Raising Hell: Special Issue: The Australian Gas Industry's "No Friends" Problem
"Power leads to more power, no matter what your racket, and not only were they rich and influential but they were smart as hell, too," - Jimmy Hoffa, union leader on the Kennedy Family.
The thing about Australia when it comes to climate change is the extent to which media and political operators treat the subject as negotiable. It’s been said better, elsewhere that Australian media in particular tend to concern themselves more with the politics of climate change rather than the reality of a rapidly deteriorating physical phenomenon that imposes hard physical constraints on how we live.
The following speech by Misha Zelinksy given to a room full of 150 gas executives at the Sheraton Hotel on 22 March 2023 illustrates the point. I attended the event in person as an accredited journalist. Zelinsky, who has an impeccable union record with the AWU, had been booked to talk about the Russian invasion of Ukraine at the Australian Domestic Gas Outlook. According to his bio, he is a war correspondent who files to notable outlets including the Australian Financial Review and the BBC. He was also host of the Diplomates podcast but before his career in the media, he was an official with the Assistant National Secretary of the Australian Workers Union (AWU) and had previously served as Secretary of the ALPs National Policy Forum. In February 2022, he was forced to quit as Labor candidate following a scandal over a satirical book he co-authored but continues to serve as a director of $70bn superannuation fund CBUS.
The speech was delivered the tone of a best man at a wedding and instead of talking about the invasion of Ukraine, Zelinsky seemed to go rogue. At a time when the gas industry was at its weakest, he appeared to take the opportunity to advise them about their political situation. The talk was revealing, not only for his independent assessment about its current state of disarray, but for what it revealed about the willingness of the AWU to work with fossil capital. A day after the IPCC released its synthesis report directly tying the burning of fossil fuels to climate change, Zelinsky — who is no longer a union official but is a member — threw a lifeline to gas producers in what amounted to a pitch for better cooperation with the AWU. By the end, during the question and answer component, Zelinsky seemed to confirm the AWU were responsible for fending off a proposal for a national park that threatened the operation of a gold mine operating in Northwest Tasmania and had been involved running interference on behalf of the Tasmanian salmon industry.
Pitching to reset the relationship between Labor and the very people responsible for climate change made for an interesting spectacle. To help inform the public about conversations that take place in these forms, and in light of the latest IPCC report, I have reproduced the speech here. The speech has been lightly edited for length and clarity.
Misha Zelinksy: […]So with Putin, having destroyed perhaps, as much as 40% of European gas dependency, but an enormous amount of global supply, there's an opportunity for Australian gas to be the world's democratically reliable supplier of energy. And yet right now, and I've listened, yesterday and today, right now you flat out fighting for your own future in this country.
So ten years ago, Australia is on track to become the world's biggest exporter of gas, hundreds of billions being invested there'd be gas, for everyone, profits for everyone, taxes for everyone, and a pathway to renewables. Today you've got price caps, calls for bans on new projects, ESG boycotts, failed court cases and regulations piling up across every sphere of government. So couldn't get worse. Or could it?
So, as usual, I like to preface my remarks when I discuss gas is I'm the least popular person anytime in the room any time the topic of gas comes up. The mad green lefties want to burn me at the stake. I always say to them hopefully it will be gas-fired for poetry, if nothing else. And, ugh, your free marketeers all think I'm some kind of Das Kapital reading lunatic. Buuuuuut because I spend so much time on all sides of this debate and talk to a lot of people that touch across this sector, I believe I'm the most pro-gas person here because despite your rather outstanding attempts to destroy yourselves — and they're actually very, very good. Yeah, I still want you guys to succeed. I really do. And so like friends who have a mate, he's got a myriad of problems, I'm here to stage a bit of an intervention with you all.
So having listened to the debate over the last day, I have to say with all due respect, and as much respect as that phrase all due respect can muster, the answers aren't in this room, because if they were, you wouldn't have the type of agenda you have in front of you. You wouldn't be playing defense across the board. If I can be this blunt to you all, Mr and Mrs Gas Peoples: do you have any friends? I mean, serious, actual friends. Not the guys you pay to hang out with you at school like the sad, rich kid in primary school or not the bully, the person you bully to hang out with you — not the person that you bully to hang out with you like Xi Jinping and Vladimir Putin. I mean a person who you could go to the wall for you. Like has the industry got someone to feed your annoying cat. Or have you got someone to pick you up from the airport in peak-hour traffic — I'm talking about that kind of friendship. Because in so many ways, in my assessment, that's the problem for this sector.
