Watch the story on Adelaide’s A Current Affair by clicking here.

Read how the Sunday Mail reported this story by clicking here.

I’ve been campaigning with local residents against Constellation Wines selling South Australia’s first commercial vineyard to Devine, a division of Pioneer Homes.

John Reynell planted vines and built his house there 170 years ago!

The developers plan to build 41 small homes on the site.

There are also concerns about flooding and extra traffic in Phoenix Cres, currently a quiet dead-end street.

The DAP initially deferred its decision pending investigation into traffic management, open space and stormwater issues.

My concern is that Constellation Wines, an American company which bought Hardy’s, is gradually selling off all of their local assets and sacking hundreds of local workers - we need to let them know this is not on!

The DAP will make its decision this Thursday night.

UPDATE: The DAP gave the project the Green Light. I have written to Devine (Pioneer) Homes to ask them if they will consider compromising with the local community and come up with an alternative plan, which will keep everyone happy. I’ll keep you posted on my response.

Read how The Advertiser reported this story by clicking here.

I have been pursuing a policy of having restaurants named if they don’t meet health standards.

The public have a right to know.

On 12th August last year, I sought a Freedom of Information (FOI) request from the Adelaide City Council (ACC), but the council refused.

On 15th December, I appealed to the Ombudsman to overrule the ACC.

I have been pursuing this as a test case in relation to premises in the Adelaide city area.

On 26th May this year, the Ombudsman determined that “expiation notices and the prohibition orders issued in relation to seven premises and other information showing they were issued” should be released under FOI legislation.

Although the Ombudsman does not have judicial powers to force the ACC to reveal the details of restaurants that failed to meet the standards, it would be a very brave council which now refused to comply with the Ombudsman’s ruling.

They would no doubt be named in the Ombudsman’s report, named in Parliament and pursued in the media.

I have yet to receive the documents from the ACC, but I feel sure that they will comply after the Ombudsman’s ruling in this test case.

The case I presented to the Ombudsman relied on the public interest argument.

Consumers have a right to know which restaurants and cafes have failed to comply with initial improvement requests and gone on to breach health standards.

There are three levels of intervention which may be taken by Council health inspectors. First, they can issue an improvement notice. If restaurants comply, that is the end of the matter. If restaurants fail to improve as requested, or if there is a particularly serious breach of health standards, then a restaurant may be given an expiation notice. This is effectively a fine to punish them.

If breaches continue, then a prohibition order can be made. This effectively closes the restaurant down.

In this case the Ombudsman has ruled that expiation notices and prohibition orders must be disclosed.

The Ombudsman did not make the same ruling in relation to improvement notices so that Council inspectors can have frank discussions with restaurants about needed improvements. These issues would relate to problems at the lower end of the scale. It is considered more likely that restaurants will cooperate in this initial negotiation process if they can do so without fear of being publicly shamed.

The ACC may appeal against the Ombudsman’s ruling in the District Court by 25th June 09.

Today I attended the SA Press Club lunch to hear my fellow Independent and good friend, Nick Xenophon, speak on the need for establishing an Independent Commission Against Corruption in South Australia.

While other states have independent anti-corruption bodies, South Australia has an anti-corruption branch within SA Police and the Police Complaints Authority, using seconded police officers for investigations.

Why doesn’t the State Government want an ICAC?

I wholeheartedly support Nick’s call for an ICAC. I also support Nick’s ongoing campaign against poker machines.

This Government needs an action plan to curb South Australia’s gambling problem – with 1.6% of the population now seeking help from the Gambling Helpline every year.

The Government collected almost $400 million in gambling revenue in this budget, with almost $300 million of that from gaming machines. How much does it spend to address problem gambling, which has such a significant impact in our community?

For every one person with a gambling problem, there are between five and 10 others who are negatively affected.

According to the Government’s own figures, 30% of the adult SA population played poker machines in 2005, with 18,000 people displaying signs of problem gambling – 5000 of whom are classified as high risk gamblers.

I will be presenting an action plan to the State Government to better deal with the significant incidents of problem gambling in this state, and its effect on struggling families.

Next month, I will be holding a community forum to talk about concerns, including graffiti, hoon driving and speeding, at the Trott Park Neighbourhood Centre.

The “Local Crime: Concerns and Solutions” forum will provide residents with an opportunity to voice their concerns and, together with other stakeholders, suggest solutions on how to deal with this ongoing problem.

The forum will be held on Thursday, 9th July at 7.30pm. I hope to see you there.

The State Government plans to invade voter’s privacy by demanding details of their age, gender and ethnicity on the electoral roll.

The move was rushed through Parliament’s Lower House late yesterday and supported by the Liberals.

I voted against the clause and said the compulsory details were nothing but an “invasion of privacy”.

Karlene Maywald of the Nationals, and other Independents, supported my stand against this move.

I can see no reason for the Government to require a voter’s personal details, unless it’s to use them to try to score votes.

These details used to be noted on the electoral roll until the 90’s, but were made optional by former Liberal Attorney General Trevor Griffin.

By once again making these personal details compulsory, the Labor and Liberal parties are set to gather private knowledge about voters in order to spam them with birthday cards and the like.

South Australians should not have to give up their privacy to help MPs win votes.

Taxpayers will foot doctor’s bills of $1000 per hour under the State Labor Government’s plans to set up medical panels as part of its workers compensation reforms.

The sky high costs are yet another ill-conceived aspect of the proposed legislation.

I’ve been told that the cost of the doctors to work on these panels will be $1000 per hour.

This means that the workcover system, and ultimately the taxpayer, will be left to foot the bill.

How on earth do they expect to save costs in the workcover system with rates like these and 3-5 doctors per panel?

The Labor Government’s workers compensation reforms are less fair and less efficient than the current system in assessing injured workers capacity. Currently – like just about all over Australia – judges, magistrates and Tribunal members assess various medical reports and decide on the facts of the matter.

Now it seems the proposed reforms won’t be just unfair for injured workers – they’ll be unfair on taxpayers too.