Management of heritage values
This chapter examines issues in relation to heritage management
including proposals to develop a conservation management plan. In addition, the
committee canvasses issues related to ensuing that the heritage values of
Parliament House are maintained including the measures used to inform DPS about
the condition of the building and its services, and the adequacy of the levels
of maintenance, repair and asset replacement within the building.
In the committee's interim report, it was noted that DPS had finalised
the Parliament House Heritage Management Framework in 2011 which included the
establishment of the Heritage Management Advisory Board. Response to the
Framework was mixed with the President of the Walter Burley Griffin Society,
Professor James Weirick, calling the Framework in many ways 'inadequate,
misleading and indeed a dangerous document'.
The Walter Burley Griffin Society, the Australian Institute of Architects and
the National Trust called for the development of a more rigorous conservation
plan for Parliament House.
Ms Mills, Secretary, DPS, has indicated to the committee that a
conservation management plan (CMP) for Parliament House is required. She stated
that there is a need to develop a strengthened framework to provide more
confidence in relation to heritage issues and a more robust process for
long-term planning. To do this, a conservation management plan, based on the
Burra Charter, will be developed. Ms Mills stated that a set of design
principles will be developed 'hopefully in consultation and active
participation of the architect and the architecture team who were originally
involved, so that we have a full set of what I might call permanent record of
the core design principles around landscape, lighting, the building design, the
furniture integrity and so on'.
The draft Central Reference Document (CRD) and other material retained
by DPS, including the original tender documents, will be used as the basis of
the CMP. A small, expert advisory committee it to be established to assist DPS in
overseeing the development of the CMP. The expert advisory committee would
contain expertise in architecture, cultural heritage, social and political
history, landscaping and other areas that are seen as critical. Ms Mills also
indicated that consultancy assistance would be required and that there are only
a small number of companies which specialise in this field in Australia. Ms
Mills concluded 'it is really critical that our expert advice or our expert
panel help right through the process'.
The CMP would be approved by the Heritage Advisory Board before final
approval by the Presiding Officers. Once this has occurred, the CMP would
inform the DPS strategic asset management plan, maintenance planning and bids
for funding of the program of works that is required over the next five-, 10-
and potentially 20-year time frame.
In relation to the CRD, Ms Mills stated that it was a very valuable
document and it as one of the critical documents in the background material for
the conservation management plan. While 'there is also merit in completing it
at some point', Ms Mills commented that 'given the amount of work we have and
the budget we have, my personal perspective is in the order of necessity that
the conservation management plan probably comes first'. This view had been
explained to Ms Pamille Berg author of the draft CRD. Ms Mills went on to note
that, if in developing the CMF, there are immediate gaps in the knowledge base
because the CRD is not complete, 'I would certainly to seek to discuss with Ms
Berg how those pieces of work might be done'.
The committee, in its interim report, noted comments that the
development of the Parliament House Heritage Management Framework was less than
adequate and that there had been a lack of expert advice in developing the
framework and few stakeholders, including the building architects, had been
consulted. In addition, the committee notes that there had been a total of 15
drafts of the unfinished Parliament House Heritage Strategy before the
Framework was completed. This process commenced in 2006 before being finalised
It appears to the committee that the concerns about the Framework raised
in evidence have been borne out by the new Secretary's plans to develop the CMP
as a matter of priority. The way in which this will be achieved is through use
of high-level expertise and specialised consultancy services. The committee considers
that the importance of the CMP cannot be underplayed and endorses the approach
outlined by Ms Mills.
The committee also notes Ms Mills' comments relating to the CRD. It is
understandable that the priority be given to development of the CMP, however,
the committee continues to support completion of the CRD and encourages DPS
progress this project as resources permit.
Maintenance of the building
The maintenance of the building was clearly a consideration of the then
Joint House Department (JHD) from the first years of use of the new building. Mr
Mike Bolton, former secretary of JHD, put the view that to allow assets to
deteriorate to any great extent would not be conducive to Parliament House's
place as the 'head office' of Australian democracy and the need to undertake
extensive remedial work to return the building to standard would be highly
disruptive. He noted in his submission that a regime of preventative
maintenance had been implemented with a standard of maintaining the building
and its contents at a level of 90 per cent of new. JHD also developed a
work/replacement program required over the 200 year life of the building. Mr
Bolton noted that over the 'first 20 years or so of the building's life would
require little in the way of major engineering change. But between years 20–30
after occupation, major plant would require replacement and substantial
During the time that Mr Bolton was secretary of JHD, it was estimated
that the 200-year life cost of the building would be $5.083 billion, or $25.3
per annum. Mr Bolton provided an overview of the life spans of some of the
major components of the building, for example, it was estimated that the precast
panels would require replacement after 100 years, glazing after 40 years, and skylight
seals after 15 years. Services such as the boilers and chillers would need
replacement after 35 to 40 years.