“It's pretty much three steps. Step one is create a causal link between a big problem and an industrial process. Establish that. Step Two: stop expansion. Once you've stopped expansion, you've now delegitimized the industry. Now once you've got the net in place, close the net, in step three, on existing production.”
Because if I've listened to you correctly, it seems you believe you can solve your problems with messaging. And frankly, when you think messaging is your problem, it's a last gasp dying belief of an organisation, about to go out the door, because you're convinced you don't need to change. We're right, everyone else is wrong. And I've been there. I've seen it up close when you're in this situation. That never ever ends well. So, you know, who are these friends that you think might be with you? Is it heavy industry? Well, they're blaming you for closing them down? As we know. Is it families? Well, they think you're taking food off the table and sending profits overseas. Farmers? They think you're trying to destroy their land that's been in their families for generations. Your employees? Well, as we’ll discuss, you've actively stopped them unionising and lobbied for laws to make it easier to lower their wages and conditions. Is it bankers? Probably not, I mean, they're flat out getting their own friends, right? But, you know, renewable sector even? They might need you on an engineering basis as you well, know, but they can see a sinking ship when they see one and they're pushing you aside.
Now, I did a little bit of research before this speech and and so I looked at the APPEA website. According to the APPEA your collective industrial mission is to be the effective voice of the oil and gas industry, on the issues that matter, working collaboratively with industry and the community. Similarly, the gas industry has values of integrity, responsiveness, teamwork, transparency, diversity, and caring. It’s all very, very lovely. Hate to tell you this, but this is probably how Aussies see, based on my understanding, least collectively, they see you as: tax evading, union busting, manufacturing destroying, family gouging, foreign raiding, climate vandalising, cold-hearted, war profiteers.
Unfair? Maybe. But I dare you to poll it. I've seen polling on your industry. I've sat in groups. It's, you know, not great. And, you know, to be honest, you're unraveling from the "bridging fuel" of the future to "just as bad as coal", is probably only superseded by you know, big tech, who went from a "handy way to share photos with relatives, you never want to see at Christmas time", to "enabling dictators to rig elections" in like about five years. Apart from that, your slip from "bridging" to "just as bad as coal" has been pretty precipitous.
Now, plenty of us could see it coming — not because, you know, I'm a genius. But because I understand the activist's playbook. I saw it every day. It's pretty much three steps. Step one is create a causal link between a big problem and an industrial process. Establish that. Step Two: stop expansion. Once you've stopped expansion, you've now delegitimised the industry. Now once you've got the net in place, close the net, as step three, on existing production. Now you saw that with Tasmanian logging. They went through that back 20 years ago. Coal had it's Adani moment, obviously. Tasmanian salmon farming, believe it or not, is facing similar problems, of this expansion question, delegitimisation, bringing the net in. They're all linked, it's the same play book from around the world using the exact same funding sources in many ways, but the exact same process on a public execution bases and now they're coming for you. And the way they plan to do it, believe it or not, is split your customers away from you. Because once households and heavy industry no longer need gas, what will be the argument to keep your own lights on? Your proud record and impeccable success of making friends around the place? And meeting everyone halfway? What would be the argument for this sector? And so where did it all go wrong? Now I'm going to offer some suggestions. Here's some examples where I believe, despite some friendliness on the other side, you— I would say you've probably willfully destroyed relationships that you could definitely use today as your backs are against the wall, and I've changed the names to protect the innocent, but maybe I haven't changed them sufficiently. Anyway.
So look, example number one is a company that owns a big shiny floating gas facility. And said company would rather go to war with its workforce and their union rather than agree to a modest payroll for to over 206 operators. The result? Depending on how to calculate it, and these numbers could be disputed, up to $1.5 billion in lost revenue as a result of production losses to stop a wage claim that would have been very most in the millions. Now I'm not a fancy investment guru, but that strikes me is pretty stupid. Now, second example is a different Western Australian based gas company. Now rather than bargaining with their workforce in the union, they fought 11 cases in the Fair Work Commission where they lost 11 times. Eleven nil. For the record, that's the worst in history. Now, the third example is like Queensland-based LNG exporters, denying there'll ever be a gas crisis, resisting any intervention for a decade that ironically would have protected their position the market as a key energy input, then pretend the crisis isn't happening and claim you've been ambushed when the price rises become so acute that even Vladimir Putin can cover his European market losses as a result of his war of choice. Fourth, a New South Wales Best —sorry, New South Wales-based regional gas extractor. Now, somehow, these people allowed a coalition of natural enemies in Greens and farmers to come together resist their project, while to the north, the very same farmers were happy to take a slightly larger bag of cash to participate. I don't know, maybe something changes when you go north to the Tweed —I mean, it kind of does. But, look, the fundamental laws of economics and self interest don't.
