This article examines the Foreign Antitrust Judgments (Restriction of Enforcement) Act 1979 (Cth) (“the 1979 Act“). It was the second legislative response of the Australian Government to steps taken by the Westinghouse Electric Corporation (“Westinghouse“) in its international uranium cartel antitrust suit in the United States District Court in Chicago. That suit and other legislation attributable to the uranium cartel which operated between 1972 and 1975 proceeded for more than four years and, until a recent spate of settlements mentioned later in the article, had been expected to continue well into the 1980s. At the outset it is necessary to say something of the events which provoked the District Court suit and related litigation.

In September 1975 Westinghouse announced in the United States that it was unable to fulfil its contractual obligations for the supply of uranium oxide (U3O2). Westinghouse's primary involvement in the nuclear energy industry is as a manufacturer of nuclear power plants (“reactors“) and not as a uranium miner. In the late 1960s reactor sales soared and Westinghouse offered electric utilities low price reactor fuel over long terms as an inducement to capture reactor sales.

In response to a recommendation of the Joint Select Committee on the Family Law Act, the Government has announced the appointment of an ad hoc committee of enquiry to study the implications of introducing a full matrimonial property regime in Australia. This committee will recommend whether there should be a fixed set of rules determining the ownership of property of married persons. Such a set of rules could apply during the subsistence of marriage, upon dissolution of marriage or both. Adoption of a set of rules governing property rights during the subsistence of marriage would displace the ordinary law of property and the special doctrines developed by the courts of equity as applicable to married persons. Adoption of fixed rules governing re-allocation of property upon dissolution of marriage would displace the discretionary system as applied by courts exercising jurisdiction under the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth). Since there is a world-wide movement away from fixed rules determining property interests during marriage, legislation to this effect is unlikely.

Tribunals and specialised courts with inquisitorial powers are now fairly common in Australia and appellate courts have begun to insist that in certain circumstances the powers be used. By “inquisitorial powers” is meant powers which enable the adjudicator to take the initiative in eliciting evidence and formulating legal arguments, and to control the way in which a case is presented. The Australian Committee on Administrative Discretions believed that it would be appropriate for their proposed administrative review tribunal to make use of an “investigative or inquisitorial process in most cases”. There have even been calls for the use of some inquisitorial procedures in ordinary courts of law. A radical change in the ordinary courts seems at present to be impracticable. On the other hand the Administrative Appeals Tribunal is still in a position to set its own pattern of development. It has been given almost carte blanche as to procedure and some wide inquisitorial powers. For the last six years it has been experimenting with the use of these powers, and some of its pre-trial procedures have already aroused interest. The Federal Court in its jurisdiction under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (Cth) is given power to exert far greater control over the conduct of proceedings than is normal in an adversary system.

Erskine May's Parliamentary Practice, the procedural bible of the House of Commons, is about to lose its place as the inevitable reference guide for Australian parliamentarians. At the end of 1981 the House of Representatives Practice was published, joining the long established Australian Senate Practice to provide the first complete Australian guide to the procedures of both Houses of the Commonwealth Parliament. The old editions of May's Parliamentary Practice, reciting the procedure of the Commons at the turn of the century, have some residual importance for the Federal Parliament (of which more later) but that too is likely to disappear. Within a few years, May's will disappear from the shelves of parliamentary clerks in Canberra and be relegated to library shelves for the benefit of students of British politics and parliamentary affairs.

The Australian replacement of May's has been a long time coming. Mr JR Odgers produced his first edition of Australian Senate Practice in 1953. Revised editions followed fairly regularly, the fourth appearing in 1972 and the fifth (and still current) edition in 1976. But it was not until 1975 that the House of Representatives decided that it was proper to begin working on an equivalent and to put on record some of its answers to Mr Odgers.