DPS commented that 'effective asset management is a significant
component of the responsibilities of DPS, and it is a role we take very
Mr David Kenny, then Deputy Secretary, DPS, noted that DPS undertook capital
works projects 'many of which are based on the 100-year plan' which, in effect,
is an asset replacement activity focussed on sustaining the building and
replacing assets over the life of the building as they wear out.
The DPS capital works program has increased from $12 million in 2006–07
to around $60 million in 2009–10, 2010–11 and 2011–12. DPS stated that the
increase in capital works had allowed it to 'tackle a backlog of necessary
replacement and improvement works, as well as undertaking upgrades to physical
security'. For example, DPS indicated that in 2011–12 it was replacing aged
kitchens and electrical, heating and cooling systems as well as completing the
installation of a new IT network for the building.
The overarching policy for asset management by DPS is Governance Paper
No. 33 – Caring for Parliament's Assets. This establishes operational
principles and practices; and investment prioritisation criteria. Following
consideration of proposals, a program of work is submitted to the Presiding
Officers each financial year. The program will typically cover around 50
projects ranging from minor upgrades to major IT and security works. Once
projects are approved by the Strategy and Finance Committee (SFC),
major projects are managed by the DPS Projects branch in partnership with the
custodians of the asset using a project management methodology in accordance
with Commonwealth Procurement Guidelines.
DPS advised that the procedures for developing and managing projects are
documented in various papers which include attention to heritage aspects. For
example, Governance paper No. 33 – Caring for Parliament's Assets, contains
the intention of the Australian Parliament to base itself in the new Parliament
House for the next 200 years at least and that 'New Parliament House is
recognised as a design icon and is part of Australia's heritage. This should
not be compromised'.
DPS noted that these statements have resulted in the following asset
Protect what we have – we need to maintain the design
integrity and heritage values of this building and preserve cultural heritage
assets that have unique national historic significance.
Condition of assets
DPS noted that one of the indicators of level and quality of service
delivery are the condition of assets.
DPS uses four key building quality indicators:
- Design Integrity Index (DII) – a measure of the current condition
of Parliament House and the precincts expressed as a percentage of the original
built form. In particular, it measures the extent to which change within
Parliament House and the precincts impacts upon the original design intent;
- Building Condition Index (BCI) – a measure of the current
condition of the building fabric of Parliament House, expressed as a percentage
of the original condition (target 90%);
- Engineering Systems Condition Index (ESCI) – a measure of the
current operation and condition of the engineering systems in Parliament House
against the expected decline of those systems through their life cycles (target
- Landscape Condition Index (LCI) – a measure of the current
condition of the landscape surrounding Parliament House, expressed as a
percentage of the total possible condition (target 90%).
These indices have been used for some time with the BCI being developed
in 1993, the ESCI and LCI in 2000 and the DII in 2001 by the Joint House
Department. The targets were originally set by consultants Advance FM and
in-house maintenance staff. DPS noted that:
The benchmark of 90% of original condition was considered at
the time as appropriate for nationally significant facilities. Since the
development of these indices, a number of other prominent Australian facilities
(such as the Sydney Opera House and the Victorian Arts Centre) have adopted
DPS also indicated how the annual score for each index is calculated:
- BCI – all eight zones of the building are inspected over a
12-month period with the exception of high-profile areas (for example special
suites, public areas etc) which are inspected every six months;
- LCI – this score is a result of inspections/assessments of the
landscape by in-house gardening staff each October; and
- ESCI – this is based on data and reports collected over the
course of the year. The majority of these reports and readings are by external
contractors or industry specialists, for example, monthly fire system testing
reports. The data is referred to an external consulting engineer for review and
provision of a report and score for each element from which the overall score
DPS indicated that the assessment of the DII was a 'substantial task'. The
procedure to calculate the annual DII is to:
- inspect, review and collect data for all changes made at
Parliament House over a financial year;
- analyse the data and provide a score for each change, measuring
the extent to which key design integrity principles have been integrated into
the new work;
- tabulate the individual area scores and tally all scores to
achieve a global score that is defined as the DII; and
- make observations regarding trends or anomalies. These
observations are used to assist with future decision-making regarding physical
change at APH.
