Tasmanian Times


Margaret Tighe. The most powerful woman in Victoria

Margaret Tighe, veteran anti-abortion campaigner, retired as president of Right to Life Australia last year. That didn’t stop her championing the pro-life cause in newspaper advertisements last week. As one would expect she urged voters to support parliamentarians who voted against abortion, and to punish those who voted for it. She may have been single-handedly responsible for the defeat of the Brumby government, a fact that no one so far, apart from the Tasmanian Times, is giving her credit for.

She has runs on the board. Her most famous effort was to engineer the defeat of pro-choice Liberal Barry Simon, who held the Victorian federal seat of McMillan, in 1980. In 1979 she had campaigned less successfully against Brian Dixon, Victorian Minister for Sport and Recreation, in his electoral district of St Kilda. In the inconclusive Victorian state election of 1999 she successfully opposed the ALPs pro-euthanasia candidate Joseph O’Reilly in the electoral district of Prahran. If the three Independents, Davies, Ingram and Savage had failed to support a Bracks Labor government her action might have enabled Jeff Kennett to hang on as Premier.

There are two pro-life organisations in Victoria, Pro-Life Victoria and Right to Life Australia, but both have similar objectives. The latter, Margaret Tighe’s organisation, has greater political influence. In part this is because of its welcoming attitude to people from all religions or even none to the cause. Many of the most strident pro-lifers are not Catholics but members of evangelical fundamentalist Christian Churches. A common enemy for both groups is Emily’s List, an organisation of pro-abortion women, founded in America, aimed at securing the election of pro-choice females to Australian parliaments. The name is an acronym for “Early Money is Like Yeast” and its founder in Australia is former Victorian Premier Joan Kirner. Emily’s List has been helped by factional bosses seeking allies in intra-party power struggles.

It was Candy Broad, the pro-choice Emily’s Lister, who was the subject of the greatest criticism by Mrs Tighe. Broad is an upper house member of the Victorian parliament who, in 2007, introduced a private members Bill to decriminalise abortion in Victoria. John Brumby as Premier supported Broad, a fact that caused great resentment among pro-lifers. Debate on the Bill in parliament, and its successful passage in 2008 gave pro-lifers ammunition to attack the most vulnerable Labor MPs. A majority of Coalition MPs also favoured abortion reform, including the incoming Liberal Premier Ted Baillieu. These were not targeted, possibly because most were in safe seats and pro-life resources are not infinite.

The tactic chosen was to oppose eight lower house Labor MPs and one Independent, Craig Ingram from Gippsland East, all of whom were supporters of Candy Broad’s Bill. Six of the eight were defeated, including Ingram. Three of the eight targeted were Emily’s Listers. These were Maxine Morand in Mount Waverley, Janice Munt in Mordialloc, and Jacinta Allan in Bendigo East. Only Allan survived the pro-life challenge. The other five targeted were Tony Robinson in Mitcham, Bob Stensholt in Burwood, Alastair Harkness in Frankston, Justin Madden in Essendon and Ben Hardman in Seymour. All but Madden were defeated. Few of the specifically targeted members responded to pro-life propaganda. One who did was Maxine Morand, with pamphlets from “women’s health” organisations supporting her re-election on the strength of her support for abortion. None of these had any profile and even included the Morwell Women’s Health Service, well outside her electorate. This was hardly likely to influence voters.

An extra three defeated ALP sitting members voted for abortion. These were the South Barwon, Bentleigh and Prahran. Pro-life organisations did not specifically campaign in these seats. The only pro-life ALP member to be defeated was Tammy Lobato in Gembrook, one of the most marginal seats.

The pro-life movement can claim that without its support the Baillieu government would not have been elected. The Victorian state election of 2010 was a great success story for Margaret Tighe. Whether her pro-life stand will influence the current parliament will remain to be tested.

Author Credits: [show_post_categories parent="no" parentcategory="writers" show = "category" hyperlink="yes"]


  1. John Birch

    September 14, 2017 at 11:14 pm

    Who the hell does this woman think she is? How dare she dictate to people she has never met or cared for? I think society is getting fed up with religious zealots who think they can impose their personal views on families like Greg SimsÊ» family. Perhaps they should rename themselves Get a Life. Go away and mind your own damn business.

    • John Fox

      October 16, 2019 at 11:43 pm

      Welcome to politics. Will you also be complaining about the intentions of the Greens and other parties?

