Statutory interpretation in Australia and New Zealand is very similar. In both places, the process is based on text, purpose, and context1 – the systems differ little in substance2. Both require evolving meanings3, prospectivity4, coherence and workability5, and consistency with international obligations6. Each permits limited remediation7. New Zealand requires consistency with the Treaty of Waitangi8, Australia with its Constitution. New Zealand may insist on more allegiance to fundamental values when reading statutes9. On both sides of the ditch, however, mapping the interpretation process confirms its integrity as an autonomous and predictable discipline10. While each system may differ at the margins (often by reason of differing constitutional arrangements), there is substantial agreement at the centre. Each system reflects rule-of-law values, and each may learn from the other.
Ross Carter – Parliamentary Counsel NZ Parliamentary Counsel Office ross.carter@pco.govt.nz
See here for the official PDF of Episode 105 of interpretation NOW!
Thanks – Ross Carter, Oliver Hood, Dennis Pearce & Jeremy Francis.
Footnotes:
1 Fonterra [2007] NZSC 36 [22], Allied Concrete [2015] NZSC 7 [55].
2 As Carter Burrows and Carter – Statute Law in New Zealand illustrates.
3 Norman [2021] NZCA 78 [37], TUV [2022] NZSC 69 [94].
4 D [2021] NZSC 2 [77, 82, 159], G [2023] NZCA 93 [6, 112].
5 Northern Milk [1988] 1 NZLR 530 (537), cf SAS Trustee [2018] HCA 55 [20].
6 Fitzgerald [2021] NZSC 131 [116, 225], cf Jacobs Group [2023] HCA 23 [22].
7 Frucor [2001] NZCA 109 [28-31], Mainzeal [2023] NZSC 113 [158-164].
8 Trans-Tasman [2021] NZSC 127 [149-151], Whakatōhea [2023] NZCA 504.
9 Hudson [2023] NZCA 653 [51-54], cf Rishworth [2012] NZLRev 321 (346–351).
10 Keith (OP No 19, NZCPL, 2009) (2), Kirby (2003) 24(2) Statute LR 95 (110).