The calculation of the DII score was undertaken by consultants Advance
FM between 2000–01 and 2004–05. Since 2005, the measurements have been taken by
the DPS DII team. The team is established each year and includes the DPS
Heritage and Design Integrity Officer (lead officer), two additional DPS
members and an independent expert. For the last two years, Mr Gowrie
Waterhouse, Convener—Interdisciplinary Studies, Faculty of Arts and Design,
University of Canberra—has been engaged to provide an independent measure of the
integration of all new works.
The DII team inspects all areas of Parliament House. In each space and in
each zone, the components of language, symbolism, design order, change and
overall impression are examined and given a score from one to five by each team
member. Individual scores are then used to determine a team score. This score
is then expressed as a percentage of the total possible score.
DPS went on to comment:
Annual inspections are planned to ensure that all spaces
where projects work has been undertaken are physically inspected however, given
the enormity of the task, areas such as Senators and Members Suites, DPS staff
offices, courtyards and basement spaces are inspected on a randomly selected
Every five years, a full building assessment is conducted,
which necessitates access to, and scoring of, all areas. The next full
assessment of all eight DII zones is due to take place in 2013–14.
The indices have been reviewed a number of times: the BCI was reviewed in
2005; the ESCI in 2005 and 2009; the LCI in 2001 and 2006; and the DII in
2004–05. All the reviews were undertaken by consultants Advance FM.
DPS provided an overview of the outcomes of the reviews. The 2005 review
of the BCI did not recommend any changes to the methodology of establishing
this score. However, it was noted that:
Maintenance costs per m2 for 2004–05 were below 1%
of Capital Replacement Value (CRV), which is a benchmark used by many building
management organisations (for example, Queensland State Government). With a CRV
of $1.8 billion, the 1% benchmark equates to $18 million pa or $72.00 per m2.
The maintenance costs for 2004–05 were $47.76 per m2.
The report also noted the level of maintenance funding for 2004–05 would
not sustain a BCI of 90 per cent over time and was not keeping pace with the Consumer
Price Index. It was also found that there were areas where the building
condition was falling. DPS indicated that some of these concerns were addressed
with the remainder of the concerns being monitored 'as they have no immediate
impact, but may in the longer term'.
Maintenance services activity was reviewed in 2010 by ARUP. DPS stated that 'ARUP
noted that maintenance management and staff cared deeply about the
custodianship of Australian Parliament House and were fearful that
cost-cutting/outsourcing may impair the long-term sustainability of the asset,
leading to higher costs in future years'.
The 2004–05 review of the ESCI made no recommendations for changes to
the methodology used and found the engineering systems to be in good to very
good operational order and maintained at appropriately high levels. The review
also noted that engineering systems were ageing and would require greater
levels of maintenance to continue performing at high levels. The ESCI review of
2009 highlighted a number of matters in relation to methodology noting that
changes had been implemented 'to save the cost of doing plant inspections'.
Comments from maintenance trade staff indicated that they did not support the
changed methodology. Nine recommendations were made. DPS commented that if adopted,
these 'would have resulted in the original ESCI being restored and would have
had an implication on maintenance resources'. DPS stated:
None of the recommendations have been implemented to date. No
documentary evidence can be found to confirm why the recommended changes were
The 2001 review of the LCI resulted in five of the seven observations
made in the review being adopted and implemented. The remaining two were not
agreed to by Landscape Services. The three recommendations of the 2005 review
At the committee's hearing on 30 October 2012, Ms Carol Mills,
Secretary, DPS, commented that she had no reason to suggest that the assessment
process used for the indices was not reasonable. However, Ms Mills indicated
that as part of the development of a comprehensive CMP and an asset strategy
for the building, 'it would be timely to review that process and give
reassurance that the criteria still remain relevant'.