“The more remote it becomes from ordinary people, the more dangerous it is [for you]. So yeah, again, our — I'm just an AWU member these days. But yeah, AWU members are very acutely aware that their industries are powered by gas, and they want to see cheaper gas prices. If they're powered by something else, they're not going to care that much less.”
And then once you are finally under enormous pain and suffering, you received bipartisan support for your project in 2019, you somehow put the entire venture at risk of what might very well be a hung parliament relying on gas-hostile crossbenchers in 2023, this weekend. Lastly, you know, a sector making massive profits as a result of a war they didn't know would happen when it started investing ten years ago, then arguing there are no windfall profits despite the quintuppling of prices after an invasion nobody predicted, at the exact same time that every Australian is suffering from a supply side cost of living crisis.
Now, you might say those are unfair — I've got the microphone, so I can say whatever I want. But the gas industry, to my assessment, doesn't have any image problem. Though you do. You don't have a messaging problem. As we've discussed, you got something that's actually far, far worse. You’ve got to across the legitimacy. And people say social licence — I actually don't like that term because it sounds soft. And the lack of legitimacy is central to this no-friends dilemma. Because historically, your industry has been able to operate above politics, globally. You may not like us, but you need us so, bad luck. We are who we are. And you got to deal with us. It’s a model that works provided you’ve a non-substitutable social good. And people grumble, but they got to keep the lights on and they can't go anywhere else, you've got a captive market.
But if you're seen to be illegitimate, and your good is potentially — potentially, at least — substitutable, you no longer have a guaranteed license to operate. It can happen really quickly. Why else do you think the Saudi's are paying Greg Norman billions of dollars to run around making a goose of himself, right? Not because they suddenly love golf, but because they can see what's coming down the pipeline. If you think it can't happen to you, would you have said you would be where you are right now, ten years ago. If we went back in time, ten years, and I was a crazy guy predicting that there might be a problem with export markets, would you have predicted where you'd be where you are now on a regulatory basis? And what about your mates working at coal companies? Where they be where they were, ten years ago?
Truth is, no government of any persuasion — you've got a Labor government now, but the Liberal government previously has had no issue regulating this sector. They're not going to defend an industry that is not seen to do the following: If it doesn't want to pay tax, doesn't want to compensate its workers, doesn't want to chip in and help out with the bills, is seen to be destroying manufacturing that the country needs to survive or thrive, and most critical of all, no government is going to give legislative or regulatory leg up for an industry not seen to be batting for Team Australia. In an era of sovereign risk — and actual sovereign risk, I'm talking about the kind in Moscow and not in Canberra — that type of sovereign risk is back with a vengeance. So if anything, you know, Vladimir Putin's war should have given you a chance to be heroes. And yet somehow the industry managed to blow that opportunity, too.
And every government in the world. Every government in the world is taking active steps to protect voters and sovereign capabilities. Right now, as we discussed, these are three big trends. To try and resist this, it's only going to harm your reputation. It's going to leave you on the outside of this process. It's gonna happen without you, so you may as well, somehow get yourselves in the room. And so that's why it's different this time. If you guys don't get some friends, and fast, I think you're going to run out of runway. And that's why I think there's mistakes have been so enormously damaging.
You know, anyway, that's the past. Right? That’s as I see it — and we can talk about it offline. I believe this industry will be a great industry for this company — country. And I have an enormous affection for it. How do we build a bigger, more beautiful future together? So by my account, you've got the following coming down the line. There's probably other things. I'm not an expert about the regulatory hurdles you're facing. You've got the gas price cap, you've got the reasonable price provisions, you've got the Code of Conduct with ADGSM, environmental plan approvals and the Barossa court decision. PIIT reforms, multinational tax crackdowns, EPBC change with the climate trigger potentially, safeguards reform, potential climate trigger, decommissioning policies and levies, ESG regulations, and things like the Inflation Reduction Act — things of that nature happening around the world.
