20,4 archives of former Ministers of Finance, Ruth Richardson, and David Caygill)

20,4 archives of former Ministers of Finance, Ruth Richardson, and David Caygill)

File number

Date

(if any)

Title

Source/archive

Corporate planning resource allocation process 568 Caygill U537

August 1988

CM88/32/8

November 1989 Treasury/SSC Report on departmental incentives

Financial disclosure

Richardson 721

September 1992 T92/2652

Reply to contracting out proposal from Mr Richardson 794

Michael Cox

February 1993

T93/233

Enhancing vote analysis as part of Treasury’s Richardson 1093 core business

March 1993

T93/434

Purchase agreements

Financial Reporting Bill: Applying GAAP to the Richardson 909 public sector

December 1993 T93/2951

Purchase agreements

Richardson FM/2/13

March 1997

Statistics New Zealand Output Price Review Treasury

December 1998

Future application of output pricing reviews: Treasury

incentives, options and strategies

December 1999 T99/61

Value for Money in the Public Sector

Treasury

November 2001

E-mails to S. Newberry

Treasury

Notes 1. For example, water, sewage, local roads. 2. The government’s financial statements for 1997 demonstrate how increases in SOEs’ debt

could be reported as revenue to the government. These are available at: www.treasury.govt.nz/ pubs/fmb/CFS97/contents.htm. Note 9 explains the modified equity method of consolidation under which dividends received from SOEs are reported as revenue, and then the total net surplus/deficit of SOEs, net of the dividends already reported as revenue is shown before achieving the reported operating balance. A change in company law in 1993 removed the earlier earned income limitations on dividend payments, and this meant dividends paid could exceed reported profits, and in the case of some SOEs did exceed reported profits (see Note 9). One SOE, Contact Energy Ltd, an electricity generator, was split off from another SOE in November 1995, with the government holding 100 percent of its shares. It was required to borrow to help finance the assets with which it was established. For its financial year ended on

30 September 1996, it reported a deficit of NZ$32 million. Following a decision in 1996 to increase the Contact Energy Ltd’s gearing, the SOE paid to the government a dividend of $150 million. The state of the Contact Energy Ltd’s balance sheet at the time makes clear that it

Download At 11:13 08 March 2015 (PT) would have been forced to borrow to pay the $150 million dividend (see, www.contactenergy. co.nz/web/pdf/financial/1996_annualreport_financials.pdf) The modified equity method adopted to incorporate SOEs into the whole of government financial reports meant that the SOE borrowings, effectively, forced to provide the dividend, were reported in the whole of government financial report for the 1997 financial year as investment revenue, and in the statement of cash flows as operating cash inflows (available at: www.treasury.govt.nz/pubs/ fmb/CFS97/contents.htm pp. 40, 43, and Note 3). Although there is a further relatively small adjustment to the government’s operating statement to pick up the difference between the total of dividends received and the reported results of the equity accounted entities, the presentation conceals the fact that the dividends came from only a few SOEs, some of which had to borrow. Some of the reported investment revenue is, in fact, borrowings.

3. Net debt is calculated by offsetting financial debt against particular financial assets.

Public sector

Consequently, it may be lowered by increasing investment in financial assets rather than by reducing debt.

accrual

accounting

4. Not only did the modified equity method result in an increase in debt to the SOE being

reported as revenue and operating cash inflows in the whole of government financial report, that method also meant that the SOE’s debt was off-balance sheet to the whole of government financial report.

5. Much of the detailed information reported here is drawn from Treasury documents accessed under the terms of the Official Information Act 1982 and drawn from Treasury files and the archives of two former Ministers of Finance (Ruth Richardson and David Caygill). Because these are not easily accessible reference, where possible is to published sources. Where reference is directly to these documents, they are identified by month and year, and listed in the references separately from the publicly available sources.

6. These macro level fiscal targets are based on national accounts definitions (Government Finance Statistics) which are reconciled to the Departmental Expenditure Limits (DEL) and Annually Managed Expenditure (AME).

7. Although the baselines establish maximum nominal dollar figures, the budgeting guidelines contain various processes, which reduce amounts under particular circumstances.

