EVIDENCE (REPORTING ON SEXUAL OFFENCES) AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 5 September 2012.)

Ms CHAPMAN (Bragg) (12:51): I rise to speak on the Evidence (Reporting on Sexual Offences) Amendment Bill 2012. Members would be aware that the Evidence Act 1929 was significantly amended in relation to what should be published about people who are charged or about to be charged with sexual offences after a review by the late Roma Mitchell and her committee on criminal law reform which dates back to the 1970s.

The new addition to the law at that time was recognition in our criminal law that women could be raped within marriage. It was very controversial at the time and incited considerable public debate but, nevertheless—personally, I think rightly—there was recognition given that, whether you were married or not, conjugal rights were a thing of past eras and women should be protected against sexual advances, whether they were married to the party who was perpetrating it or not.

With that came the significant consequence that, if there were going to be a number of these charges laid against husbands, it was a logical extension that the lawful wife was the victim and her name would be splashed across the public arena with the offender, and that was seen to be very unfair. This is coupled with the fact that this was part of the process of protecting child victims.

That was nothing new. Children have been victims of sexual offences for as long as history has been around, but there was recognition that, if someone was charged with a sexual offence, then that could poorly reflect obviously on possible victims or at least bring into the public arena in disrepute the family members, even if they were not the direct victims of the accused, and that they should not be suffering and paying the price for the sins of the father, so to speak. I put that in the broad sense because obviously there could be female offenders as well.

This was an important initiative, and it is one that has now been with us for some time. The question has become broader since then, arising out of the fact that Adelaide has been described as 'the suppression city'. A high number of suppression orders has been issued and consequent to concerns about that, in 2006 there was a Legislative Review Committee report and a bill of the same name to deal with this question of what purported to be a high level of secrecy. We had gone, on the face of it, from the protection of innocent victims to a cover, an umbrella of protection for people who do not deserve it, coupled with the fact that the way our suppression orders worked they could be repeated over short periods of time.

I think there was certainly some argument that that somewhat unfairly gave the impression that we were too quick to jump into suppression orders in this state, and that if we were to compare like with like perhaps we were not quite as bad. In any event, from the public's point of view, there was again some controversy about what appeared to be suppression orders being provided too generously.

The Hon. J.R. Rau: From a public point of view or from a media point of view?

Ms CHAPMAN: I think from a public point of view—the Attorney makes a comment about the public point of view—as a result of media statements, but this is not to be ignored, because the public, of course, can have feelings evoked on this type of issue after there has been some media complaint. Again, that is not new. Media outlets regularly appear on applications for suppression orders in court proceedings. They are a legitimate party. They apply to object to suppression orders being granted, so that is nothing new. Obviously, from the free press argument, 'the public should know' argument, there has been a consistent message. The Advertiser, of course, is a regular applicant, as are the television stations here in South Australia. Sometimes they are successful, but in any event they are certainly consistent on it.

When the Attorney asks whether this is a concern of the public or a concern of the media, it soon becomes an issue for the public, because they learn about it when these stories are written, and some may say nevertheless there was still very good reason for these suppression orders to be granted and bad luck if the public is kept in the dark about something. It is fair to say that the government had the concerns that were raised in the public and media arena acutely brought to its attention last year when there had been action and charges laid against a member of parliament.

That is when governments and parliaments are under the scrutiny of the public to give some explanation as to why there should be an automatic suppression order when a sexual offence is involved. I am certainly not going to say anything about that particular case, except that, under the umbrella of charges of a sexual offence being laid, section 71A of the Evidence Act kicks in and the name of the accused in that situation has remained suppressed. I think from all accounts, that I am aware of anyway, the media outlets particularly have respected that. I seek leave to continue my remarks.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

[Sitting suspended from 13:00 to 14:00]