• WALLY’S PIGGERY CRUELTY INVESTIGATION

    8th September 2015

    Questions without notice.

    WALLY’S PIGGERY.

    The Hon. MARK PEARSON: My question without is notice is directed to the Minister for Roads, Maritime and Freight, representing the Minister for Justice and Police. In 2012, the NSW Police Force and RSPCA New South Wales commenced an investigation into Wally’s Piggery after viewing footage obtained by animal activists. The RSPCA subsequently laid 53 charges, including aggravated animal cruelty. In November 2014, for unknown reasons, all charges were withdrawn. Why has the NSW Police Force not commenced a prosecution under section 530 of the Crimes Act, given that the footage shows the torture and severe beating of animals and other acts of egregious cruelty, and given that the Queensland Police Service are prosecuting under similar circumstances in the current greyhound live baiting case where it is relying on the public interest— [Time expired.]

    The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: I thank the honourable member for his question. I am advised that in August 2012 Animal Liberation released video footage showing alleged mistreatment of pigs and illegal slaughter at a piggery in the Southern Tablelands of New South Wales. The RSPCA NSW investigated the allegations relating to the treatment and management of the pigs and laid charges under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act against Wally’s Piggery in July 2013. On 17 November 2014 the RSPCA NSW withdrew the prosecution after consultation with independent counsel based on matters relating to legal evidence.

    The piggery has since been de-stocked and is no longer in operation. Animal welfare is of concern to everyone in the community and is an issue that the New South Wales Government takes seriously. We have a robust system in place in New South Wales to address animal cruelty. The RSPCA NSW is one of three enforcement organisations listed under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1979. The second is the NSW Police, and the third is the Animal Welfare League of New South Wales. The RSPCA operates under its own constitution and governance structure, which is independent of the New South Wales Government. The question is pertinent to the NSW Police Force and I will refer it to the Minister for Justice and Police for a response. Mr President—

    The Hon. Walt Secord: Point of order: Question time started late today.

    The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: Question time started late and it has finished late.

    The PRESIDENT: Order! There is no point of order.

    The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: If members have any further questions, I suggest they place them on notice.

    Questions without notice concluded.


    To date (4th February 2018) no response received.

  • POLICE POWERS

    26th August 2015

    Questions without notice.

    POLICE POWERS.

    The Hon. MARK PEARSON: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Roads, Maritime and Freight, representing the Minister for Justice and Police. Has the Minister recently consulted with the Commissioner of Police, Andrew Scipione, seeking advice in regard to the implications and possible consequences if the Government appointed prescribed officers who would have more powers than police officers to enter and search commercial premises, remove and destroy items, install surveillance devices, and demand and examine records kept on those premises without obtaining a warrant or having formed reasonable suspicion?

    The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: I thank the Hon. Mark Pearson for his question. I will take it on notice. Despite listening carefully, I found a degree of confusion within the question. I am sure that will be overcome when we carefully analyse it. It did not make a lot of sense as I listened to it. Having said that, we will analyse it carefully. If an answer is available, we will do our best to supply it to the House.


    To date (4th February 2018) no further information received.

  • KANGAROO MANAGEMENT PLAN

    12th August 2015

    Questions without notice.

    KANGAROO MANAGEMENT PLAN

    The Hon. MARK PEARSON: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Ageing, representing the Minister for the Environment. Is the Minister aware of any parliamentary oversight and review in the past 20 years to determine whether the New South Wales kangaroo management plans have provided for the sustainable and humane treatment of kangaroos, including their joeys? If not, will the Minister establish a committee to examine these issues prior to the development of the New South Wales Kangaroo Management Plan to commence in 2016, especially considering that Russia has implemented three consecutive bans on imports over the past seven years based on serious hygiene and welfare concerns, and that there are now four European countries considering bans of kangaroo meat?

    The Hon. JOHN AJAKA: I have not been here for the last 20 years, so it is a little difficult. I have been in this Parliament for about eight years. There are parts of the question I will take on notice and refer to the Minister for the Environment, Minister for Heritage, and Assistant Minister for Planning. I am informed that the Commonwealth Department of Health has recorded only one incident of a food-borne illness involving kangaroo. That is based on data collected Australia wide between 2001 and 2012. This one incident affected seven people in the Northern Territory and did not involve commercially harvested product.