8. In 1997, the Department of Statistics was criticised for “spending all of its depreciation as it goes . . . This means that either the Crown will have to fund the shortfall (something it is unlikely to favour given that it has already funded it once), or SNZ will have to run cash surpluses until such time as an adequate reserve is established” (Treasury, March 1997). The means by which the department was brought to this state is explained in a little more detail in Newberry (2002a). The Department of Statistics Annual report for the following year (1998) revealed continuing barriers to its ability to save for asset replacement. A $24.2 million project it had commenced in 1996 had received direct funding of only $18 million. The department was required to fund the remaining $6.2 million with the depreciation component of future appropriations (Statistics New Zealand, 1998).

References Accounting Standards Board (2003a), FRC, ASB, FRRP – A Brief Outline, Accounting Standards

Board, London, available at: www.asb.org.uk Accounting Standards Board (2003b), Statement of Principles for Financial Reporting – Proposed

Interpretation for Public Benefit Entities, Accounting Standards Board, London, available at: www.asb.org.uk

Accounting Standards Board (2005), Statement of Principles for Financial Reporting –Proposed Interpretation for Public Benefit Entities, Accounting Standards Board, London, available

Download At 11:13 08 March 2015 (PT) at: www.asb.org.uk

Barnes, A. and Leith, S. (2001), Budget Management that Counts: Recent Approaches to Budget and Fiscal Management in New Zealand, available at: www.treasury.govt.nz/ workingpapers/2001/

Barton, A. (1999a), “Land under roads – a financial bonanza or fool’s gold?”, Australian Accounting Review, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 9-15.

Barton, A. (1999b), “Public or private sector accounting – the non-identical twins”, Australian Accounting Review, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 22-31.

Barton, A. (2002), “Public sector accounting: a common reporting framework? A rejoinder”, Australian Accounting Review, Vol. 12 No. 3, pp. 41-5.

AAAJ

Bendor, J., Taylor, A. and Van Gaalen, R. (1985), “Bureaucratic expertise versus legislative

20,4 authority: a model of deception and monitoring in budgeting”, The American Political

Science Review, Vol. 79 No. 4, December, pp. 1041-60. Birchfield, R. and Grant, I. (1994), Out of the Woods: the Restructuring and Sale of New Zealand’s

State Forests, GP Publications, Wellington. Boston, J., Martin, J., Pallot, J. and Walsh, P. (1991), Reshaping the State: New Zealand’s

Bureaucratic Revolution, Oxford University Press, Auckland. Breit, W. (1978), “Starving the Leviathan: balanced budgets before Keynes”, in Buchanan, J. and

Wagner, R. (Eds), Fiscal Responsibility in Constitutional Democracy, Martinus Nijhoff Publishing, Boston, MA.

Brown, G. (2002), “Foreword”, in Balls, E. and O’Donnell, G. (Eds), Reforming Britain’s Economic

and Financial Policy, HM Treasury, London, pp. x-xii. Buchanan, J. (1989), Explorations into Constitutional Economics, A&M University, College

Station, TX. Buchanan, J. (1993), “Property as a guarantor of liberty”, in Rowley, C. (Ed.), Property Rights and

the Limits of Democracy, Edward Elgar Publishing Limited, Aldershot. Buchanan, J. (1997), Post Socialist Political Economy: Selected Essays, Edward Elgar Publishing,

Cheltenham. Buchanan, J. and Musgrave, R. (1999), Public Finance and Public Choice: Two Contrasting Visions

of the State, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA. Buchanan, J. and Wagner, R. (1978), Fiscal Responsibility in Constitutional Democracy, Martinus

Nijhoff Publishing, Leiden and Boston, MA. Buchanan, J., Rowley, C. and Tollison, R. (1987), Deficits, Basil Blackwell, New York, NY. Bush, G.W. (1980), Local Government and Politics in New Zealand, George Allen & Unwin,

Auckland, (2nd ed., 1995). CIPFA (1999), Code of Local Authority Accounting, CIPFA, London. Carlin, T. (2003), “Unravelling the capital charging riddle – some empirical evidence from

Victoria”, Financial Accountability & Management Journal, Vol. 19 No. 1, pp. 73-92. Carlin, T. (2005), “Debating the impact of accrual accounting and reporting in the public sector”,

Financial Accountability & Management Journal, Vol. 21 No. 3, pp. 309-36. Carnegie, G. and Wolnizer, P. (1995), “The financial value of cultural, heritage and scientific

collections: an accounting fiction”, Australian Accounting Review, Vol. 5 No. 1. Carnegie, G. and Wolnizer, P. (1997), “The financial reporting of publicly-owned collections:

whither financial (market) values and contingent valuation estimates?”, Australian Accounting Review, Vol. 7 No. 1.