So that's a big list, the government's actually going to need as much help with it as you do. But there are some basic political laws apply here that you just simply won't be able to shake, and you must get them into your calculations. In a cost of living crisis, people always back their own self interest. That's not genius. But you've got to keep that in the forefront of your mind. Secondly, governments will always follow that crises over your complaints. Fact. Happened in every jurisdiction around the world. So complaining about it is not going to get you the result that you need. Lastly, governments of all stripes, really, really prefer to not go to war with industry. And I know you're probably thinking to yourselves, "that couldn't possibly be true". I'm telling you, it's absolutely true. There is no want to go to war with any industry, least of all, a big industry and important industry, as gas. But given the government's always gonna choose punters over you, how can you help while at the same time maximizing your own profits overseas? Could there be a deal exchange for an effort to get more guests in the market in the medium term? That sounds hard, obviously, because the activists are very noisy, but it's absolutely doable. Actually look at this. Despite all the noise about Teals and Greens, the good news is that the “maddies” — the people who want to burn me at the stake, they don't have the whip hand. Politically, yet.
If you do a count of the House of Reps, 135 of the 151 seats are held by the major parties. 90%. 75%, three, four Senate seats 58 out of 76 are held by the major parties. So there's a deal to be had here with the non-crazy people. The big glaring question here is: where's the pressure on Peter Dutton and the opposition to come to the table to strike a bargain here? You know, the pressure on the government's obvious, they're in government, but when Labor's in opposition, it certainly gets plenty of attention. I can't believe that the Opposition is getting away with what they're getting away with right now. And leaving your sector at the mercy of negotiations with the crossbench. It would also be handy in my view — and this is just free advice — have, a loud, powerful voice in the room making decisions.
That voice is one who spent billions of dollars resisting, you know, this is guy that comes here, every year. Sits on a panel. Kind of looks like me. But he sounds probably a little but more sensible and he, he's always turning up here and to argue for manufacturers. You guys probably have seen him. He’s arguing for his manufacturing members, but he also covers oil and gas production workers. So imagine if he thought you are great, and not the world's worst and most hostile employers. Especially when you're a capital intensive industry — it just makes no sense.
“So, alternatively, you could pick your battles, build some allegiances, you can negotiate because genuinely there is an absolutely — you know, I can see it — a grand bargain to be had here, one of the sees Australia's become the world's democratic exporter of gas, hydrogen and other energy with you all at the very center of it.”
And you might choose to go to war. That's your right. But wars are costly, they're unpredictable and they're often more crippling to the side by waging it. They're high risk. And so you better be sure you gonna win. But if you do go to war, just know that you'd be breaching the first rule of war, which is never, ever fight on multiple fronts. I just listed those challenges in front of you, you'd be pulling on a fight that I don't think you can. Now you can also go on strike, as I’ve heard you muttering around the room and some of you may stop offering gas into the market.
Now, you might think I love strikes, because my background. I actually hate strikes, because they're generally very expensive to everyone involved, as we've seen, and then they're a failure of negotiation and imagination. The other thing I'd say, just as a warning, you might want to be careful about creating a world where your customers learn to live without you. Don't forget Vladimir Putin believed Europeans would never live without his gas. And yet they are. And if the war ended tomorrow, well Nord Stream 1's blown up, but they will never trust that gas supplier ever again. That's a extreme example. But once you fall out of love with your supplier, and they're no longer reliable, you start having to scramble elsewhere.
The other thing I'd say is showing Australians that gas is like renewables and that it's expensive and unreliable, but it also has fewer green benefits is probably not a way that you’re going to change minds either, rather than pairing alongside that effort, you’d be sitting one out from it. So, alternatively, you could pick your battles, build some allegiances, you can negotiate because, genuinely, there is an absolutely — you know, I can see it — a grand bargain to be had here, one of the sees Australia's become the world's democratic exporter of gas, hydrogen and other energy with you all at the very center of it. So in conclusion, before I get lynched and run out of here, I know that the Australian gas industry is a great one. It can be a force for good in this country, it can be a force for good around the world. Australian gas can save Australia's economy, power, the next wave of sovereign investment, help the planet, come to rescue democracies around the world. Or you can slowly, ever-so-surely, be run out of business. The choice is yours, guys. Thank you so much for listening.
