Episode 55 includes a case where 2 pieces of legislation were not a scheme3. Here the AAT said there was a scheme, comprising national disability & AAT Act provisions4. These were to be construed ‘harmoniously and justly’5 as ‘beneficial legislation’ and to ensure correct and preferable decisions. The meaning of the provisions each informed the other.
Forgie DP disagreed, saying (at ) that, if the provisions were read together, other legislation to which the AAT provision applied would go ‘to form 400 odd schemes’. The deputy president quoted the High Court for the need to have ‘coextensive fields of operation’ and the ‘same subject matter’6.
This case is from Episode 57 of interpretation NOW!
6 Certain Lloyd’s  HCA 56 (at [33-39, 99]) quoted.