Carnegie, G. and Wolnizer, P. (1999), “Unravelling the rhetoric about the financial reporting of Download At 11:13 08 March 2015 (PT)

public collections as assets: a response to Micallef and Peirson”, Australian Accounting Review, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 16-21.

Carnegie, G. and Wolnizer, P. (2002), “A rejoinder”, Australian Accounting Review, Vol. 12 No. 3,

pp. 45-7. Chan, J. (2003), “Government accounting: an assessment of theory, purposes and standards”,

Public Money and Management, Vol. 23 No. 1, pp. 13-20. Deakin, S. and Wilkinson, F. (1998), “Contract law and the economics of interorganizational

trust”, in Lane, C. and Bachmann, R. (Eds), Trust within and between Organizations: Conceptual Issues and Empirical Applications, Oxford University Press, New York, NY, pp. 146-72.

Drake, W. and Nicolaidis, K. (1992), “Ideas, interests and institutionalisation: ‘trade in services’

Public sector

and the Uruguay round”, International Organization, Vol. 46 No. 1, pp. 37-100.

accrual

Ellwood, S. (2002), “The financial reporting (r)evolution in the UK public sector”, Journal of Public Budgeting, Accounting and Financial Management, Vol. 14 No. 4, pp. 565-94.

accounting

Ellwood, S. (2003), “Bridging the GAAP across the UK public sector”, Accounting and Business Research, Vol. 33 No. 2, pp. 105-21.

Evans, M. (1995), Resource Accounting and Budgeting, CIPFA, London.

Ferlie, E., Ashburnem, L., Fitzgerald, L. and Pettigrew, A. (1996), The New Public Management in Action, Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Gorringe, P. (1995), Core Public Sector Management – Some Issues, Treasury, Wellington, available at: www.treasury.govt.nz

Gray, A. and Jenkins, B. (1993), “Codes of accountability in the new public sector”, Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, Vol. 6 No. 3, pp. 52-67.

Greenleaf, W.H. (1983), The British Political Tradition, Vol. 1, Metheun, London. Guthrie, J. (1998), “Application of accrual accounting in the Australian public sector: rhetoric or

reality”, Financial Accountability and Management, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 1-19. Guthrie, J. and Carlin, T. (1999), Australian Experience with Accrual Output Based Budgeting:

When Theory and Practice Don’t Meet, CPA Australia, Melbourne, Annual Research Lecture in Government Accounting.

Henisz, W. (1999), “The institutions and governance of economic reform: theoretical extensions and applications”, Public Management, Vol. 1 No. 3, pp. 349-72.

HM Treasury (1998), Long Term Stability and Investment, Economic and Fiscal Strategy Report, HM Treasury, London.

Hodges, R. and Mellett, H. (1999), “Accounting for the private finance initiative in the United Kingdom National Health Service”, Financial Accountability and Management, Vol. 15 Nos 3/4, pp. 275-90.

Hopwood, A. (1984), “Accounting and the pursuit of efficiency”, in Hopwood, A. and Tompkins, C. (Eds), Issues in Public Sector Accounting, Philip Allan Limited, Oxford, pp. 167-87.

IASB (International Accounting Standards Board) (2006), Discussion Paper: Preliminary Views on an Improved Conceptual Framework for Financial Reporting: the Objective of Financial Reporting and Qualitative Characteristics of Decision-Useful Financial Reporting Information, available at: www.iasb.org.uk/uploaded_files/documents/8_891_DP_ ConceptualFramework.pdf (accessed 22 September).

James, C. (1992), New Territory: The Transformation of New Zealand 1984-1992, Bridget Williams Books, Wellington.