Question 1: [preamble cut] Before answering some questions. I guess the first one, I'll throw it out there and then go to the audience, which is who has survived the activist playbook. So once that becomes embedded, and the splitting and the rest starts getting embedded, has anybody survived it?
MZ: Well, firstly, you want to be ahead of it. So you're right, playing from behind is more tricky. I'd say Tasmanian salmon is a good example. Yeah, they were a hero industry, then suddenly, they went very quickly overnight to: no, you guys are terrible. You're destroying waterways, you're creating all these problems. Tasmanian salmon is actually the worst thing you could eat because of genetically modified yada, yada, yada. So it is a fear campaign. And yet, despite all that, the industry, we partnered with ‘em at the time when I was at the Australian Workers Union — when I say we, I'm not there anymore. So not "we" but the AWU did partner with them to turn around perceptions in the public. And fundamentally, too, you'd be surprised at just how open the public is to hearing your message as much as the activist message. But if you just sort of get into a crouching position on it, and let them dominate conversation, and that's all anyone's hearing, and then the train gets away from you. Right? So that's a good example, I think, where they, where it's been done, and that was done specifically, as a contrast what Forestry did. Forestry kept thinking they could do a deal with the activists. And the problem is you every time you do a deal, they all split and now there'd be a new position, a new position, a new position.
The key, really, when you're dealing with the hardliners — I'm not talking about people that want to see action. We don't want to see waters polluted either in Tasmania, no one does, right? You got to get that right. But at the same time, we've got a farm salmon, or we got a fish for salmon, or we got to stop eating. So you know, one of these three things has to happen, so there's trade offs on a policy basis, but the compare and contrast to how it was dealt with with Forestry, how it was dealt with with Tasmanian Salmon, and also with mining in the northwest part of Tasmania with the goldmine there. They were trying to turn that on into one big national park. And we managed to turn the argument around, say you're talking about 99% protection 1% mining, and that was a compelling argument. People people said, "well, okay, yeah. 99% protected. 1% mining sounds about right." So there's ways to do it. You know, that there's just a couple of examples. But let me tell you, if you just sit here and do nothing, you're going to get toweled up, which is happening every second of every day for you guys. Right?
Question 2: Well, I guess that's the irony of the last winter that went through we had high prices, but the reality was, there's no shortfalls, right? So because supply came on and met the failings of other other parts of the industry, and it rose up and it did the right thing. It hasn't been any of the crude oil stuff that got the danger because the price went high and then created the world—
MZ: The problem is, in politics, mate, no one gives you the credit for the counterfactual. You spent $100 billion to save on a recession, everyone goes, oh yeah, what recession? Why'd you spend $100 billion, right? So you never get the credit for that and also people are also that loss-adverse, ie, oh yeah, the price went up 10%. Great, but I didn’t know it wouldn’t go up 50% and I can't remember that flat screen TVs are now cheaper, right? They just focus on things that cost them more nominally, as well. And, ahh, there's a lot of visibility on gas. Because I still think for good reasons for you guys, it's actually one of your strengths, is that people use it directly. It's not a removed from them, the more removed it becomes from the consumer and the public and the voter, it's more dangerous for you, in my view.
Question 3: [preamble cut] So just to the manufacturers, because, no gas, they don't have an industry or what do you tell them?
MZ: Well, I think increasingly what you're seeing from them, I would say to them, you know, you guys need one another. It's an unhappy marriage. But it's a marriage you need. And I'd say, there's huge amount of threat, what, they need you guys to survive, right and it's a disaster for this country if we lose sovereign capability, critical sovereign capability that we're going to need to rebuild our economy. But also, you know, we've got things like we're spending $400 billion on submarines, etc, we need industrial capacity and gas is central to that, so you need that, but at the same time, if they start moving to different sources of energy inputs, they're looking at co-gen type plants, or all these other ways to try to lower their costs, I'd encourage them to do that clearly should try to lower their costs, and find productivity gains and find new markets. But that's also, again, dangerous for you guys. Because if you're just in the end, just an industry that digs up stuff, sends it overseas, with no visibility of it, and then you're in arguments about is it enough tax, should this be happening? What's our carbon footprint?
