In Britain the Attorney-General is free from Cabinet control in deciding whether or not to initiate prosecutions or to terminate criminal proceedings. This article discusses the question whether the British rule applies in Australia. It examines the Mercantile Bank case (Victoria, 1893), the termination by federal authorities of the proceedings against John Brown in 1929, and evidence provided by federal Cabinet minutes before 1946. It seems that the British rule was not established in Australia before World War II. If Australian Attorneys-General are now regarded as exercising an independent authority, this is probably a case of importing a British convention after it had evolved in the United Kingdom. When the federal Attorney-General, Mr Ellicott, resigned in 1977, both he and the Prime Minister stated that Cabinet should not interfere with decisions to start or discontinue criminal proceedings. It would, however, be premature to regard this as a firmly established convention and it is clear that there were grave differences between Mr Ellicott and his colleagues as to some practical implications of the rule.

Economic and technological developments suggest that the Commonwealth will again be pressed to consider the enactment of a scheme to guarantee universally either a minimum income or a job opportunity. In this article, Mr Arup examines the debate over the efficacy of the two guarantees, concentrating upon their structural problems and operational difficulties as these result from doubts about constitutional power. He concludes that support for either guarantee lies in a combination of heads of constitutional power.

In a recent article in this Review Mr Murray-Jones considered the state of the law of inconsistency. Mr Rumble takes issue with some of Mr Murray-Jones' propositions and, in particular, with his interpretation of some of the leading High Court judgments.

Some of the most troubling statements about inconsistency that have emanated from the High Court have been related to the problem of persons who commit both Commonwealth and State offences. This article considers how the provisions of the Crimes Act, the Acts Interpretation Act, the Judiciary Act and the Commonwealth Prisoners Act interact in such circumstances.

The article also offers an analysis of the nature of inconsistency. The basic proposition of the analysis is that, no matter how many different guidelines are developed to indicate the presence of inconsistency, ultimately there is only one category of inconsistency.

Several recent cases in Australia have raised once again the recurrent historical problem of marriages of convenience. A “marriage of convenience”, or “sham marriage”, or “limited purpose marriage” occurs when a man and a woman enter a full status legal marriage and yet at that time one or both of them do not intend to fulfil some or all of the important legal and social duties culturally expected of a normal marriage. That is, although the parties consent to the ceremony or commencement of the marriage, they do not fully consent to its cultural and legal functions. Examples include marriages where at the time of the ceremony one or both parties have reservations about sexual intercourse, cohabitation, procreation, or intend to marry solely or predominantly for the purposes of satisfying immigration or emigration laws, acquiring money, Tertiary Education Assistance Scheme grants or minimising taxation.

Administrative law — Administrative Appeals Tribunal — Function of Tribunal in relation to ministerial policy — Application of ministerial policy — Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth)

Constitutional law — Australian Security Intelligence Organization — Executive power in relation to collection of information in the interests of security — Constitutional law — Constitution s. 116 — No religious test shall be required as a qualification for any office or public trust under the Commonwealth