Jones, R. (1992), “Learning from James M. Buchanan: challenges for National Government Accounting”, Research in Governmental and Nonprofit Accounting, Vol. 7, pp. 147-57. Download At 11:13 08 March 2015 (PT)

Jones, R. (2000), “National accounting, government budgeting and the accounting discipline”, Financial Accountability and Management, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 101-15.

Kelsey, J. (1995), The New Zealand Experiment: a World Model for Structural Adjustment, Bridget Williams Books Ltd, Auckland.

Leisenring, J. (1987), Statements of Financial Accounting Concepts, Irwin, Homewood, IL. Likierman, A. (1998), “Resource accounting and budgeting – where are we now?”, Public Money

and Management, Vol. 18 No. 2, pp. 17-20. McKinnon, M. (2003), Treasury: the New Zealand Treasury 1840-2000, Auckland University

Press, Auckland.

AAAJ

March, J. and Olsen, J. (1989), Rediscovering Institutions, Free Press, New York, NY.

Marsh, D. (1991), “Privatisation under Mrs Thatcher: a review of the literature”, Public

Administration, Vol. 69 No. 4, pp. 459-80. Mascarenhas, M. (1991), “State-owned enterprises”, in Boston, J., Martin, J., Pallot, J. and Walsh,

P. (Eds), Reshaping the State: New Zealand’s Bureaucratic Revolution, Oxford University Press, Auckland.

Mayston, D. (1993), “Principals, agents and the economics of accountability in the new public sector”, Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, Vol. 6 No. 3, pp. 68-96.

Meckling, W. (1978), “The political biases of Keynesian economics: comments”, in Buchanan, J. and Wagner, R. (Eds), Fiscal Responsibility in Constitutional Democracy, Martinus Nijhoff Social Sciences Division, Boston, MA and Leiden, pp. 101-5.

Micallef, F. and Peirson, G. (1997), “Financial reporting of cultural, heritage, scientific and community collections”, Australian Accounting Review, Vol. 7 No. 1.

Miller, G. and Moe, T. (1983), “Bureaucrats, legislators, and the size of government”, The

American Political Science Review, Vol. 77, pp. 297-322. Newberry, S. (2001), “Public sector accounting: a common reporting framework?”, Australian

Accounting Review, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 2-7. Newberry, S. (2002a), “Intended or unintended consequences? Resource erosion in New Zealand’s

Government Departments”, Financial Accountability and Management, Vol. 18 No. 4, pp. 309-30.

Newberry, S. (2002b), “The conceptual framework sham”, Australian Accounting Review, Vol. 12

No. 3, pp. 47-9. Newberry, S. (2003), “New Zealand’s responsibility budgeting and accounting system and its

strategic objective: a comment on Jones and Thompson (2000)”, International Public Management Journal, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 75-82.

Newberry, S. and Pallot, J. (2003), “Fiscal (ir)responsibility: privileging PPPs in New Zealand”, Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, Vol. 16 No. 3, pp. 467-92.

Newberry, S. and Pallot, J. (2004), “Freedom or coercion? NPM incentives in New Zealand Central Government departments”, Management Accounting Research, Vol. 15, pp. 247-66.

Newberry, S. and Pallot, J. (2005), “A wolf in sheep’s clothing”, Financial Accountability and

Management Journal, Vol. 21 No. 3, pp. 263-77. Niskanen, W. (1975), “Bureaucrats and politicians”, Journal of Law and Economics, Vol. 18,

pp. 617-44, December. Osborne, D. and Plaistrik, P. (1997), Banishing Bureaucracy: The Five Strategies for Reinventing

Government, Addison Wesley, New York, NY.

Download At 11:13 08 March 2015 (PT) Pallot, J. (1992), “Elements of a theoretical framework for public sector accounting”, Accounting,

Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 5 No. 2, pp. 38-59. Pallot, J. (1997), “Infrastructure accounting for local authorities: technical management and

political context”, Financial Accountability and Management, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 225-42. Parkin, M. (1987), “Domestic monetary institutions and deficits”, in Buchanan, J., Rowley, C. and

Tollison, R. (Eds), Deficits, Basil Blackwell Inc., New York, NY, pp. 310-37. Robinson, M. (1998), “Capital charges and capital expenditure decisions in core government”,

Journal of Public Budgeting, Accounting and Financial Management, Vol. 10 No. 3, pp. 354-74.