  2. Tony Powell

    September 11, 2017 at 8:41 pm

    Why is Al Qaeda more compassionate than pro-lifers?

    The 9/11 hijackers got to die instantly!!!

  3. Dr Kevin Bonham

    December 4, 2010 at 8:25 pm

    Regarding #25, the author of #23 claimed that “children dropping out of school” is an issue that Emily’s Listers should be addressing instead of focusing on allowing abortion. Obviously if a fetus is aborted it will not become a child that drops out of school, whereas any semi-wanted child that is born as a result of encouragement/coercion to not abort runs a risk of becoming a dropout. Whether that is an increased risk or a decreased risk compared with the rest of the population is irrelevant. You need to get a 100% school completion rate among all babies that would otherwise have been aborted to even break even, and obviously nobody can be sure of that. So to claim that fighting abortion makes an effective contribution to preventing school dropouts is nonsensical.

    Fighting for support for parents in desperate situations (so they can afford to have a child and hence not have an abortion)? Again, this is an issue where [i]even if[/i] there is as much fighting for that support as there is against abortion, and [i]even if[/i] that fighting is completely successful (not at all likely) then you still have to ensure there is no case where the prevention of an abortion creates poverty, in order to break even. Again, just as an aborted fetus can’t drop out of school, so an aborted fetus also isn’t going to later beg its parents for lunch money only to be told they can’t afford it. It may seem callous to put it like that but I did not set the goalposts in #23; the author of #23 did and I am just pointing out what they mean and why obsessive anti-abortionists will have at least as much trouble with them as Emily’s Listers if not more.

    As for claimed links between cancer and abortion, firstly your view is generally dismissed by major medical organisations, with the exception of those that have an ideological bias in the matter. In any case even if further research was required to assess a possible link, that does not constitute proof that anti-abortion activism is effective in preventing breast cancer, and even if it did that wouldn’t prove that it had overall positive health impacts for women compelled to having babies they did not want. There are many known risk factors for breast cancer that activists could far more usefully devote energy to if breast cancer was really one of their major concerns. More likely it isn’t, being simply an instrumental argument for campaigning against abortion (and apparently a pretty weak one at that.)

    The “abortion is child abuse” line is twaddle on just about every possible count – from whether the target should be considered to be a child let alone a live child, to whether the action is abusive and gratification-seeking in intention, to the philosophical question of whether there are circumstances in which even if you call a fetus alive, it is nonetheless permissable to kill it.

    Feel free to tell me which day’s Hansard I should check for the rejected amendments; I shall read the explanations of why they were rejected with interest.

  4. BigEars

    December 4, 2010 at 2:40 pm

    Re #22: No, not uninformed. In fact, I am very familiar with Emily’s List, and not just from their website (though, like Kevin Bonham, I think that site presents a very different picture than your three-point summary). From my experience, Emily’s List has primarily campaigned, these past sixteen years, for the election of progressive women candidates — where ‘progressive’ should be read as referring to a much wider array of political positions than just the abortion issue. If you look around at the women who have benefited from the ALP affirmative action provisions championed by Emily’s List, you will find a remarkably wide range of perspectives on abortion and other issues. Meanwhile, I too await your link to the part of the Emily’s List website that you refer to.

  5. sonja couroupis

    December 4, 2010 at 9:35 am

    @ # 24… Fighting abortion IS taking action against (the most extreme form of) child abuse. Fighting for support for parents in desperate situations IS fighting against poverty. Fighting against abortion IS ensuring that these children are born and get to go to school and there are enough studies to indicate that further research is required to determine if there is a link between breast cancer and abortion..
    Reproductive freedom?? The Victorian abortion legislation is nothing but second rate medical care for women (have you checked out the ammendments that were rejected? – see Hansard) and open slather killing of Australian babies in the womb – all tabled, promoted and supported by EMILY’s Listers.
    They do not have the interests of women, babies and families at heart – they are all about their own political careers and the interests of the abortion industry…

  6. Dr Kevin Bonham

    December 3, 2010 at 12:46 pm

    Re #23 I wonder how many anti-abortion activists devote even half as much energy to taking action against child abuse, poverty, homelessness, children dropping out of school and ovarian and breast cancer as they do to complaining about abortion.