Look at Norway, right. I mean, that's a country built on oil and gas — I'd say they've managed it, very, very, very well. But nevertheless, now the green movement, there has been a huge head of steam up to stop Norwegians from investing their own money in the industry that made them rich. So the more remote it becomes from ordinary people, the more dangerous it is [for you]. So yeah, again, our — I'm just an AWU member these days. But yeah, AWU members are very acutely aware that their industries are powered by gas, and they want to see cheaper gas prices. If they're powered by something else, they're not going to care that much less. They'll yeah, gas? Whatever. And that's just one example. So I'd be honest with them saying, You guys need one another. I would say prices are too high, you got to work together. But at the same time, you guys have got to be better at your own businesses, too. I've got plenty of criticisms of manufacturing in this country that you might be hearing me —like I said, I'm most popular guy in any room I go into right, but I would certainly give them a boost of the behind for different reasons.
“I'm not saying with any 100% unanimity that they're going to be throwing confetti down the streets in Newtown for you, from gas industry, right? Not saying that, no matter campaigns even get you that. But they can be marginalized.”
Question 3 Cont’d: [preamble cut] The world needs fossil fuels.
MZ: But the politics there is getting so — the head, I was in Norway last year, the inner-cities are not Labor, they are green. And they've got a head of steam up there. And they've got no understanding of the sector whatsoever. And it's now detaching from what's feasible to what's not feasible. We can have a rational discussion, this or that can't happen. But you're dealing with emotions now. And you're dealing with, I would say rationality, but you're dealing with a lack of understanding. So as I said, going back to three step thing — causal link between industrial process and bad thing. And then there's just no real reconciling from that. And so you know, not to get stuck into Norway do politics, I'm sure it's very boring for everyone. But they are a good example of it being done very well. But dangerous times ahead, I think. Yeah.
Question 4: [preamble cut] What extent do you see our national broadcasters, which should be a ultimate teller of truth in factual debate sort of playing a role in potentially a distortion of the message in terms of how our industry is going?
MZ: I'm going to give you a really bad answer that I don't watch a lot of television. Look. I don't want to give you an answer to the top my head here, because I don't know enough about that. What I would say is this is that you are absolutely losing the battle, everywhere. And so the ABC might be an example where you're getting these types of messages or things that I pointed out of being seen not to pay taxes and seem to be in bad environmentally being seen to be as bad as called all these things, right?
There's messages out there and they're being propagated, right. And they're up against an engineering slide deck from you guys talking about the role LNG for the next 25 years. It's just not emotional in any way. I'm not connected to like it's just you're not gonna win that. And so my point is, you're not going to persuade I need to inner-city luvvies that are watching ABC necessarily, but there are people that that are your national — natural allies and you're pushing them away too. So I'm not saying with any 100% unanimity that they're going to be throwing confetti down the streets in Newtown for you, from gas industry, right? Not saying that, no matter campaigns even get you that. But they can be marginalised.
You know, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese as a green threat in his seat every year for the last 30 years, he beats them back because he's a reasonable guy and he's pro-gas. So it can be done. You know, that's the heartland right of the of the activist class. And so you know, I believe my heart of hearts that they are a minority, they're a noisy minority, and they've got a head of steam up at the same time. People that are in the middle are being pulled away for these different reasons that I'm pointing out to ya, there's no one silver bullet that'll save this for ya. There's no slide deck. There's nothing. It's rebuilding trust. Trust is easy whilst hard won and trust fundamentally comes down to you know, 1000 promises made 1000 promises kept. They're all little ones. I mean, it's not a great answer. But, I'd say. I'd say you can't look to one thing and say that's the problem.
Before You Go (Go)…
Are you a public sector bureaucrat whose tyrannical boss is behaving badly? Have you recently come into possession of documents showing some rich guy is trying to move their ill-gotten-gains to Curacao? Did you take a low-paying job with an evil corporation registered in Delaware that is burying toxic waste under playgrounds? If your conscience is keeping you up at night, or you’d just plain like to see some wrong-doers cast into the sea, we here at Raising Hell can suggest a course of action: leak! You can securely make contact through Signal — contact me first for how. Alternatively you can send us your hard copies to: PO Box 134, Welland SA 5007
And if you’ve come this far, consider supporting me further by picking up one of my books, leaving a review or by just telling a friend about Raising Hell!