Rubin, M. (1992), “Recent public choice research relevant to government accounting and

Public sector

auditing”, in Chan, J. and Patton, J. (Eds), Research in Governmental and Nonprofit Accounting, Vol. 7, JAI Press Inc., Greenwich, CT, pp. 129-45.

accrual

Savas, E. (1982), Privatizing the Public Sector: How to Shrink the Government, Chatham House,

accounting

Chatham, NJ. Scott, C.D. (1979), Local and Regional Government in New Zealand: Function and Finance, George

Allen and Unwin, Sydney.

Scott, G. (1995), “New Zealand’s Fiscal Responsibility Act”, Agenda, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 3-16. Scott, G. (2001), Public Management in New Zealand: Lessons and Challenges, New Zealand

Business Roundtable, Wellington. Shaoul, J. (2005), “A critical financial analysis of the private finance initiative: selecting a

financing method or allocating economic wealth?”, Critical Perspectives on Accounting, Vol. 16 No. 4, pp. 441-71.

State Services Commission (1998), Future Application of Output Pricing Reviews: Incentives, Options and Strategies, Treasury, Wellington, 11 December, Treasury files.

Statistics New Zealand (1998), Annual Report of the Government Statistician, Statistics New Zealand, Wellington.

Stiglitz, J. (2003), “Don’t trust technocrats”, Guardian, 16 July. The Treasury (1984), Economic Management, Government Printer, Wellington. The Treasury (1987), Government Management – Brief to the Incoming Government, The

Treasury, Wellington. Tinker, A., Merino, B. and Neimark, M. (1982), “The normative origins of positive theories:

ideology and accounting thought”, Accounting, Organizations and Society, Vol. 7 No. 2, pp. 167-200.

Further reading Scott, C.D. (2000), Privatization and Public-private Partnerships, Chatham House Publishers, New

York, NY. Corresponding author

Susan Newberry can be contacted at: S.Newberry@econ.usyd.edu.au

Download At 11:13 08 March 2015 (PT)

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

This article has been cited by:

1. Alessandro Giosi, Sandro Brunelli, Marco Caiffa. 2015. Do Accrual Numbers Really Affect the Financial Market? An Empirical Analysis of ESA Accounts Across the EU. International Journal of Public Administration 38, 297-310. [ CrossRef ]

2. Isabel Brusca Alijarde, Vicente Montesinos Julve. 2014. Accrual financial reporting in the Public Sector: Is it a reality?. Innovar 24, 107-120. [ CrossRef ]

3. Masoud Abolhallaje, Mehdi Jafari, Hesam Seyedin, Masoud Salehi. 2014. Financial Management Reforms in the Health Sector: A Comparative Study Between Cash-based and Accrual-based Accounting Systems. Iranian Red Crescent Medical Journal 16. . [ CrossRef ]

4. Lasse Oulasvirta. 2014. The reluctance of a developed country to choose International Public Sector Accounting Standards of the IFAC. A critical case study. Critical Perspectives on Accounting 25:3, 272-285. [ CrossRef ]

5. António Martins, Susana Jorge, Patrícia Sá. 2013. Price regulation and cost accounting: the case of the Portuguese seaport sector. International Journal of Law and Management 55:6, 444-463. [ Abstract ][ Full Text ][ PDF ]

6. Isabel Brusca, Vicente Montesinos, Danny S. L. Chow. 2013. Legitimating International Public Sector Accounting Standards (IPSAS): the case of Spain. Public Money & Management 33:6, 437-444. [ CrossRef ]

7. Jane Andrew, Corinne Cortese. 2013. Free market environmentalism and the neoliberal project: The case of the Climate Disclosure Standards Board. Critical Perspectives on Accounting 24:6, 397-409. [ CrossRef ]

8. Pawan Adhikari, Chamara Kuruppu, Sumohon Matilal. 2013. Dissemination and institutionalization of public sector accounting reforms in less developed countries: A comparative study of the Nepalese and Sri Lankan central governments. Accounting Forum 37:3, 213-230. [ CrossRef ]