    I expect the answer is very few, and yet the author of #23 criticises activists supporting reproductive freedom for supposed focus on their side of that issue.

    Furthermore I had a look at the Emily’s List website for the list of top three priorities that you claim and couldn’t find it. Can you give me an exact link? Indeed the credo of the organisation at http://www.emilyslist.org.au/about-us/what-we-believe-in makes it abundantly clear its aims are very much broader than the reproductive rights agenda you refer to.

    I would also be interested in the original source for the claimed public opinion statistics in #22.

  7. Leanne

    December 2, 2010 at 10:17 pm

    RE Big Ears comment no: 3.

    I find this disappointing how ill informed you are of the true nature of Emily’s List..

    Emily’s List has done nothing in Australia except support Pro Abortion Women, to become candidates in the ALP. In Joan Kirner’s own words,(the person who introduced Emilys’ list to Victoria) “The Women have to be very strong, hard core in their convictions on these diversive issues, so that they don’t back down under pressure… We cant get half hearted pro choice women in, to have them weaken when voting or under pressure”..

    In order of the Emily’s List most important things as printed on their own website is:
    1/pro choice 2/ Ivf for homosexuals 3/ Gay Adoption & fostering.

    Now for such a huge organisation to think these three things are their most important issues, when we have so much child abuse, poverty, homelessness, kids dropping out of school, ovarian,breast cancer on the rise etc etc.. I think they are a totally evil organisation, when their priorities are at minority groups only, and not issues of serious importance..

    I think you better re look at the history of Emily’s List to find out exactly what this group is.

    They are a shame and embarrassment to most women, they should hang their head in shame.. They do not represent my views or the views of the majority of women in Victoria or the majority of labor party voters, who have absolutely no idea what this wicked organisation is about… Please put some good women in parliament, maybe like Margaret Tighe…A true inspiration…

  8. sunny

    December 2, 2010 at 10:08 pm

    @Jen, that statistic that you pulled out of a hat, saying that 80% of people support decriminalisation, is a load of rot..

    The fact is the Victorian abortion bill brought forward and voted on by Mp’s such as Jacinta Alan and other pro aborts (Mostly emily’s Listers) is the most extreme, barbaric abortion bill in the Western World.

    The Vic Law reform Commision that presented the abortion bill options, stated even in their statistics, that approx

    89% of Victorians do not support abortion post 20weeks.

    98% of Victorian want more councelling for women

    98% of Victorians want the number of abortions reduced

    89% of Victorians want councelling with a cooling off period, for women considering abortion (Higher stats for late term)
    etc etc etc

    The abortion bill then voted in by these barbaric Mp’s does nothing to support the wishes of most of the population of this country at all!!!

    This bill is barbaric, radical & extreme, and does not support women or babies at all..
    Providing no protection for the unborn at al..

    So Jen do you support the amendments that Jacinta Allan and others voted against like:
    1/ giving pain relief to late term babies being killed by a cruel and agonising death
    2/banning the gruesome and cruel partial birth abortion (Banned in America)
    3/ Late term babies who survive an abortin are left to die, often heard crying alone, while dieing sometimes taking hours to die, while no one holds or helps them, being refused life saving medical treatment that all Australians are meant to be entitled to? which would give them the chance to a perfectly healthy life.

    So do you support all of the above Jen?

  9. sunny

    December 2, 2010 at 9:54 pm

    Dr Kevin Bonham, No I don’t refer to all candidates not being allowed to advertise. Jacinta Allan had more advertising of herself than any Mp in I believe Victoria’s history of Parliament.
    The amount of money spent on her campaign alone was wicked, extreme, beyond any reasonable measure at all..

    The People of Bendigo had to see and listen to Jacinta Allan on the Tv and radio approx every half an hour the adds were running for approx 3weeks.

    I saw a black and white documentary on the ABC a few years back, where Rupert Murdoch – Australia’s media Tycoon- Sat there clearly saying in the interview, how he decided to get Malcolm Frazer in as Prime Minister (Noting reasons why) so he did!!
    He then went on to say later that he decided to get Bob Hawke (For reasons he stated) so he did..

    Rupert Murdoch told the interviewer in clear terms, that he decided who would become PM and who would go out, and it always worked..

    By controlling the media, you decide who wins an election.. The Local Bendigo Newspaper ran their own very very biased campaign to have Allan re elected.