    All kangaroo game meat processed, manufactured or sold in New South Wales must comply with the Australian Standard for Hygienic Production of Game Meat for Human Consumption. The New South Wales Food Authority licenses kangaroo harvesters and processors in New South Wales, and those facilities must be able to show traceability of product throughout the chain, from harvest to the plate. Government authorities, including the New South Wales Food Authority, regularly inspect game meat processing facilities, field depots and harvesters. The authority’s audit and inspection program ensures that kangaroo harvesters, chillers and processors comply with the food safety requirements set out in the specific food safety program that each business is required to have. This process provides a comprehensive assessment to ensure the business is operating its food safety program and that the program covers all aspects of food safety.

    I am further informed that the minimum inspection frequency varies for different types of facilities. Harvesters are inspected once every two years, chillers are inspected once per year, processors are inspected once per year, and export processors are inspected once every six months. Despite the differences in inspection frequency, the authority requires all harvesting and processing facilities to consistently meet food safety standards. Additional inspections and appropriate enforcement action are taken in response to any breach, and the authority follows up these results to ensure identified defects have been rectified. In the period November 2013 to November 2014, inspections show that the New South Wales kangaroo industry had a compliance record of 97 per cent, with just two facilities showing an unacceptable result.

    As kangaroos are native fauna, the Office of Environment and Heritage manages the commercial harvesting program to ensure kangaroos are culled humanely and that kangaroo populations are sustainable. Requirements for the humane slaughter of kangaroos are specified in the National Code of Practice for the Humane Shooting of Kangaroos for Commercial Purposes, and this code of practice is prescribed as a condition of licence by the Office of Environment and Heritage.

    The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: I regret to inform the House that the time for questions has expired. If members have any further questions, I suggest they place them on notice.


    The Hon. JOHN AJAKA: On 12 August 2015 the Hon. Mark Pearson asked me a question about a kangaroo management plan. The Minister for the Environment has provided the following response:

    I am advised as follows:

    • There have been no parliamentary inquiries on the sustainable and humane treatment of kangaroos in New South Wales in the past 20 years.
    • Sustainability of the kangaroo population is the responsibility of both State and Federal governments. Sustainability is ensured through population monitoring and harvesting quotas.
    • All kangaroos must be harvested in accordance with the National Code of Practice for the Humane Shooting of Kangaroos and Wallabies for Commercial Purposes. The code includes requirements for the humane treatment of joeys.
    • Export of kangaroo products is a matter for the Australian government.
  • SOW STALLS

    11th August 2015

    Questions without notice.

    SOW STALLS

    The Hon. MARK PEARSON: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Primary Industries, and Minister for Lands and Water. Given that members of the Australian pork industry are committed to phasing out sow stalls—a metal cage in which gestating sows can take only one step forward or back and not turn around—by 2017, will the Government legislate to outlaw the use of sow stalls so that all piggeries in New South Wales are mandated sow stall free?

    The Hon. NIALL BLAIR: Gestation stalls, also known as sow stalls, are a form of accommodation used to confine sows during their pregnancy. The industry has recognised that the use of these stalls is no longer supported by the community, and in November 2010 it voluntarily committed to pursue a phase-out by 2017, which is exactly what the member acknowledged in his question. This is a world first initiative. For producers, implementation of this industry-led initiative involves expensive and complex modifications to their farms and practices. Producers deserve support for making these changes and their efforts need to be recognised. I am advised that 70 per cent of the industry has completed the phase-out of sow stalls and the industry is confident that by 2017 the vision of a gestation stall free industry will be realised.

    It is unfair to perpetuate the myth that industry continues to support the use of sow stalls and that they remain standard practice. It completely ignores and devalues what the industry has achieved. Rather, we need to support the industry and continue to work with it through this voluntary reform. I commend Australian Pork Limited in particular for its efforts in this space. This is a clear example of an industry working with its members, understanding community concerns and putting into practice an initiative which, as I outlined, is expensive in some cases to implement. The industry should be commended for such an initiative. We do not always need to jump in and legislate when an industry already understands the issue and is working with consumer groups to get the desired outcome. That is what working with industry can achieve.

