Individuals and organisations are frequently required to provide public agencies with information about their affairs which they would not wish disseminated to others. Income tax returns represent one illustration. From time to time attempts are made to compel the recipient public agencies to produce such material as evidence in court proceedings. The agency may resist disclosure on the basis of a statutory secrecy provision and/or a claim to Crown privilege. The court is thus required to resolve a conflict between competing public interests: the public interest in the proper administration of justice, and the public interest in the ability of the agency to maintain the confidentiality of information entrusted to it. Professor Nettheim considers a number of decided cases and concludes that, on the whole, the courts have failed to develop a body of principles adequate to deal with the situation. In particular, established Crown privilege doctrines about waiver and secondary evidence are inappropriate in this context. The author puts forward a suggested model of principles and procedures, and notes that similar issues may arise for adjudication under Freedom of Information legislation, particularly in the form of the “reverse FOIA lawsuit”.

Dr Galligan examines the origin of judicial review under the Australian Constitution through an catalysis of the Conventions and Conferences preceding its drafting. A political scientist, he disputes the claim that there is no basis for judicial review in the Australian federal system and argues that the intention of the founders, influenced by Inglis Clark, was to create a powerful American-style court primarily to interpret the Constitution in the resolution of federal disputes. As a case study of the founders' intentions he considers the debates and “solution” of the question of control of Australia's inland river system.

The introduction of Division 2A into Part V of the Trade Practices Act has brought Australia firmly into line with current thinking in the Western world on the liability of manufacturers. The new Division has two aspects. First, it provides consumers, and in some cases their successors in title, with a statutory right to compensation from manufacturers and importers in specified circumstances. Secondly, it grants to sellers of goods a right to indemnity from a manufacturer (or importer) where the latter is liable to compensate the consumer under this Division.

This article examines the likely effect that the introduction of Division 2A will have on the liability of manufacturers and importers of goods. The article commences by outlining the liability of manufacturers in Australia prior to the recent amendments. The operation and scope of Division 2A are then described. The article concludes by focusing on certain practical difficulties and problems of interpretation inherent in the new Division.