Asset condition indices
The following table provides the asset condition indices from 2001–02 to
Table 3.1: Asset condition indices
Design Integrity Index
Building Condition Index
Condition Index (ESCI)*
Landscape Condition Index
*Target in italics
Source: DPS Annual Reports 2003–04 to 2011–12
DPS annual reports provide information on the reasons for the scores
achieved each reporting period. For example, the decrease in the LCI from
2002–03 was attributed the drought. Changes in the BCI were attributed a number
of factors over the years: in 2004–05 to a reduction in maintenance
expenditure; in 2009–10 to a reduction in painting and carpeting in general
circulation areas; and in 2010–11 repairs and refurbishments were required to a
number of areas including the Marble Foyer.
Changes in the DII were attributed as follows:
- the 2005–06 improvements were due to forecourt work and refurbishment
of the Queen's Terrace Café; (Annual Report 2005–06 p. 101)
- the 2006–07 reduction was due to some projects not reaching
expected standard, lack detail quality or being inconsistent with the original
design intent; (Annual Report 2006–07 p. 123)
- in 2007–08 the DII score reflected well-integrated changes such
as upgrading disability access and in the Ministerial Wing; (Annual Report
2007–08 p. 118)
- the 2008–09 score was attributed to well integrated physical changes,
building maintenance and presentation that aligns with the design intent while
the inactive water features and inadequate presentation of the façade (due to
water restrictions) had a negative impact; (Annual Report 2008–09 pp 94–5)
- the 2009–10 score was improved by restoration of the private
dining rooms but it was also reported that there was an increase in the quantity
of non-standard furniture in use; (Annual Report 2009–10 p. 50) and
- the DII for 2010–11 reflected improved scores in the Chamber
departments but negatives arose from the new security measures in the car parks
and accommodation solutions. (Annual Report 2010–11 p. 55)
Adequacy of maintenance and asset replacement programs
The indices provide a measure of how effective DPS is in 'protecting
what we have'. However, there is very little information available to allow for
a realistic assessment of the adequacy of maintenance practices in Parliament
House. For example, all that DPS annual reports provide is an indicator of the
amount of maintenance of plant and building fabric achieved by the Maintenance
Services section. This section operates and maintains the electricity, heating
and cooling and hydraulic services as well as the exterior and interior of the
building and Parliament House's landscape. In the 2010–11 Annual Report it is
reported that 89 per cent of the planned maintenance was achieved against a
target of 85 per cent.
This indicator is relatively useless in measuring the adequacy of the maintenance
regime undertaken by DPS: it does not provide what work is actually covered in
this measure; and without information on changes to maintenance programs, and
whether planned annual programs are sufficient to maintain the building, no accurate
assessment can be made.
The annual report also includes a price indicator for maintenance. For
the 2010–11 financial year, maintenance costs were $23.4 million. The annual
report again does not provide any detail in relation to this figure. In
addition, costs under the cleaning contracts are provided but it is unclear
whether these are in addition to the $23.4 million or included in that figure.
The committee also notes that target for this measure is a 1.25 per cent
reduction in costs. This target was met in 2008–09 but not in 2009–10 and 2010–11.
Given DPS's continued comments about the ageing of the building, the committee
is concerned that a target of a continuing decrease in maintenance costs is not
sound for the long-term condition of the building and may, in fact, lead to
greater costs in the future.
DPS uses administered funds to plan, develop and deliver into service a
building works program and an artworks conservation and development program.
The 2010–11 Annual Report states that:
While the structure of Parliament House was designed and
constructed to have a life of some 200 years, after 22 years of operation there
are significant reasons why continuing investment in a building works program
is required, including:
(a) many components within the building are reaching the end
of their economic service life and have worn out (or are very close to wearing
out), including electrical, mechanical and plumbing equipment;
(b) new technologies that enable improved services are
becoming available, such as more efficient lighting and energy systems, often
reducing long-term support costs and/or enabling better environmental
(c) new investments are required to meet compliance and
regulatory requirements such as safety, security and disability access.
The building works program supports the operation of
Parliament into the future, while at the same time preserving the design
integrity of the architecture, engineering systems, art collections and
landscape that make up Parliament House.
In 2010–11 the cost of building projects under administered funds was $19,758,532.
The 2010–11 Annual Report also indicates that the BCI score has fallen
below the target of 89–92 per cent. While an outline of factors contributing to
the drop in the BCI score is provided, the information is less than comprehensive.