    Again, I commend Australian Pork Limited for the efforts it has made with its members. As I said, up to 70 per cent of the industry has already completed the phasing out of sow stalls. If we were to legislate, as suggested by the Hon. Mark Pearson, by the time such legislation was drafted and put through the House the industry probably would have got there ahead of us. We need to recognise that sometimes the answer lies with those who work with the animals. Sometimes the answer lies with industry groups that are looking at what is happening around the world and saying that they can have a sensible discussion about animal welfare and put practices and plans in place to ensure that their businesses are viable. That is a win-win situation.

    We do not have to come in with the heavy stick. We can listen to what the consumer is saying, and we can work with the industry in a way that allows businesses that want to do the right thing, that are legitimately employing people—many of them are in regional communities—to continue to be productive. The industry is saying that it has got this. It does not need someone telling it how it should do this. The industry has the answers. It is working with its members and with consumers. The industry needs to be commended for that.

  • THE INAUGURAL SPEECH OF MARK PEARSON

    6th May 2015

    I felt truly privileged to give a voice for the voiceless in parliament. Many dear friends and supporters joined me in the public gallery for the history making moment.  I contemplated the significance of this speech and for the foundation it will set for my work in NSW parliament.

    INAUGURAL SPEECH OF THE HONOURABLE MARK PEARSON

    The DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Trevor Khan): I call the Hon. Mark Pearson. I
    remind members that this is the honourable member’s inaugural speech. I ask them to extend
    to him the usual courtesies for such a speech.

    The Hon. MARK PEARSON [4.31 p.m.] (Inaugural Speech): I support the motion by the
    Leader of the Government to adopt the Speech yesterday by the Governor of New South
    Wales. It is indeed a privilege and honour to be the first member of Parliament elected by the
    people of New South Wales on the platform of animal protection, animal wellbeing and
    animal welfare. This is the second country in the world that has elected a member of
    Parliament on this platform. The first country was Holland where, four years ago, Marianne
    Thieme of the Dutch Party for the Animals was elected to the Dutch Parliament. Since then,
    two others have joined her. New South Wales is the third jurisdiction in the world to have
    elected people to Parliament on the basis of animal protection and animal wellbeing. Last
    year the European Union elected two people, one from Germany and one from Holland, to
    the European Parliament on the platform of animal protection and wellbeing.

    I am extremely privileged and honoured that Australia, together with those other countries, is
    leading the world in electing somebody to the halls of Parliament to be a voice for the
    wellbeing of vulnerable and voiceless beings who cannot request help themselves. On three
    occasions yesterday the Governor referred to this as being an important function and a
    necessity for a government to embrace. There are political parties relating to animal welfare
    in 12 other countries of the world. As well as in Australia, they exist in Holland, Britain,
    Portugal, Spain, Germany, Sweden, Cyprus, Turkey, France, the United States and, very
    recently, Finland. Moves are afoot to bring animal protection—a shield and a sword for
    animals—to Singapore, Vietnam and China as well as the Middle East where they will soon
    be having their first conference about the protection of animals, supported and arranged by
    Princess Alia of Jordan. This is a new era, a new chapter of a very important, fundamental
    and ethical shift in the consciousness of people about the wellbeing of those who cannot
    speak for themselves.

    It is interesting that 193 years ago, in 1822 in England, the first legislation for animal
    protection came about through the Cruel Treatment of Cattle Act. Richard Martin fought for
    five years in the House of Lords—over and over and over again—to bring this first
    legislation in the world to protect animals. They coined the name “Humanity Dick” for
    Richard Martin but he fought very hard. It is interesting that the legislation that was brought
    in was not about cute fluffy dogs or the majestic and wonderful whales of the world, but
    about cattle. One of the reasons Richard Martin fought so vigorously was because of the
    horrors he experienced in seeing horses flogged to death in the streets of London; the horrors
    of bear-baiting—and baiting has become well-known to us in this State and this country just
    recently—and because of dog fighting. These were the issues in his heart and on his mind and
    about which he was concerned.

