Prev
Next

Declare conflict of interest or risk public confidence

Lyndal Byford

by Lyndal Byford

17 Apr 05:35am

Must Reads

The Punch is moving house - this is a caption

The Punch is moving house

385

Will Pope Francis have the vision to tackle this? - this is a caption

Will Pope Francis have the vision to tackle this?

122

Advocating risk management is not “victim blaming” - this is a caption

Advocating risk management is not “victim blaming”

251

Filed under: Academics, Conflict Of Interest, Media, University

55 comments

Would knowing an academic has shares in a mining company affect how much trust you place in their comments on climate change? How about if the academic sat on the board? Or owned the company? All of these are potential conflicts of interest and all might influence how much weight the media and the public place on that expert’s opinion.

Just what are their vested interests?

Yet sadly, as a new study just published in the Medical Journal of Australia shows, actually getting hold of this information about academics at universities around Australia is often not a simple process.

The survey of Australian universities by Simon Chapman and his colleagues showed that of the 25 institutions who responded, none required their academics to state their conflicts of interest on their website profile. Perhaps more importantly, although the researchers found public comment policies for 21 universities, “none required that staff declare potential conflict of interests to media when making a public comment”.

This means that journalists and the public are often in the dark about any external influences that might be affecting the design and outcomes of research, which in the long term can only undermine public trust in science and research more broadly.

In some ways the peer review processes of the academic journals can overcome this issue. The academic journals in which most university research is published have required full disclosure of conflicts of interest for some time. Interestingly, when I asked specialist journalists in Australia recently about why they read the full research papers rather than just relying on press releases, looking at potential conflicts of interest was among the key reasons journo’s gave for trawling through the research.

But when the media approaches an academic, it is often to comment on someone else’s research or on a breaking news story rather than to interview the academic on their latest research paper. This sort of ‘independent comment’ is a must for journalists but also comes without the added transparency of peer review and publication.

Thankfully my experience with many experts who work regularly with the media is that they are usually very upfront about declaring conflicts of interest if they have any – but the current system too often relies on the conscience of the academic to keep journalists in the know. Sadly relying on this type of self-reporting might mean that those with the least scruples, who are most at risk of being swayed by the cold hard cash, might also be the least inclined to disclose.

This study raises some crucial issues and perhaps both the media and the universities need to take some responsibility for the current state of play. Maybe if the media asked about conflicts of interest more, academics and universities would publicly list them. On this point I have to hold my hands up to a bit of a mea culpa. While as a rule the Australian Science Media Centre always asks about conflicts of interest on the controversial issues, it’s a question that can go unasked in some of the less contentious topics we field media inquiries on.

But in many cases, at least as far as the media is concerned, it is the university that provides an expert with credibility (“Prof x is an independent researcher from the University of x”).

It is also the university who has the most to gain by the media’s use of their experts and so the onus should really be on the institution to ensure that their credibility is warranted and their independence verified and that this information is readily available to the media and the public.

And finally in the interests of not being a pot calling a kettle non-transparent, here is a list of our sponsors – freely available on the AusSMC website for all to critique.

Most commented

55 comments

Show oldest | newest first

    • Psychokanga says:

      05:56am | 17/04/12

      The focus on mining interests/money is instersting and worthy howvever given the money being spent on “green” schemes particularly by govt I would have thought the potential to be biased due to monetary gain or benefit is far greater with researchers involved in these endeavours.  One needs to look at a certain person who has been spruiking the benefits of geothermal energy and in return a certain company receving millions in govt largesse.

      Reply

    • acotrel says:

      06:57am | 17/04/12

      ’ One needs to look at a certain person who has been spruiking the benefits of geothermal energy and in return a certain company receving millions in govt largesse. ‘

      Name ? - Put up or shut up !

    • Kurisu Sonsaku says:

      08:17am | 17/04/12

      Flannery…......does that ring a bell

    • thatmosis says:

      09:22am | 17/04/12

      Flannery, hahahahahahahahaha, joke of the century, that man is as incompetant as those that gave him the job, anybody who believes a word that clown says deserves to be ripped off like some have been for the de sal plants in Qld and Vic because they believed Flannery, hahahahahahah, when he told them that there would never be enough rain again to fill a dam (ROFL) or that rising oceans would inundated homes near the ocean then went and bought a home near the ocean. WTF. The whole things a crock used to impose a Tax that we dont need, wont do anything for the environment but will cost each and every Australian.