    Finnally, Jactinta Allan as a member of Emily’s List, most likely had this organisation paying for some of her campaign. As they were paying for some of the other Bendigo Emily’s Lister “Maree Edwards” campaign.

  10. Susanne

    December 2, 2010 at 11:06 am

    There may be delusions of grandeur, but the fact remains that even if only one of the targeted seats was won solely on the campaigning by the right to lifers Ted Baillieu can thank them for his one seat win.

    Andrew Landeryou, editor of Victorian conservative news site Vexnews, put it that Ted Baillieu owes something to Margaret Tighe. Will we have a change in Victoria’s Candy Broad style free abortion laws as a result? Possibly not.

  11. Jen

    December 1, 2010 at 9:07 pm

    Margaret Tighe is having delusions of grandeur. Over 80% of Vic population support abortion being legal. This doesn’t change at voting time.

  12. In the know

    December 1, 2010 at 3:37 pm

    Pat for your information, Seymour was one of the main seats targetted by RTLA. I have the ads in the local papers and the flyers that went out to every home twice if you would like to see them.

  13. Sunny

    November 30, 2010 at 11:06 pm

    Pat,it’s great to see you are pro life, but please take up the cause your way. Every pro lifer speaking out is greatly appreciated, doing it there way. Margaret Tighe has stuck in there and doing a great job.
    In Seymour there were many people connected with right to life and other pro life organisations who helped contribute to the removal of the Seymour candidate, by talking to people about what the Seymour Mp voted for in the abortion bill.
    They spent the last two years telling locals how terrible the bill is, plus I believe pamphlet dropped in the area also.

    But please don’t be diverted from the cause because of one disagreement of one Pro lifers way of doing things. Please get involved, do it your way, or join another organisation.

    Check out Cherish life in Qld to see how they are removing Emily’s Listers from Government, or contact the Australian family Association.

    But please speak up, the babies need everyone on board, as they cannot speak for themselves.

  14. Dr Kevin Bonham

    November 30, 2010 at 10:46 pm

    So Sunny (#11), I’m sure the amount of money spent on all the other candidates’ campaigns in the state could have provided housing for many homeless youths not just in Jacinta Allan’s electorate but also all over Victoria.

    Are you saying that these candidates (whatever their views on abortion) should not have spent that money and all of them should have donated it to the homeless or does your reservation about spending money getting re-elected only apply to incumbents who support abortion?

    I’m struggling to see the connection between the issues. It’s not as if allowing abortion increases the homelessness rate, after all.

  15. Pat

    November 30, 2010 at 9:23 pm

    No one is more pro-life than me, but the greatest disservice to the movement is the claim by Right to Life (they claim to be RTL Australia mind you) that they single handily engineered a greatly increased pro-life vote and turfed out the Brumby government.

    Typical Tighe and her selfish single minded view of how to take up the fight against the pro-abortion politicians – over more than 35 years her efforts have been highly negative and have diverted many good people from the cause.

    Perhaps the most critical seat in Victoria (after all the Coalition’s margin is 2 seats) a seat where MT was not involved- Seymour – there was a swing of more than 10% against all the trends in regional Victoria and came about because an arrogant government built a pipeline taking water from food-production and the environment.

  16. Carol

    November 30, 2010 at 6:30 pm

    Well, we will see when the final figures from recounts are available, but it does seem that swings were affected in most of the seats targeted by prolife organisations. Of course some other factors would also be in play.

  17. sonja couroupis

    November 30, 2010 at 3:39 pm

    Congratulations Margaret Tighe on your extraordinary results.
    As someone who witnessed Jacinta Allan’s response to the pro life campaign in Bendigo, i can only say that the public were denied transparency. Jacinta Allan and her staff resorted to finger pointing, denial and begging unwarranted sympathy from her constituents.
    Ms Allan’s ALP staff successfully protected her from making a single comment on her support of abortion up until birth and her rejection of amendments designed to offer some protection for late term babies and women. Even her own staff (including her young former legal advisor) simply could not believe it, despite being given evidence from Hansard.
    It quickly became obvious that Ms Allan is also well connected with an editor of a well supported, prominent Bendigo newspaper.
    While Ms Allan and Mr Madden may have survived this round, pro lifers have this next term to educate the public about what these MPs really stand for! Ignore the warning from TT….if you dare!