    It is helpful and constructive for us to understand that Richard Martin finally succeeded in
    getting the legislation through with the help of a wonderful philosopher, Jeremy Bentham.
    Bentham was ahead of his time. The argument he used was: It is not a matter as to whether an
    animal can think or reason; it is a matter of whether an animal can suffer. This compelling
    argument is what achieved the majority vote in the first parliament in the world to protect
    animals. In 1824, two years later, Richard Martin helped to form the first prevention of
    cruelty to animals organisation, which was soon thereafter sanctioned by the Queen and
    named the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. Richard Martin drew
    upon the principles of slavery, claiming similar rights for animals in relation to wellbeing,
    liberty and their freedom from being kept in a situation where they were at one’s mercy and
    subject to one’s beck and call or cruelty. Those principles helped bring prevention of cruelty
    to animals forward.

    It is interesting to note that the legislation to protect animals was endorsed and enacted before
    legislation to protect children. It was drawn upon by the House of Lords in order to say that if
    there was legislation to protect animals, it was only right and proper to extrapolate that to the
    protection of children. It is of note that Queen Victoria, I think every year, was given the
    opportunity to pardon a prisoner. It is of particular import that where the prisoner presented
    had committed heinous acts of cruelty to animals, Queen Victoria never pardoned the
    prisoner. She struck the chord, set the tone of the profound importance of protecting those
    who are vulnerable, those who cannot protect themselves from us when they at our mercy. I
    may be incorrect, but I think I am the first person to be elected a member of Parliament in
    New South Wales, under the sovereignty of the Queen, who has as his or her principal
    platform the protection of animals. I think that is quite historic and I enjoy being part of that
    historic movement.

    Why did the Animal Justice Party form? It was because it became clear that thousands of
    people were outraged by what was happening to our live export animals. We saw thousands
    and thousands of people gather on the streets of Sydney, as well as in all of the capital cities
    and smaller cities across Australia, after they witnessed the horrendous treatment of our live
    export animals—both during their transport on ships and in their handling and slaughter.
    What compelled us to consider a party for animals was that the people who came together on
    the street to protest about live exports were cattle producers standing beside butchers,
    standing beside lawyers, standing beside clergy, standing beside poor and animal rights
    people in their dreadlocks. These people were standing together, outraged by what was
    happening to our exported animals. Importantly, we are not talking about cats and dogs and
    beautiful, majestic whales, which also are important and must be protected; we are talking
    about sheep, the animals upon which the economy of Australia was built, and cattle. These
    are farm animals, often not looked upon in the same way as are dogs and cats.

    In the Australian Capital Territory many people witnessed the killing of thousands of
    kangaroos. From where the kangaroos were being herded up and goaded, tranquillised and
    then shot, one could see in the distance the coat of arms of the Federal Government of
    Australia. On that coat of arms, as in this Chamber, is the kangaroo. Yet in the Australian
    Capital Territory, 300 or 400 metres away, kangaroos—including their joeys—were being
    rounded up, tranquillised and killed. This caused enormous trauma to a lot of people who
    were trying to protect them. So it was those two major events—the treatment of live export
    animals and the trauma that many, many people in the Australian Capital Territory felt—that
    caused the first meeting here in Sydney to consider the forming of a political party for
    animals, the Animal Justice Party.

    Recently we have seen footage of the live baiting of greyhound. It was extraordinary that
    across Australia many, many people were outraged by this practice. Very interestingly, the
    outrage was not only about the cruelty, torment and torture of the animals used in live baiting,
    but also about the presumption of regularity. The presumption of regularity is often referred
    to in the courts of Australia when the actions or proposed actions of a government are
    brought before the court. The court says that we must get over the bar of the presumption of
    regularity—that the government of the day is looking after the matter and ensuring that the
    right thing is being done for animals.

    The outrage and concern of the public was that people assumed they had elected a
    government that would look out for the welfare of the animals and ensure that the acts that
    caused this outrage and concern do not happen. As was exposed through Four Corners, the
    investigations of police and colleagues of mine established that live baiting is a practice that
    is systemic, that is criminal, that is ongoing and that many who knew about it turned a blind
    eye to. This expose struck at the trust and assumption in the community that proper regulation
    and enforcement was in place to ensure against these practices.