    • Lisa Meredith says:

      10:11am | 17/04/12

      Dear thatmosis,

      Here is a reply I wrote to TimB a while back: I believe it is pertinent in response to your comment:-

      This is a quote from Tim F in a Landline programme:

      “PROFESSOR TIM FLANNERY: We’re already seeing the initial impacts and they include a decline in the winter rainfall zone across southern Australia, which is clearly an impact of climate change, but also a decrease in run-off. Although we’re getting say a 20 per cent decrease in rainfall in some areas of Australia, that’s translating to a 60 per cent decrease in the run-off into the dams and rivers. That’s because the soil is warmer because of global warming and the plants are under more stress and therefore using more moisture. So even the rain that falls isn’t actually going to fill our dams and our river systems, and that’s a real worry for the people in the bush. If that trend continues then I think we’re going to have serious problems, particularly for irrigation.”

      In the last sentence he qualifies his stand by saying “If that trend continues…”

      Therefore, I am not convinced he is claiming 100% certainty.

      In science there is no such thing as 100% certainty or 100% proof, because all information is flawed. With AGW all we have is the most likely explanation for a particular phenomenon, given the data, knowledge and understanding we have at that time.

      And science reserves the right to change its mind as new information comes to light.

    • Dave Charlesworth says:

      10:38am | 17/04/12

      @ Lisa Meredith.

      quote ...“And science reserves the right to change its mind as new information comes to light”

      But Lisa, ...“the Science is in!”

      Wasn’t that the mantra preached by the Gilliard Government prior to introducing this ridiculous money grab tax?

    • James Leftie says:

      10:40am | 17/04/12

      @Lisa

      So how does “The Science is Settled” fit into your theory?

    • Anubis says:

      11:13am | 17/04/12

      @ Lisa Meredith - nice way to dodge the topic. Flannery has conflicted interests in these matters. His Geothermal ventures have benefitted greatly from his being such high profile with this Government on these matters. His firm has received millions of dollars of Government (taxpayers) money to dig holes in South Australia to pursue his particular hobby horse. These ventures have failed yet he persists in his endeavours to keep his snout in the trough of taxpayer funds.

      His advocacy is entirely responsible for the billions of dollars being wasted on Desal plants in Victoria and Queensland. Yes he uses the standard warmist “Goet out of Jail free” terms of IF and COULD but in most pronouncements by Flannery and his kind these terms are effectively buried under the weight of the Domm and Gloom predictions they are spouting. It is devious and misleading, at the least

    • Lisa Meredith says:

      11:31am | 17/04/12

      Dear Dave Charlesworth and James Leftie,

      “The science is settled, the science is in” - I don’t believe this is ever totally 100% the case.

      All we can say is “This is the most likely explanation we have for this phenomena at this time, given what we know today.”

    • Chris L says:

      11:36am | 17/04/12

      I don’t see how the schemes mentioned will affect scientits. If anyone thinks they’re getting rich off government grants you should see the kickbacks involved in big business denials, and yet most scientists are not defecting to the money train.

    • Lisa Meredith says:

      11:48am | 17/04/12

      Dear Anubis,

      I have no problem with any declarations of a conflict of interest, or indeed any interests vested or otherwise that must be investigated. In fact, integrity demands it.

      It is important that the science is verified by all means possible: interests, doubts and probabilities and contrary findings must be listed.

      Nevertheless, I stand by my belief that Tim F has not actually said ‘This is 100% going to happen.” Proof to the contrary is welcome.

      I would like to add that whilst we do use scientific probabilities to back up a position, I don’t believe that advocacy is the same as scientific tenets. For example: it is one thing to recognise a problem, it is another thing entirely to proscribe a particular response.

    • Chris L says:

      12:55pm | 17/04/12

      Good lord! Did I say scientits?! I must have had something else on my mind!

    • Dave Charlesworth says:

      01:18pm | 17/04/12

      @ Lisa Meredith,

      “All we can say is “This is the most likely explanation we have for this phenomena at this time, given what we know today”

      WTF.

      Given what we know today???? Your whole argument is flawed and contradictory, your typical of a left winger, alter the comment to suit the argument.