  18. BigEars

    November 30, 2010 at 11:10 am

    Re #10 — Kevin Bonham is justified in (gently) castigating me. While I suspect my assessment was right, the article did not in fact provide me with enough evidence to conflate Mr Allan’s admiration for the (alleged) success of the pro-life campaign with his personal view of the matter. My apologies to Mr Allan in that respect.

  19. Sunny

    November 30, 2010 at 3:12 am

    I live in Bendigo.

    Jacinta Allan doesnt care about innocent babies being killed so cruely.

    Finally, the Emily’s lister had continual all day radio, TV, Newspaper, pamplet advertising that went on and on and on, for weeks before the election, and all day..

    The amount of money spent on Allans campaign could have provided housing for many homeless youths in the area.

    Labor party lackies, told lie after lie after… Telling people that the pro lifers were lieing about the 54 babies left to die, the amount of healthy babies killed via partial birth abortion.

    Obviously the pro abortion lobby are extremely scared of the truth getting out to the public.. They have to resort to all sorts of wicked tactics to hide the truth…

    Oh well, the majority of people are good people, and will find out the truth about Allan & her Lackies hidden election tactics.

    Well Done Margaret Tighe.. You have a done a fabulous job. Standing up for the helpless, voteless little people, with no merit from the poor little victims on this earth… I applaud you as an amazing, passionate, caring, brave woman.. What a great example of a good woman.. Thankyou for being my idol…

  20. Dr Kevin Bonham

    November 29, 2010 at 9:52 pm

    Re #8 the sorts of people who write submissions to government processes are nearly always unrepresentative of the general population; you just can’t assume that submission processes reflect the will of “the people” at large. Submission processes are normally stacked by motivated minorities and indeed it’s quite common for government submission processes to be stacked by Greens supporters. The funny thing is that any number of more or less identical submissions to a process will almost always be ignored.

    Re #7 while I’m sure Lyle can defend his own views (whatever they are) should the need arise, I’m a bit concerned that you might be assuming someone is normatively anti-abortion simply because they offer an empirical argument about the supposed influence of a anti-abortion activist.

  21. Susanne

    November 29, 2010 at 9:37 pm

    I’ve been reading a lot of nonsense on certain blogs. There is much confusion about the two Jacintas. Jacinta Collins comes from the right wing Shop Assistants Union, and is anti-abortion. Jacinta Allan comes from Bendigo and supports abortion. The right to lifers know the difference and targeted the one from Bendigo. There are people who confuse the two and are arguing Jacinta Allan shouldn’t be leader because she supported the right to lifers. These people should get their facts right. Tasmanian Times got it right.

  22. Denise M Cameron

    November 29, 2010 at 7:12 pm

    Regardless of the reasons for Labor’s defeat at the Victorian polls, John Brumby and his government deserved it. The first responsibility of good government is to protect human life. The Brumby Government failed this first test when they legalised abortion in 2008.

    Another responsibility is to listen to the people. When the Brumby government invited the people to have their say on the matter, 84% of the submissions to the Victorian Law Reform Commission were against it. They were arrogantly dismissed. Now seven out of nine MP’s who voted for the worst abortion law in the world and were targeted by pro life activists with letterbox campaigns, have been dismissed.

    When all about are asking if the Labor Party has lost its way, one wonders if today’s Labor brand ever knew from where it came? The revered Labor Party elder statesman and former Prime Minister Ben Chifley of “Light on the Hill” inspiration, famously declared: “Any nation which cannot accept the unwanted or unplanned birth of a baby is a nation in love with death.”

    This nation is not in love with death. The tenacity of pro life activists is testament to this. Sadly it is Ben Chifley’s party which is in love with death.

  23. BigEars

    November 29, 2010 at 4:44 pm

    Further to my earlier suggestion that Mr Allan’s analysis might be a tad lazy, a quick look at the ABC’s election site confirms that of the seats mentioned by Mr Allan as having come under the magical spell of the indefatigable Margaret Tighe, four had swings above the state average swing (6.6%) while the other four had swings rather less than that average. The most prominent of the target candidates, Jacinta Allen, suffered only a 1.1% swing against her. I doubt that many future candidates will be shaking in their boots at the prospect of Mrs Tighe lining up against them.