    It is very interesting that police at very high levels are now taking the issue of animal cruelty
    very seriously indeed. It is called the cycle of violence—that wherever harm is inflicted on
    animals, whether in a home or other situation, it is likely, and very often the case, that there
    will be, if not at the time, domestic abuse, child abuse and maybe worse. From a study of the
    history of serial killers, it is clear that they started with harming, tormenting and torturing
    animals. So the police are taking very seriously indications that animal abuse is a marker for
    human abuse. It is important that we grasp and understand this; and it is very important that,
    now the people of New South Wales have voted into Parliament somebody to press this issue,
    we need to address animal suffering as a clear measure of the civilisation of our society.

    There is before the Parliament various legislation, I think called biosecurity legislation, that is
    similar to legislation proposed in South Australia. One term for it is “ag-gag” legislation. It is
    currently before a Federal committee of inquiry. Many parts of that legislation are about
    restraining and stopping whistleblowers—people who have gone to properties, or worked in
    places, and have documented evidence of animal cruelty. Rather than legislation being put in
    place to try to find the perpetrators of cruelty, or install mandatory CCTV cameras, et cetera,
    to document cruelty to animals and address this cruelty in a proactive and positive way, those
    pieces of legislation—one before the Federal Parliament and one which will soon be before
    this Parliament—are about punishing, and punishing very severely, the people who have had
    the courage, on many occasions risking their personal liberties, to document and record what
    is often systemic cruelty to animals in abattoirs, factory farms or intensive farms, et cetera.
    This legislation is draconian and extremely serious, and we need to grapple with it in an
    ethical and sensible way. Recently we saw and were outraged by the cruelty to several
    species as a result of live baiting being used with greyhounds. If this legislation is passed,
    rather than the perpetrators being properly dealt with according to law, it would be
    informants, such as the people who put in place the cameras for surveillance, and programs
    such as ABC’s Four Corners and those involved would face charges and possible
    imprisonment. This is an extraordinary situation. This Government must turn its mind to how
    this sits with freedom of speech, the principles of prevention of cruelty to animals, and the
    principles of the rights of people to document what might be considered to be cruelty to
    animals.

    I have a colourful background and many of my colleagues here have shared that colourful
    background with me. I draw the attention of the House to the Prevention of Cruelty to
    Animals Act. In 1995 we tried hard to stop the tethering of sows in Parkville piggery, which
    belonged to Paul Keating. Pregnant sows had metal collars around their necks and they were
    tethered to iron cages. They were confined for most of their lives until they were sent out to
    slaughter, which would have been the first time they felt the sun on their backs or saw the
    grass of the fields.

    What happened in that place is a result of section 9 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals
    Act. This legislation is about preventing cruelty to animals. Section 9 is about exercise. A
    person in charge of an animal must provide that animal with exercise. Section 9 (1) says that
    person is not guilty of an offence if that animal is of a class of stock animal, or an animal
    which is usually kept in captivity by means of a cage. This section imposes a positive duty
    upon a person in charge of an animal to provide it with exercise, yet an exemption is put in
    place when dealing with thousands or tens of thousands of animals in one place, which is
    called factory farming.

    That day I, with many of my colleagues, went to Parkville piggery and we chained ourselves
    next to these sows. Despite numerous complaints from people who were working in the
    piggery and people who were slaughtering the animals in the abattoir, nothing was being
    done for these animals. As an activist, I participated in this campaign by going to the piggery
    and chaining myself next to the sows. Something interesting happened that day. As we were
    being arrested and processed at the police station—and they were the days when one had to
    put one’s finger on ink—the Minister for Agriculture, Richard Amery, announced on the front
    steps of Parliament House that as of 1996, the next year, the tethering of sows in piggeries
    would be a specific offence under law.

    That is the reason for my colourful past and I have now taken on another colour in this
    House. It is important that we work hard for these animals because they cannot speak for
    themselves. I hope to bring to this House a question as to whether it is appropriate that the
    portfolio of animal welfare or animal protection belongs to the Minister for Primary
    Industries. The Department of Primary Industries protects primary industries and many of
    them have animals, and the Minister for Primary Industries has the responsibility to protect
    those industries. It is not appropriate to have animal welfare and animal protection in such a
    portfolio. That portfolio should be placed in a ministry that is completely neutral towards an
    industry’s interests in using animals. I hope that at some stage we can have a debate as to
    whether the portfolio of animal protection should be moved to the police, who have more
    powers than the Royalty Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals [RSPCA]. They
    have powers to obtain warrants and to install surveillance to document cruelty to animals.
    There are hundreds of dogs and cats at this very moment in pounds and shelters across this
    State. They are completely healthy animals. They are quite adoptable, but they are unwanted.
    If they are not adopted within seven days, they are killed. They are healthy animals, capable
    of being rehabilitated if they have problems. They are not animals that are vicious or
    dangerous or so diseased and sick that they need to be euthanased. At 5.00 p.m. this Friday
    veterinarians will go to these pounds and they will kill the cats and dogs.