      Backtrack 3 years ago and it was common for any alarmist (such as your good self) to talk down and belittle anyone who questioned the so called settled science.

      The left wouldn’t enter into debate simply because there was nothing to argue about, the end of the world was coming and we all better start spending money fast on loony green energy schemes!!

      Fast forward to today and a few billion wasted dollars and your position clearly has changed to suit current events. ie: we’ve gone from Global Warming to Climate Change.

      Trying to defend Tim F is utterly pathetic. Talk about trying to defend the indefensible.

      Take your blinkers off and stop making pathetic excuses. The science wasn’t settled then, just as it’s not settled now. Wake up!

    • Lisa Meredith says:

      04:34pm | 17/04/12

      Dear Dave Charlesworth,

      If my tone comes across as condescending, I apologise: this is not my intention.

      I am all about science and I try to avoid politics. This is because I don’t believe we can use politics to refute science.

      I also don’t believe that any science is settled.

      With AGW there are a few issues. For example:

      1.  We are still learning about feedbacks, such as water vapour. We know water vapour is a greenhouse gas, but as it increases in the atmosphere it also increases the propensity for clouds. Clouds help block short-wave infrared photons from reaching the Earth’s surface, which reduces the amount of long-wave infrared photons available for capture by CO2. This is one of the features of climate sensitivity.

      2.  We are still learning how to accurately translate quantitatively the subsequent increase in atmospheric thermal kinetic energy into its knock on effects, such as increased humidity, atmospheric expansion, heat absorption by the oceans, to name a few.

      3.  We are still developing the models that accurately map the chaotic (mathematically speaking) nature of the atmosphere/ocean system. This presents problems when we try to predict AGW influence on weather and regional climate.

      4.  We have no Control, this being (for example) an identical but emission-free Earth, whereby we could precisely isolate the effects of AGW from the natural background climatic variation.

    • Chris L says:

      06:17pm | 17/04/12

      “we’ve gone from Global Warming to Climate Change”

      Climate Change isn’t a new phrase Dave. I can find reference of it used in 1979 to replace the use of “inadvertent climate modification”.

      When submitting such an abusive post you should do a little research first.

    • Daylight robbery says:

      10:20pm | 17/04/12

      @Chris L Yeah but how awesome is that.  Climate change, your selling to the general public the plight of the earth with not what to many is ambiguity its misleading and deceptive conduct, but its not.  We know there is AGW, WOW, where did that acronym vanish to?  The earth has been heating for 16000 years but, whos going to put the percentage on top that is actually AGW? 
      And the money, the money going to grants from big money interests is huge.  Guess where the research money is coming from; if you don’t know you’ll be shocked.

    • Chris L says:

      04:46pm | 18/04/12

      @Daylight robbery - Government grants are a pittance compared to what scientists can be paid by big business. You’d think they’d be jumping onto the gravy train. Perhaps they care about more than money.

    • James In Footscray says:

      06:15am | 17/04/12

      Yes, we do need to know if an academic is being paid by a private company.

      But this is only one factor that can influence what someone researches and what someone says.

      Just as influential is government funding. You can see this in the culture of government-funded organisations (whether the Centre for Advanced Journalism, theconversation.edu.au, or the Bureau of Meteorology),. which all have an implicit party line.

      Reply

    • Craig says:

      07:56am | 17/04/12

      Funding by ‘government’ does not necessarily link to party political ideology, although conspiracy theorists would have it so.

    • thatmosis says:

      09:29am | 17/04/12

      What planet are you from Craig, of course funding by Government means a link not only to the party but also makes sure that whatever is written doesnt conflict with Party Policy as this could mean a cessation of that funding. Its a two way street, funding from any source means an undue influence is exerted on the person making the statements by the fundee. Go against what is expected and they risk losing their funding or have it severly reduced.
        Im not a conspiracy theorist but a practical and thinking person and the facts show that funding always effects the outcome of the person making a statement or writing an article, its human nature, never shit in your own bed.

    • J.t says:

      10:15am | 17/04/12

      Craig-usually I would agree as such-But when the government openly promotes Social Justice and Earth Hour in Federal Departments…well I think you get the idea.

    • Chris L says:

      11:51am | 17/04/12

      If the scientific consensus is from groups around the world the idea of partisian bias is negated. Besides, government grants are a pittance compared to private funding.