For example, it is noted that limited maintenance had been carried out in the
plants rooms during the year. Again, no detailed information was provided and
the committee is left to wonder about the long-term effect of this level of maintenance
in the plant rooms and whether this will result in a need for greater remedial
work in the future.
The BCI scores also show a decline over the four financial years from 2007–08.
Again, there is no comprehensive discussion about this trend or actions being
taken to improve the BCI score.
The committee also notes that the 2005 review of the BCI used benchmark
data of maintenance costs per m2 and commented included that the
level of maintenance funding would not sustain a BCI of 90 per cent over time. The
committee considers that DPS should reinstate the provision of maintenance
expenditure per square metre (last reported in the 2004–05 Annual Report) or
explore whether there is another suitable benchmark against which maintenance
costs can be compared to and reported on in the annual report.
As part of maintaining the building, DPS has undertaken capital works
programs to replace assets. The DPS Portfolio Budget Statements (PBS) for
2010–11 and 2011–12 reported that DPS had undertaken extensive capital works
programs to address the backlog of asset replacement as well as completing
security work for which funding had been received in 2010–11. However, the
2010–11 PBS indicated that after 2011–12 'the base funding for necessary
capital investment will be about half the long-term need'.
The 2011–12 PBS also provided information on the extent of the ageing of assets
in Parliament House and the costs of replacing those assets. It was stated that:
Data extracted from the asset register suggests that DPS
needs to make an average of a $20m to $30m annual investment to renew
departmental assets. Even though the underlying structure of Parliament House
is planned to last 200 years or more, $20m to $30m is also required to renew
ageing building components, including plant and equipment. DPS will need to
actively seek additional funding through the NPP process from 2012–13 onwards.
At the 2011–2012 Additional Estimates, DPS indicated that its capital
budget had reduced by 20 per cent.
As a consequence of the additional efficiency dividend in 2012–13, the
departmental capital program would reduce by approximately $2.4 million in
2012–13, rising to a reduction of approximately $5.4 million in 2014–15.
Maintenance issues with the building façade
A major maintenance issue examined during the inquiry and the October
2012 Supplementary Estimates was the condition of the building façade. The
building façade is a significant feature of Parliament House. The committee was
told that two reviews of the façade had been undertaken. The first was
undertaken around 1990 by Dr Alan Spry and identified a number of areas for
potential maintenance improvement, particularly regarding water damage and wear
and tear on the building.
The second review, conducted by Diagnostech in March 2005, pointed to significant
issues with the building façade. Ms Mills commented that this review found that
there were a number of areas where effective maintenance strategies could
improve the length of time which the materials on the external part of the
building could be kept in good condition. In addition, Diagnostech reported on
significant issues with the Verde Issorie (VI) panels on the exterior niches
next to the Chamber glass links and the white marble cladding panels on the
Great Veranda and the House of Representatives north and south return walls.
Diagnostech found that the white marble cladding on the Great Veranda
was bowing and the marble on the House of Representatives walls was 'also
suspect'. The consultants recommended that immediate public safety provisions
should be implemented to mitigate the possibility of collapse of these panels.
The consultants also noted a range of other major issues concerning the façade,
including fractured panels which it considered were not in danger of collapse,
unless subject to an 'external event'.
In relation to the VI panels, Diagnostech reported that this type of
marble was unsuitable for use in the long term in the position in which it is
placed and that there was a risk of it breaking up and shards falling from the
building. Diagnostech stated:
Immediate public safety provisions should be implemented to
mitigate the possibility of collapse of the discoloured failed verde issorie
niche panels. There is a 30 to 40 per cent risk that they may fail.
The consultant's report also commented on the water leak in the
forecourt water feature and noted that this required 'rectification in the
short term to preserve the long term structural integrity of the concrete
forecourt slab/basement car park roof structure'. At the May 2005 Budget
Estimates, DPS was questioned about the water leak and specifically whether the
matter had been checked by engineers. DPS indicated that a major review had
been undertaken but did not offer any further information. At that
estimates it was also noted that Parliament House was built on known geological
fault and that there are movements from time to time.
