In this article, Mr Justice Kirby surveys two major issues which are before the Australian Law Reform Commission in its Reference to reform defamation laws. First, he suggests that any reform requires revision of procedures to deliver remedies that are apt for damage to reputation. Unless the judicial system can produce speedier redress and more relevant remedies, it is suggested that administrative or other regulation will replace court procedures. Secondly, the article explores the problems arising in the age of mass communications from Australia's eight different systems of defamation law. After weighing the arguments for and against a uniform code, it is suggested that the present disparity promotes confusion, uncertainty, self-censorship and forum shopping. Four methods of achieving a uniform code are explored. These include a return to the common law, reference of power to the Commonwealth by the States, an attempt to secure agreement with the States on uniform laws and the use of a number of Commonwealth powers to support a national Act. As the vehicle chosen will affect the law proposed, it is suggested that the choice can not be delayed.

An objective of all industrial legislation in Australia is that employees victimised because of their participation in the industrial relations system should be able to obtain legal redress. Thus it is sought to give remedies for conduct which Isaacs J. pithily described as amounting to a demand by an employer to an employee of “give up your claim or give up your billet”. Dr O'Donovan exhaustively analyses how the legislation of the Commonwealth and each of the States protects employees from victimisation on account of their union or industrial activities. Differences between the protection and redress given by each piece of legislation are detailed, while the Commonwealth provisions and cases concerning them are highlighted. The article concludes by suggesting matters for reform in this important area of industrial law.

The two investigative techniques introduced by the Environment Protection (Impact of Proposals) Act 1974 are the environmental impact statement and the public inquiry. The policy underlying the use of environmental impact statements was not fully achieved until administrative procedures were created under the Act in 1975. It is probably too early to assess the effectiveness of these procedures. This article is limited therefore to considering their legal nature and possible effect. Two principles emerge from this exercise: the procedures are almost entirely discretionary in nature and the policy of reducing judicial involvement to a minimum is likely to succeed. Protection of the environment is thus a matter for political decision.

Australian electoral legislation provides both a regulatory and punitive scheme designed to overcome electoral corruption and malpractice. Much of this legislation has been based on British models. The article commences by detailing the existing British legislation and its merits. Extended consideration is then given to the sections of Australian electoral legislation dealing with the conduct of candidates for election and their supporters. The former British legislation which has been imitated in various Australian jurisdictions is identified and the effectiveness of the present Australian electoral legislation is compared with that presently in force in the United Kingdom. As well, the principal electoral offences and controls on electoral expenditure in each of the States and the Commonwealth are considered at length. The analysis in this regard is complemented by a schedule to the article comparing the existence of, and penalties for, 48 electoral offences under various electoral statutes in Australia and the United Kingdom. Dr Finn concludes the article by arguing for reform in a number of specified areas of Australian electoral legislation.