    • Your Opinion says:

      06:42am | 17/04/12

      Here’s a thought, pretty outrageous, I will give you that, but you don’t have to believe your local academic.  That’s right!  You can have your OWN independent thoughts and beliefs.

      Pretty radical.

      Reply

    • John says:

      08:05am | 17/04/12

      “OWN independent thoughts and beliefs”
      Doesn’t necessarily mean they reflect reality like scientific research does. Last time I checked most people don’t have the best understanding of chemistry, physics or biology which you tend to need to understand if you want to comprehend what the consequences of studies are.

    • Your Opinion says:

      08:36am | 17/04/12

      Okay John, we should just believe our Scientific Overlords…

    • Ted says:

      09:36am | 17/04/12

      Or you could just believe our Social Scientist overlords, you know, the ones that don’t actually follow scientific method when conducting their “research”.

    • Lisa Meredith says:

      09:56am | 17/04/12

      Dear Your Opinion,

      As you say, we should not just accept any old thing scientists say unquestioningly.

      But: I believe we ought to take the time to at least recognise the science in the technology we ask science to deliver, and that we use and rely on everyday.

    • Your Opinion says:

      11:51am | 17/04/12

      Yes because the climate change scientists have been completely honest to date.

    • Lisa Meredith says:

      12:10pm | 17/04/12

      Dear Your Opinion,

      You say “Yes because the climate change scientists have been completely honest to date.”

      Be that as it may, what about the science? Is it incorrect or corrupt? If so, where?

      It is not enough for you or me to say “AGW is a lie” unless we can explain how the fundamental theories of physics (such as the theory of the radiative properties of atoms and molecules) show this to be so. And then it is not enough to decide the theory is wrong, one must provide an alternative explanation for the phenomena at hand.

    • Chris L says:

      12:53pm | 17/04/12

      I always have to chuckles when I read messages from people on their computers over the internet decrying science. Of course, it’s only the science we don’t like that’s wrong, the rest is all good.

    • Your Opinion says:

      02:55pm | 17/04/12

      I used climate change as an example, you applied your own bias.

    • John says:

      08:44pm | 17/04/12

      “Your Opinion” you are yet another hypocrite who is only happy to accept the science that supports your preconceived views. Real scientists are the only ones writing up their methodologies for anyone to smash down if they want to.

    • John says:

      08:46pm | 17/04/12

      @Your Opinion
      “climate change scientists have been completely honest to date” was that a reference to the so-called “climate gate” because if it is I really pity how little you understand. Come on show me how they’ve been dishonest, I’m looking forward to you coming back with something like “hide the decline” because it will be enjoyable showing you how badly you have misunderstood the meaning.

    • Sherlock says:

      06:58am | 17/04/12

      Would knowing an academic has shares in a mining company affect how much trust you place in their comments on climate change?

      Of course that would only cause concern if he was a climate change sceptic.

      If he happened to be say the Executive Director of the ANU Climate Change Institute at the Australian National University, Canberra or something similar then everything he said would be accepted as the gospel truth.

      Just because they are living of the government’s teat and they have a vested interest in climate change being accepted as a reality is never questioned. The fact that if climate change was ever proved to not be happening they and their whole department would be out of a job and lose millions of dollars of government funding never appears to be a problem.

      Bob Carter get’s a stipend of a measly $1500 per month from an organisation that’s sceptical of climate change and it’s a major scandal.

      Tim Flannery get’s $180,000 per year from the government to promote their climate change policy and apparently that’s not a problem. Nobody even questions the fact that just about everything he has said in the past ten years has been proven wrong. Then again, failed predictions from climate change alarmists are commonplace so I suppose we’re just used to it by now.

      Any potential conflict of interest or even the appearance of one, no matter how minor, only seems to matter if you’re on the sceptical side of the climate change debate.

      Reply

    • T-rev says:

      07:25am | 17/04/12

      Green research is where the gravy is these days…

      You can get an expert report on anything provided you have the right amount of money. Ask any litigation lawyer who frequently uses them in trials.

    • SteveKAG says:

      07:43am | 17/04/12

      Sherlock you are 100% right.

      It is part of the reason why the who global warming theory is so widely critisized (apart from it not being a reality).

      This story is a bit of a beat up.  Every research grant owes its alegiences somewhere.

