if we are going to quote law then please quote SA law not nsw or other states
If you read it you will see that bit specifically does relate to SA law.
It is from
http://www.lawlink.nsw.gov.au/lrc.nsf/pages/dp43chp10
Here is the entire text:
10.65 In terms of the prejudice which may be caused by publication to the administration of justice, the
South Australian power to issue suppression orders is rather different from the other general provisions discussed above.
A risk of prejudice, no matter how substantial, will not be sufficient grounds for making a suppression order in its own right. The court, broadly defined to include a Justice conducting preliminary proceedings, a coroner and any person acting judicially,111
can only make an order if satisfied that the prejudice that would occur by publication should be accorded greater weight than the public interest in the publication of court proceedings and the consequential right of the news media to publish it.112
10.66 This obligation to balance the public interest in open justice with prejudice to the administration of justice, including fair trial, was one of the amendments introduced in 1989 which were intended to make it more difficult to obtain a suppression order.113
Other amending provisions removed the right of parties to proceedings, including criminal defendants, to apply for suppression orders on grounds of hardship. The wording of the other ground for orders was also tightened so that courts were no longer empowered to suppress names and evidence where it appeared desirable in the interests of justice but could only do so where it would be to prevent prejudice to the proper administration of justice. In drafting these amendments, the Government (according to the Attorney General) had erred on the side of freedom of speech and publication.114 The 1989 amendments were designed to bring an end to the period in which the openness of judicial proceedings in South Australia had been greatly eroded by an uncommon concern for the interests and rights of the accused.115 Prior to these amendments Adelaide had been labelled the suppression capital of Australia because of the reputation of South Australian courts for issuing suppression orders in numbers far and above those issued by the courts of other states and territories.116 Criticism had been directed at the number of orders being made, and also at alleged anomalies in when and how such orders were applied. Criticism had also been directed at the use of suppression orders when a defendant pleaded guilty, such that restrictions to publication were being imposed on the basis of risk of prejudice to reputation not just prejudice of fair trial.117
10.67 Despite the narrower power given to South Australian courts since 1989 to issue non-publication orders to prevent prejudice to the administration of justice, the introduction of the ground of undue hardship has ensured that South Australian courts still have the broadest general power to issue non-publication orders in Australia. South Australian courts can make orders not only to prevent prejudice to the administration of justice, but also to prevent undue hardship. Whilst undue hardship to a criminal defendant or civil litigant can no longer form the basis of an order since the 1989 amendments, such a basis may still be considered for an alleged victim of a crime, a witness, or potential witness in civil or criminal proceedings, or for a child.118 It must be noted however, that even though the South Australian legislature has provided that suppression orders can be made on the basis of individual hardship rather than in the interests of justice as a whole, the court is still obliged to balance this hardship with the principle of open justice. The court must give substantial weight to the public interest in publication and the consequential right of the news media to publish and may only make an order where the undue hardship which would result should be afforded greater weight than those considerations.119
