House of Assembly Fifty-Second Parliament, First Session (52-1) 52 1 Parliament of South Australia House of Assembly published Ministerial Statement Ministerial Statement Evidence Act Review EVIDENCE ACT REVIEW The Hon. J.R. RAU House of Assembly Enfield Deputy Premier Attorney-General Minister for Justice Minister for Urban Development Minister for Tourism Minister for Food Marketing The Hon. J.R. RAU (Enfield—Deputy Premier, Attorney-General, Minister for Justice, Minister for Urban Development, Planning and the City of Adelaide, Minister for Tourism, Minister for Food Marketing) (14:21): I seek leave to make a ministerial statement. Leave granted. The Hon. J.R. RAU House of Assembly The Hon. J.R. RAU: On Tuesday 3 May in this place the Premier announced that he had asked me to arrange an independent review of section 71A of the Evidence Act. Section 71A sets out restrictions on the reporting of the identity of persons charged, or about to be charged, with a sexual offence as defined in the act. I am pleased to announce that the honourable Justice Brian Martin has been appointed to conduct a review of the operation of section 71A(1) and (2) of the Evidence Act. As most of you will know, Justice Martin is a former judge of the Supreme Court of South Australia and is a retired chief justice of the Supreme Court of the Northern Territory. He was also crown prosecutor and commonwealth director of public prosecutions. The review will undertake public consultation, consider and report on how the restrictions under section 71A operate, whether the restrictions are necessary or desirable and, if so, whether any amendments to the legislation might usefully be made. Justice Martin has been provided with a terms of reference, which in particular focuses on how the restrictions operate, the relevant law in comparable jurisdictions, whether the restrictions are necessary or desirable and, if so, whether any amendments to the legislation might usefully be made. If changes to the restrictions are recommended as a result of this review, what other measures, if any, need to be taken into consideration to ensure that the accused receives a fair trial, that the prosecution case is not prejudiced, and also to consider what could be done in such cases to protect or restore the reputation of people who are accused of, but not found guilty of, a sexual offence. In undertaking the review, also to be taken into account is that the government will maintain the effect of the law currently protecting the identity of victims of sexual offences from being identified. Publication of suppressed material on the internet by private individuals is an overlying consideration, but as work is being done on a national level to address this issue, it will not be investigated in this review of section 71A. Media and mass communication have changed rapidly in recent years with the rise of blogging, social networking and people increasingly using the internet to obtain news and information. I raised this during the December 2010 SCAG meeting and ministers agreed that South Australia would prepare a paper on the application of model suppression laws to social networking sites. Officers in the Attorney-General's Department are in the process of preparing a draft discussion paper. We anticipate this paper will be considered by the national working group and will be ready for presentation at the SCAG meeting in July 2011. It is imperative that nationally all attorneys-general work together in conjunction with each other to ensure justice is administered fairly. This requires looking at the changes in technology and media, which are never static. They are fluid and constantly progressing and as such the courts and legislation must adapt and keep up to date to reflect this. I look forward to receiving Justice Martin's report at the end of September this year.