In recent years the Commonwealth Government has passed legislation implementing international conventions on diplomatic and consular relations. Australia now has a legislative framework regulating the grant of privileges and immunities to diplomatic missions, consular posts, international organizations and the personnel of all of them. In this article Mr O'Keefe describes this legislation, explains how it operates and examines the relationship between the various Acts.

Constitutional authority over resources and environmental questions resides principally in the States in Australia, but there are many powers which the Federal Government can develop, either alone or together with the States, in working out national policies in these areas. Although the constitutional issues are important, resolution of land use problems is fundamentally a matter of competition for power and authority within the political system.

Professor Whalan suggests four stages in the development of environmental law: (a) totally resource-oriented statutes with possible overlaps and clashes between separate uses; (b) integration of the separate codes and the introduction into those codes of environmentally oriented protective provisions; (c) the enactment of statutes directed towards a specific environmental problem or problems; and (d) the development of overview bodies with advisory and supervisory functions to which the protective responsibilities may be added.

In these statutory moves towards macro-environmental law in Australia, the Courts have been given a very limited role and it is argued that much of the law is not normative in character but procedural, administrative and discretionary. In very many cases, ultimate control is political rather than judicial.

Section 260 is a general anti-avoidance provision found in the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936. Together with sections 25(1) and 51(1), it is one of the most important sections of the Act. To the “tax planner” section 260 spells anathema: to the Revenue it is an invaluable aid to prevent tax avoidance and preserve tax equity. Judges have tended to differ in their attitudes towards section 260. This article examines the treatment of the section in the hands of the judiciary, its interpretation and misinterpretation. In addition, the article seeks to highlight a significant point, namely, that the alternative to a general anti-avoidance provision is anti-avoidance legislation of a specific nature which would add tremendous complexity to an already complex Act. The plea therefore is that the judiciary should re-assess the situation they have helped bring about before it is too late, and that judicial common sense be substituted for the growing complexity of the Income Tax Assessment Act.