    • Lisa Meredith says:

      08:31am | 17/04/12

      Dear Sherlock,

      If the Tim Flannerys and Bob Carters of the world are corrupt, they should be asked to account for their actions. But do their actions involve corrupting the science?

      In order to do that they would have to have, for example, corrupted the initial findings on the behaviour of CO2 made over 150 years ago, and they would have had to corrupt the Standard Quantum Model, the satellite data of the last 30 years, and the paleoclimate & fossil research that began in about 1920, to name a few.

      We can only use science, not politics, to refute the science. To do this we must argue the science, not shoot the messenger.

      PS: Disproving a scientific theory is always regarded as a scientific success. Because we have learnt something new, and advanced our understanding of the universe.

    • Baz says:

      09:28am | 17/04/12

      Ian Plimer. director of a bunch of coal and mining companies?

      Listen, it wouldn’t take much to prove that climate change isn’t happening. You’d just have to prove experimentally that CO2 doesn’t reflect any infrared radiation, and so can’t heat the world. Anybody who could do that would be instantly the most famous scientist in the world. If you don’t think AGW is a reality then get off your ass and prove it; that’s what science is about.

      In the mean time you really need to be open to the possibility that 100 years of careful research, theory and evidence is correct.

      The interesting thing is this; in 20 years time there will be no skeptics. Either temperatures will plateau and start to fall back to average, or the next decent El Nino will shatter the records again. We will all be ‘Alarmists’ or ‘Deniers’. Me, I know where my money is, and I know that my mind can be changed if a better explanation comes along, but until that I remain firmly of the opinion that increasing CO2 due to burning fossil fuels will warm the planet and change rainfall patterns.

    • wm says:

      11:24am | 17/04/12

      “Green research is where the gravy is these days… ” lolollolol
      Like Tim Flannery has done as well as Gina, Clive and the twig. Get a grip. For truth, just look at the money trail. How much does a respected peer reviewed scientist stand to gain from his research? a standard academic wage. How much does he stand to lose by fabricating the truth? His career for life. What does Gina Reinhart stand to gain? Billions. What will she lose if she spreads FUD? um, her think tank’s FUD gets printed in every major newspaper all the time. So her loss is even a gain. There is your answer.

    • wm says:

      12:06pm | 17/04/12

      “Listen, it wouldn’t take much to prove that climate change”
      lololol
      looking forward to your next peer reviewed paper debunking climate science. lol. keep us posted.

    • Baz says:

      01:58pm | 17/04/12

      @wm That would be well and truly in my too hard basket wink

    • ronny jonny says:

      08:17am | 17/04/12

      Mining companies? What about the far more likely membership of Greenpeace, the Wilderness Society, the Greens, Getup, or a myriad of other left political groups? These should be declared as conflicts of interest as well. We all know the lefties aren’t opposed to bending the truth when it suits them.

      Reply

    • subotic says:

      08:51am | 17/04/12

      Comment of the week.

    • marley says:

      08:35am | 17/04/12

      I’m all in favour of academics declaring potential conflicts of interest, but I’m also in favour of journalists actually doing their job.  If a journalist interviews Prof. X for an opinion on Prof. Y’s paper, then it shouldn’t be beyond the realms of possibility for him to then do a Google on both professors, have a look at some of their research, and ferret out any obvious conflicts of interest.  Journalists shouldn’t need to be spoon fed.

      Reply

    • Chris L says:

      01:09pm | 17/04/12

      That could even lead to a bonanza for the journalist as they uncover previously unknown information that could change the nature of the subject they’re reporting on and make them famous.

      On the other hand, it sounds like a lot of work.

    • marley says:

      01:45pm | 17/04/12

      @Chris L - yeah, easier to read the media handouts and cut and paste them, I guess.  I wonder when background research became an optional extra for reporters?

    • Murray says:

      09:09am | 17/04/12

      As the child of an academic, I only wish that this sort of conflict of interest was a problem! I would like aninheritance. Have you looked at academic salaries lately?

      Reply

    • Steve says:

      09:31am | 17/04/12

      The conflict of interest research only focuses on commerical financial interests. 

      What about career-enhancement and ego-inflating publicity for the academic?  Strangely, academic study is pretty silent on that issue.

      What about membership of a campaigning NGO or activist group - is that not an interest that should be declared?

      What about likely membership of a government appointed ‘expert’ group if the story runs and creates a whole new issue of public concern that governments want to look like they care about?

