House of Assembly Fifty-Third Parliament, Second Session (53-2) 53 2 Parliament of South Australia House of Assembly published Ministerial Statement Ministerial Statement Vulnerable Witness Interviews Vulnerable Witness Interviews The Hon. J.R. RAU House of Assembly Enfield Deputy Premier Attorney-General Minister for Justice Reform Minister for Planning Minister for Industrial Relations Minister for Child Protection Reform Minister for the Public Sector Minister for Consumer and Business Services Minister for the City of Adelaide The Hon. J.R. RAU (Enfield—Deputy Premier, Attorney-General, Minister for Justice Reform, Minister for Planning, Minister for Industrial Relations, Minister for Child Protection Reform, Minister for the Public Sector, Minister for Consumer and Business Services, Minister for the City of Adelaide) (14:08): I seek leave to make a ministerial statement. Leave granted. The Hon. J.R. RAU House of Assembly The Hon. J.R. RAU: On 1 July 2016, division 3 of part 17 of the Summary Offences Act 1953 came into operation as a result of the commencement of the Statutes Amendment (Vulnerable Witnesses) Act of 2015. The provisions require an audiovisual recording to be taken of all interviews with vulnerable witnesses in relation to a serious offence against a person and for the interview to be conducted by a prescribed interviewer. The intent of the laws is to spare vulnerable witnesses, including children and people with disabilities, the trauma that may arise from having to give evidence in court by enabling the record of interview to be tendered in court as evidence. Due to an administrative oversight in the Department for Health and Ageing, Child Protection Services staff were not recognised as prescribed interviewers for the purposes of the Summary Offences Act 1953 between 1 July 2016 and 21 August 2017. On 21 August 2017, the former minister for health approved two training courses under the Summary Offences Regulations 2016 and as a result the Child Protection Services staff who have successfully completed the training courses are now recognised as prescribed interviewers. There are seven current prosecutions, I am advised, potentially affected by this oversight. In the first case, of which the Director of Public Prosecutions has the conduct, one interview out of a number with the complainant was inadmissible. That case was heard by a single judge of the District Court in the absence of the jury and the decision has been reserved. The other six matters, of which SAPOL has conduct, are presently before the Magistrates Court. One is set for a status conference, one for a pre-trial conference and four have been adjourned for the parties to take certain steps, such as for the defendant to seek legal advice. The government will be introducing an amendment to the act in the other place which we will be seeking to pass as a matter of priority. The amendment will retrospectively rectify the problem that has been identified. On the basis that the amendment is passed swiftly, there will be no prejudice to any other prosecution.