    At the same time, as was exposed by Oscar’s law in the paper last Sunday, we have sheds all
    over this State with thousands of animals that are breeding machines. They are breeding
    cosmetic, pretty-looking dogs. The bitches in these puppy farms are impregnated and deliver
    litters over and over again. After several years their bodies are broken. They are rendered
    worthless and then killed. These animals are being sold in pet shops and, at the same time, we
    have healthy unwanted animals waiting for adoption that are being killed because we have an
    industry that is breeding animals. I will ask this House to address this—as the Victorian
    Government is doing—and whether the puppy farms should be banned, phased out and
    consigned to the scrap heap of history. It is unconscionable to have animals bred like this
    because it causes a lot of suffering.

    The other important issue is that the RSPCA is a charitable organisation. It receives minimal
    Government funds and relies on legacies and donations to survive. Yet it has been given the
    main prosecutorial and investigative powers under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act.
    The Act is about criminal activity. We would not want childcare centres in every community
    to be the administrative instrument for the Childcare Protection Act; that would be uncalled
    for. The RSPCA has a long history of respect and support, and it has a function, but it is time
    to call into question whether the RSPCA should be the main administrator of the Prevention
    of Cruelty to Animals Act.

    The people of New South Wales have elected me because the protection of animals is
    important to many, and that importance is continuing to grow nationally and internationally.
    The Animal Justice Party can be seen as a single issue party—I thought that when I was
    participating in its formation. Rather, it is a single purpose party with multiple issues.
    Interestingly, the Party for the Animals in Holland has found that about 80 per cent of issues
    that come before this House have some impact one way or another on the lives of animals.
    But even if the issues brought before this House are not directly or indirectly related to
    animals, the Animal Justice Party will apply the principles of compassion and consideration
    to any legislation being considered. Our relationship with animals throughout time is
    extremely important and complex. It is very much a part of our humanity—for example, I
    refer to those homeless, broken people in their dirty and torn clothes that we often see in
    Hyde Park feeding crusts to the pigeons. Clearly they enjoy that experience of interaction.
    Many men and women have fallen in war. Messenger pigeons that can brilliantly read the
    magnetic field around this earth have delivered messages which have stopped the sinking of
    ships and the killing of thousands of soldiers. Some 130,000 Australian horses were sent to
    the First World War, not one returned. Not one program was implemented to return even one
    horse. Yesterday both the Governor and the President spoke about the importance of
    mateship in war. Many have written about their mate being a horse, a dog or a donkey. The
    animals with which we share the land, air and water of this country are deeply interwoven
    with our sense of ethics and culture; we are indebted to them.

    Ghandi managed to have the British leave India without any blood being spilt. He said very
    clearly that the measure of the civilisation of a country is how it treats its animals. It is
    important for the vulnerable to be looked after because it also reflects how we look after our
    children, as well as our disabled and homeless people. Those who cannot advocate for
    themselves need us to advocate for them and we need to advocate more for animals. As I said
    before, that is why people of New South Wales have elected me to this Parliament and it is
    my hope that many others will be elected to other national and international Parliaments.
    I thank all those who have supported me over the years. It would take too long to name them
    all and some are not here today. Many have helped me over the past 23 years to grapple with
    a profound understanding of animals and I am still learning about their complexity, beauty
    and majesty. In conclusion, Christine Townend, who founded Animal Liberation Australia,
    once said to me that it is going to be the gradual and growing profound understanding of the
    majesty, beauty and mystery of animals that nourishes the very vest in ourselves and it may
    well save us from the worst in ourselves.

    Thank you.

Page 22 of 23« First...10...1920212223