    Let me be clear on this — I welcome a bit of light and shade on the TT site. It is important that the views of Mr Allan and others who hold pro-life views have ready access to important conversation-vehicles like TT. It’s just a bit sad that Mr Allan imagined that he could cobble together a story about the muscle-flexing of the pro-life lobby without bothering to do some basic homework. The pro-life lobby is important. Of that there can be little doubt. It may even have been important in this recent Victorian election. Until a great deal more analysis has been completed, however, we are obliged to recognise Mr Allan’s contribution as largely wishful thinking on his part.

  24. Dr Kevin Bonham

    November 29, 2010 at 4:41 pm

    Jacinta Allan in fact recorded one of the lowest swings against Labor in Labor/Liberal 2PP electorates in the state.

    Mordialloc, Mt Waverley, Mitcham, Burwood and Frankston were all inside 4% and therefore were all likely to go based on state swing barring a successful marginal-seats campaign (of which I see no evidence). Furthermore all were surrounded by seats that moved to a similar or larger degree. Seymour on a borderline 6.7% swung by 8.3%, larger than surrounding seats, but regional issues (pipeline) have also been cited there.

    I agree with #2 that the results provide no convincing evidence that Tighe’s mob swung the outcome – and sincerely [i]hope[/i] they didn’t because as far as I’m concerned Tighe’s politics have no place in a [i]liberal[/i] democracy.

  25. Susanne

    November 29, 2010 at 4:24 pm

    Doug bases his critical remarks on the success of one candidate, Jacinta Allan, the lower house Member for Bendigo East and, ironically, a cousin of the author of the story.

    The Brumby government poured large sums of money into Bendigo, with plans for the local hospital and big spending on what is now called infrastructure. Kenneth Davidson made this point in The Age this morning. That was a big factor in Allan win, despite the best efforts of pro-lifers.

    One further example is the very fast rail. It provides Bendigo with a train service to Melbourne that is relatively fast, generally reliable, and comfortable. That was a also a plus in helping country members like Jacinta Allan retain their seats.

    The influence of pro-life campaigning has been ignored by both academics and journalists. Only the Tasmanian Times is prepared to inform its readers that the pro-life movement is not only alive and well, but thriving and influential. Whatever one thinks of people like Margaret Tighe they cannot be ignored.

  26. MARY

    November 29, 2010 at 4:18 pm

    Reality check for Doug – Jacinta Allen survived in her electorate due to being bouyed up by Bendigo West. Bendigo East and West along with Ballarat East and West are the last remaining feminist labor strongholds in Victoria – about all Brumby had to be proud of on Saturday evening. At least now they are in opposition.

  27. BigEars

    November 29, 2010 at 3:57 pm

    #2 is correct in calling for analysis of much more substance. The article is intellectually lazy in its refusal to acknowledge the range of other issues that led to various Labor candidates losing their respective contests.

    It is also unbelievably shallow in its characterisation of Emily’s List. Yes, the membership is almost universally pro-choice, but to reduce the organisation to “an organisation of pro-abortion women, founded in America, aimed at securing the election of pro-choice females to Australian parliaments” is ludicrous. For some sixteen years, the Australian chapter has been striving for equality of parliamentary representation for women, with the abortion issue just one of many that have been taken up over that time.

    Surely it wouldn’t have been too much to ask of Mr Allan that he have a quick look at the Emily’s List website (http://www.emilyslist.org.au/) before publishing his comments.

  28. Doug

    November 29, 2010 at 1:23 pm

    Claiming credit for the defeat is one thing – reality is another. A little more substantial analysis of the figures is required, comparing the swings in those defeated against the swings for ALP figures in similar areas.

    Craig Ingram was the target of a fierce national party campaign. How do you separate out the importance of that campaign as a causal factor.

    I note that Jancinta Allan also survived a failure of the Greens to preference her. Interesting that she was targeted by both the Greens and Right to Life and survived.

    More substantial analysis please.

    that one thing follows another sdoes not mean that there was a causal relationship

  29. Jenny Hansen

    November 29, 2010 at 12:42 pm

    You forgot to mention Lyle that the Greens refused to preference Tammy Lobato, the only anti-abortion ALP retiring member to be defeated last Saturday. Margaret Tighe’s advertisement advocated a vote for Tammy.

You must be logged in to post a comment Login

Receive our newsletter

Copyright © Tasmanian Times. Site by Pixel Key

To Top