I introduced a Bill in Parliament today to help stop addiction to gambling (poker) machines.

The insidious thing about this form of gambling is the way the machines are designed to promote addiction.

Free spins and unbalanced reels are giving people the false impression that they are close to a win, so they keep pumping more and more money into the machines – even though their chances of winning don’t change.

My proposed law would change the way these machines are programmed. It would force the owners to get rid of free spins, and will limit the betting to 20 cents a line or 60 cents a spin. At the moment people can throw away more than $200 a minute.

I’m also proposing a display every half hour to show gamblers how much they lost, asking them if they really want to continue. It gives people a cause to pause.

The Bill will get rid of the crooked system of unbalanced reels. Every reel will have to have the same probability for each symbol. Most gamblers don’t realise they are being tricked because they assume that all reels are the same. At the moment they need not be.

Above all, my proposal would make it mandatory to keep to the National Guidelines to which stakeholders have agreed. At present machines are being approved by our Gambling Commissioner that don’t meet these guidelines!

Hundreds of Adelaide families a year are affected by problem gambling. In some cases pokie addicts resort to selling the family home or turn to crime to fund their addiction. I call on the Government to support these measures to reduce the harm being done.

Annual General Meeting
59 Regent Street South
Adelaide
6pm

Oaklands Reserve.
Sunday September 20, 2009.
Time: 2-3pm.

Suburban mums and dads could be targeted under Labor’s new Unexplained Wealth laws.

It’s “guilty until proven innocent” legislation.

I’ve been contacted by a couple who stand to lose their house under the existing Criminal Assets Confiscation Act because the husband grew some marijuana plants - despite the fact the house was paid off 15 years prior to his offence.

The man’s wife was not convicted or charged with an offence at all, but still stands to lose her family home, which she jointly owns with him.

These aren’t bikies. These aren’t drug lords. This is a retired suburban couple who live quite modestly. They could both end up homeless.

Now Labor is trying to extend these laws with the introduction of additions to the Serious and Organised Crime (Unexplained Wealth) Bill.

The Labor Government are justifying the legislation with anti-bikie propaganda spin, but it’s not just bikies who stand to lose.

We already have laws in place that allow the Government to confiscate the profits from crime if profits have been obtained illegally and the offender’s guilt proven.

Now the Government wants a public servant to be able to point the finger at anyone they suspect may have profited from crime, demand receipts for all their assets and these suspicions will be non-reviewable.

This should put a chill down the spines of every suburban mum or dad, or small business owner who may have not kept their receipts for the last 10-20 years. They stand to lose their business, their houses, everything under this Bill.

I drafted amendments to the Bill when Parliament resumed sitting last week. My amendment confines confiscation of personal assets to those who are proven to have benefitted from crime.

The idea of a public servant, who could be a political appointment, being given the power to point the finger of suspicion at anyone, and then take away everything they’ve worked for, is a recipe for tyrannical action.

Our legal system works on “innocent until proven guilty”. I happen to think we should keep it that way.

I’ll be discussing this issue on ABC’s Stateline tonight. Tune in at 7.30.

The State Government’s Upper House Bill is nothing but a deeply flawed political stunt.

The Bill is being debated today in Parliament.

I suspect Premier Rann and Attorney-General Atkinson don’t really expect this bill to succeed. They are using John Howard Republic referendum tactics to maximise the chances of a “No” vote. They have loaded several contentious questions into one, and few people will agree to every part of it.

The Upper House is elected on a proportional system, making it much more democratic than the Labor-loaded House of Assembly, but Labor want to take this away. I wonder why?

I’m not sure what Labor is after here, but it surely isn’t more democracy.

Cutting the number of upper house MPs by about a quarter will probably not change the balance of power in the Upper House, but it will place an impossible load on the MPs who work the hardest – Independents and minor party MPs.

Their ability to scrutinise Government proposals will be severely limited.

The Labor proposal for an elaborate Senate-style process for overcoming Parliamentary stalemate is also flawed.

There is already a very clear provision in our constitution for Bills of special importance. If they are not passed by the Upper House, it can be a trigger for an early election.

A joint sitting of both houses would be a cheaper way of resolving deadlock situations, if reform is necessary.

However, I do agree with Labor’s proposal four-year terms for the Upper House.

This concept was backed by the Constitutional convention held in 2003. It also won substantial support in my own polling of local voters. This reform not only has the backing of the public, it also has a democratic justification.

Why shouldn’t every MP have to face the electorate at every general election?