra, people say.

    Regardless, Canberra, whether two seats or three, will remain Labor territory for many years to come – unless someone else takes us for granted.

  38. Held was a disaster. To see the big swings to Danby in Caulfield just proved how much more hard work Southwick did in 2004. BTW, Southwick didn’t just win the primary vote in 2004 (McLorinan won the primary vote just in 2001), he won 42/39. Infact 2007 is the first time since Danby’s initial election he didn’t poll under 40% of the primary vote.

    The day Danby retires is the day the Liberals preselect a serious Jewish Candidate, sweep Caulfield 60/40 or better and win the seat.

  39. Tasmania should have 3 seats not 5, based on population. It just isn’t right that Tasmania’s seats have 2/3 the number of voters than seats in the rest of the country.

    But since the constitution says that Tasmania shall have at least 5 seats I don’t know what the solution is. More seats could be created elsewhere bringing the total to say 170 but that would mean more Senators which would mwan more Tasmanian Senators, and they overrepresneted enough as it is in that chamber.

  40. Just been looking at some Below The Line BTL votes in Senate. A good indication of how keen/knowledgable the voters are within different groups as well as avoiding risk of informal vote. Across Australia only about 60,000 Lib/Nat votes out of nearly 5m are BTL. ALP votes about 83,000 out of just over 5m. Greens 117,000 out of 1,100,000. Some of the minor groups and Democrats also get a high %. The keenest group of voters seems to be for Nick Xenephon 26,000 out of 120,000 counted to date ie over 20% (up in part because his name was not next to the group box above the line). BTL votes are much higher in Tasmania and ACT partly because they are used to the Hare Clark voting system and also because the ballot papers have less names. And why would the Greens and Family First in Vic Senate have 6 candidates each on their list – just to discourage BTL votes or is something else going on there?! (I assume its not legal to have 7 otherwise they might be tempted???).
    We need a system of Senate voting that makes it easier for voters to show preferences rather than opting for the Group voting ticket out of fear of informal votes. And to help get rid of oddities like Socialist Equality Party giving part of its Group vote preferences to Lib/Nats along with some other mis named groups.

Comments are closed.

Comments Page 3 of 8
1 2 3 4 8