9. Ying Zhang, Jane Andrew, Kathy Rudkin. 2012. Accounting as an instrument of neoliberalisation?. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal 25:8, 1266-1289. [ Abstract ][ Full Text ][ PDF ]

10. Yuri Biondi. 2012. Should Business and Non-Business Accounting be Different? A Comparative Perspective Applied to the French Central Government Accounting Standards. International Journal of Public Administration 35:9, 603-619. [ CrossRef ]

11. Garry D. Carnegie, Christopher Humphrey, Peter Miller. 2012. Rethinking impact and redefining responsibility. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal 25:2, 295-327. [ Abstract ][ Full Text ][ PDF ]

12. Bertrand Malsch, Yves Gendron. 2011. Reining in auditors: On the dynamics of power surrounding an “innovation” in the regulatory space. Accounting, Organizations and Society 36:7, 456-476. [ CrossRef ]

13. Inger Johanne Pettersen, Kari Nyland. 2011. Reforms and accounting system changes. Journal of Accounting

& Organizational Change 7:3, 237-258. [ Abstract ][ Full Text ][ PDF ]

Download At 11:13 08 March 2015 (PT)

14. Pawan Adhikari, Frode Mellemvik. 2011. The rise and fall of accruals: a case of Nepalese central government. Journal of Accounting in Emerging Economies 1:2, 123-143. [ Abstract ][ Full Text ][ PDF ]

15. Corine Eyraud. 2011. Une comptabilité d’entreprise pour les États ?. Sociologie et sociétés 43:2, 91. [ CrossRef ]

16. SHAUN GOLDFINCH, JOE WALLIS. 2010. TWO MYTHS OF CONVERGENCE IN PUBLIC MANAGEMENT REFORM. Public Administration 88:4, 1099-1115. [ CrossRef ]

17. Ralph Kober, Janet Lee, Juliana Ng. 2010. MIND YOUR ACCRUALS: PERCEIVED USEFULNESS OF FINANCIAL INFORMATION IN THE AUSTRALIAN PUBLIC SECTOR UNDER

DIFFERENT ACCOUNTING SYSTEMS. Financial Accountability & Management 26:3, 267-298. [ CrossRef ]

18. Joe Wallis. 2010. A Tale of Two Leaders: Leadership and Cultural Change at the New Zealand Treasury. Australian Journal of Public Administration 69:1, 22-33. [ CrossRef ]

19. Pawan Adhikari, Frode MellemvikThe adoption of IPSASs in South Asia: A comparative study of seven countries 169-199. [ Abstract ][ Full Text ][ PDF ][ PDF ]

20. Sheila Ellwood. 2009. ACCOUNTING FOR (A) PUBLIC GOOD: PUBLIC HEALTHCARE IN ENGLAND. Financial Accountability & Management 25:10.1111/fam.2009.25.issue-4, 411-433. [ CrossRef ]

21. Konstantin Timoshenko, Pawan Adhikari. 2009. Exploring Russian central government accounting in its context. Journal of Accounting & Organizational Change 5:4, 490-513. [ Abstract ][ Full Text ][ PDF ]

22. Giuseppe Grossi, Francesca Pepe. 2009. Consolidation in the public sector: a cross-country comparison. Public Money & Management 29:4, 251-256. [ CrossRef ]

23. Isabel Brusca, Vicente Montesinos. 2009. International experiences in whole of government financial reporting: lesson-drawing for Spain. Public Money & Management 29:4, 243-250. [ CrossRef ]

24. ALLAN BARTON. 2009. The Use and Abuse of Accounting in the Public Sector Financial Management Reform Program in Australia. Abacus 45:10.1111/abac.2009.45.issue-2, 221-248. [ CrossRef ]

25. Kate Grosser, Jeremy Moon. 2008. Developments in company reporting on workplace gender equality?. Accounting Forum 32:3, 179-198. [ CrossRef ]

26. Allan Molland, Robert Clift. 2008. Has the management of infrastructure assets (IAs) improved with the use of the accrual method in local government?. Asian Review of Accounting 16:2, 97-108. [ Abstract ] [ Full Text ][ PDF ]

Download At 11:13 08 March 2015 (PT)