      I suspect that the Conflict Of Interest witchhunt (and I know academics who now regret ever doing even little bits of industry-funded research) is more about denying corporate or industries the ability to fund research contrary to the agenda of governments and NGOs.

      Reply

    • Lisa Meredith says:

      10:03am | 17/04/12

      Dear Steve,

      Perhaps the problem lies with the phrase “Conflict of Interest”.

      Instead, we could get all reports, studies, research, etc, to declare ALL interests, whether they conflict or not.

      This would include Gov and NGOs, the overseeing institution(s) and all moneys paid.

    • Steve says:

      10:52am | 17/04/12

      That is a fair point, Meredith.

      A further point about the corruption of the science and research funding system is that government-funded research is not published until cleared by the Minister’s Office. 

      I know of at least one large piece of research that sat in a Commonwealth Minister’s office for 13 months until a Bill had passed the Senate and its subject matter was a dead issue to the Press Gallery.  I’m usre that every senior public servent would know of similar examples.

    • Gox says:

      09:47am | 17/04/12

      Also, instead of swallowing everything the media feeds to you regarding academics “oes noes bru, dem there academics tryin’ tell me whatta think! Dey don’t know me!” you could actually attempt to access some of the research for yourself and make your own independent, informed decisions. You know, like academics tend to do.

      Or you could just jump on what the latest nutbar has managed to publish, refer to them as an ‘expert’ regardless of their actual qualifications and try to create a moral panic.

      Reply

    • Chris L says:

      01:14pm | 17/04/12

      My degree in armchair academics didn’t mention anything about having to do research!

    • Andy of Sydney says:

      10:35am | 17/04/12

      Oh, please, Lyndal. You can’t be this naive.

      Rajendran Pachauri, head of the IPCC, who has NO qualifications in climate science, is involved with quite a few companies that would benefit from the IPCC ramming greenie legislation down the throats of entire nations.

      Al Gore is a multi-billionaire from his “investments” in carbon trading companies. And who was the one who made a global religion out of greenism and promoting cap-and-trade legislation? Failed Theology student, Al Gore himself!

      And a more close to home example: Michael Williamson, Craig Thompson and Peter Slipper ring any bells?

      Conflicts of interests, rorting the system and corruption happens all the time, but seemingly concentrated in one particular part of the political and ideological spectrum.

      Reply

    • Baz says:

      12:06pm | 17/04/12

      None of those people are Australian academics, which was what the article was about.

    • Social Bookmarking Service says:

      09:03pm | 16/06/12

      tAsuHv Thanks so much for the article post.Really thank you! Will read on…

      Reply
 
Sorry, comments are now closed for this article.

Facebook Recommendations

Read all about it

Punch live

Up to the minute Twitter chatter

See all tweets

Recent posts

The latest and greatest

The Punch is moving house

by The Punch Team

385

The Punch is moving house

Good morning Punchers. After four years of excellent fun and great conversation, this is the final post…

Will Pope Francis have the vision to tackle this?

by Hannah Harborow

122

Will Pope Francis have the vision to tackle this?

I have had some close calls, one that involved what looked to me like an AK47 pointed my way, followed…

Advocating risk management is not “victim blaming”

by Sarrah Le Marquand

251

Advocating risk management is not “victim blaming”

In a world in which there are still people who subscribe to the vile notion that certain victims of sexual…

Nosebleed Section

choice ringside rantings

From: Hasbro, go straight to gaol, do not pass go

Tim says:

They should update other things in the game too. Instead of a get out of jail free card, they should have a Dodgy Lawyer card that not only gets you out of jail straight away but also gives you a fat payout in compensation for daring to arrest you in the first place. Instead of getting a hotel when you… [read more]

From: A guide to summer festivals especially if you wouldn’t go

Kel says:

If you want a festival for older people or for families alike, get amongst the respectable punters at Bluesfest. A truly amazing festival experience to be had of ALL AGES. And all the young "festivalgoers" usually write themselves off on the first night, only to never hear from them again the rest of… [read more]

Light weight

Gentle jabs to the ribs

Superman needs saving

Superman needs saving

Can somebody please save Superman? He seems to be going through a bit of a crisis. Eighteen months ago,… Read more

28 comments

Newsletter

Read all about it

Sign up to the free News.com.au newsletter