House of Assembly Fifty-Second Parliament, Second Session (52-2) 52 2 Parliament of South Australia House of Assembly published Question Time South Australian Law Reform Institute SOUTH AUSTRALIAN LAW REFORM INSTITUTE Mrs VLAHOS House of Assembly Taylor SOUTH AUSTRALIAN LAW REFORM INSTITUTE Mrs VLAHOS (Taylor) (14:29): My question is to the Attorney-General. Can the Attorney-General update the house about the work of the South Australian Law Reform Institute? The Hon. J.R. RAU House of Assembly Enfield Deputy Premier Attorney-General Minister for Planning Minister for Business Services and Consumers SOUTH AUSTRALIAN LAW REFORM INSTITUTE The Hon. J.R. RAU (Enfield—Deputy Premier, Attorney-General, Minister for Planning, Minister for Business Services and Consumers) (14:29): I thank the honourable member for her question. The Law Reform Institute commenced operation in the year 2010 and a memorandum of understanding was executed between the South Australian government, the University of Adelaide and the Law Society of South Australia. As a result of that, the institute came into being. The projects recommended to the institute by its advisory board presently include, amongst others, the modernisation of South Australia's evidence laws to deal with new technologies, a review of South Australian succession laws and a review of the police powers of search and seizure in relation to computers suspected of containing evidence of criminal acts. On the first project, dealing with the modernisation of evidence laws, the institute has now released its first issues paper, which was on 15 May this year. This issues paper, entitled 'Computer says no'— Members interjecting: The Hon. J.R. RAU House of Assembly The Hon. J.R. RAU: No, it's interesting. It's very interesting, particularly for lawyers. The paper poses a number of questions for consideration, primarily about how the Evidence Act is to deal with information generated, recorded, stored or communicated by electronic and digital technology and how it is to deal with outmoded methods of communication referred to in the Evidence Act, such as, for example, telegrams. Submissions on the issues paper are due by 20 July this year. I am also pleased to inform members that the institute has been recognised and has, indeed, received a grant in the amount of $61,329 from the Law Foundation of South Australia. I am extremely pleased that that has occurred. The grant will assist the Law Reform Institute to consult with country lawyers and the public on the succession law project, which is a very important one because our succession laws have not been reviewed for many years. It is a project that is long overdue. It will also give the institute additional research assistance with its current projects. It will also enable the institute to be represented at the national annual conference of Australian, New Zealand and Asian law reform agencies in Canberra this year.