Ms Mills provided the committee with information on DPS's response to problems
with the marble panels and stated that in 2007 and 2008 consideration was given
to undertaking a more detailed analysis of the VI marble. While this was never
proceeded with, Ms Mills stated that in 2008 a further examination of the
building was undertaken. Some significant maintenance work in relation to the
water recommendations was completed, and the bowing of the white marble on the
Great Veranda rectified including re-pinning of the bowed panels.
However, no remedial action was taken in relation to the VI panels.
Small plastic cordons had been placed in some areas to prevent people intruding
too closely to the VI marble panels.
Ms Mills went on to explain how she intended to proceed:
I think there are two immediate tasks. One is to identify
that there are physical barriers in place where there is a risk and whether
those physical barriers are appropriate—so coming back to the issue about the
fencing. The other is that I am advised that documents were prepared some time
ago with a view to getting more detailed expert advice on that specific part of
the facade. That was not proceeded with. I will now proceed with that work.
Ms Mills also stated that 'clearly it is a capital expenditure issue and
a safety issues and processes in the past have obviously seen other things as
more urgent, but I will certainly look into this matter as a priority'.
At the committee's hearing of 30 October 2012, Ms Mills provided further
information in relation to the condition of the VI panels. Ms Mills indicated
that following the Supplementary Estimates hearings, a visual inspection had
been undertaken and DPS had consulted two stone experts. There are no visible
signs of destabilisation in the stone but it was noted that there are some
areas of risk including leading edges and the soffits. In these areas an
unrestrained piece of stone could dislodge but to do so it would have to crack
completely through the panel and it was considered that it would take a
significant time for this to occur. Following further review by expert Mr David
West, DPS is undertaking weekly visual inspections of the façade and Mr West
will be engaged to commence a more detailed review and preparation of a
framework for a longer-term strategy of remediation.
Ms Mills informed that committee that the vertical stone is safe and a
visual inspection by DPS has indicated that the overhead marble is also safe
but 'weekly monitoring is necessary until we can provide a long-term solution'
to give the assurance warranted.
The preservation of Parliament House for its expected life-span of
200 years, will, in part, depend on adequate and timely maintenance and
appropriate asset replacement regimes. Maintenance and timely replacement of
assets will help to preserve the significance of the building and retain the
integrity of the building fabric as well as its appearance. Appropriate maintenance
and asset replacement programs can also extend a building's life but a poor
program can lead to costly repairs in the future and diminution of design
integrity and heritage values.
The committee has commented on the lack of clear information from DPS on
maintenance issues. In particular, there is a lack of information on the
required level of maintenance for a 25 year old building and whether the
programs being undertaken by DPS are sufficient to ensure that the building
condition is maintained. For example, because of a decrease in funding, annual
painting programs have been decreased by 40 per cent.
Worryingly, the target for maintenance costs is a reduction of 1.25 per cent
per year. The committee would have considered that as an asset ages, the more
maintenance it is likely to require and that any decrease in maintenance
activities should be undertaken with caution.
DPS has shown a lack of caution in relation to one significant
maintenance issue identified by the committee. The 2005 report on the condition
of the façade of the building identified a major maintenance issue and raised
public safety concerns stating that 'immediate public safety provisions should
be implemented'. DPS appears to have carried out some remedial work but not all
that was recommended in the report. This is matter of grave concern to the
committee: there are many people in the building who would daily move into the
areas beneath the affected panels. While it is welcome that no incidents or
injuries have occurred, the committee considers that this matter must be
resolved. The committee welcomes the action that has been undertaken by DPS
since the Supplementary Budget Estimates and will follow the progress of
While DPS has stated that it has a 100-year plan of capital works, no
detailed information has been provided in annual reports or at estimates to
indicate how current asset replacement is fairing against this plan. The
committee notes DPS's comments concerning the need for an average of $20 million
to $30 million annual investment to renew departmental assets in the coming
years. This is a significant level of investment. The committee considers that
DPS should provide adequate information about the progress of asset replacement
plans as any extended periods of unserviceability of essential building assets
could have a significant detrimental effect on the functioning of the
Finally, the committee notes Ms Mills' comments during Supplementary
Estimates that 'one of the pre-eminent tasks in our new structure is to develop
a strategic asset management plan'.
The is a welcome response but underscores the lack of leadership and expertise
within the former structure of DPS such that a fundamental planning tool now needs
to be developed for the building which has been occupied since 1988.
Navigation: Previous Page | Contents | Next Page
Back to top