Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-l4dxg Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-11T00:37:48.664Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The ‘Modern Approach’ to Statutory Interpretation and the Principle of Legality: An Issue of Coherence?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2025

Dan Meagher
Dan Meagher*
Affiliation:
School of Law, Deakin University.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The ‘modern approach’ to interpretation requires that effect be given to the ordinary meaning of a statutory text in its wider context and with reference to its purpose. This article interrogates the interpretive approach used by the High Court in fundamental rights cases to assess its compatibility with this ‘modern approach’. It asks, specifically, whether the strict text-based approach used in these cases (which involves the application of the principle of legality) is sufficient to determine the meaning of ambiguous statutory texts. The argument made is that the coherent application of the ‘modern approach’ requires that this interpretive approach be justified.

Type
Article
Information
Federal Law Review , Volume 46 , Issue 3 , September 2018 , pp. 397 - 425
Copyright
Copyright © 2018 The Australian National University

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

Thanks to the participants at the Australian Society of Legal Philosophy Workshop (Melbourne Law School, July 2017) where an earlier version of the article was presented and to the very helpful comments and suggestions from Matthew Groves and the anonymous referees.

References

1 North Australian Aboriginal Justice Agency Ltd v Northern Territory (2015) 256 CLR 569, 581 (French CJ, Kiefel and Bell JJ) (‘NAAJA’).

2 CIC Insurance Ltd v Bankstown Football Club Ltd (1997) 187 CLR 384, 408 (Brennan CJ, Dawson, Toohey and Gummow JJ) (‘CIC Insurance’).

3 Coco v The Queen (1994) 179 CLR 427, 437 (Mason CJ, Brennan, Gaudron and McHugh JJ).

4 Saeed v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship (2010) 241 CLR 252, 264–5 (‘Saeed’).

5 K & S Lake City Freighters Pty Ltd v Gordon & Gotch Ltd (1985) 157 CLR 309, 315 (‘K & S Lake City Freighters’).

6 Amalgamated Society of Engineers v Adelaide Steamship Co Ltd (1920) 28 CLR 129, 161–2 (‘Engineers’).

7 Ibid.

8 Blaker, Jamie, ‘Is Intentionalist Theory Indispensable to Statutory Interpretation?’ (2017) 43 Monash University Law Review 238, 259Google Scholar; see Address on Retirement of Sir Garfield Barwick as Chief Justice (1981) 148 CLR v, ix.

9 Blaker, above n 8, 259–62.

10 See for golden rule—Grey v Pearson (1857) 10 ER 1216, 1234 (Lord Wensleydale); purposive approach—Heydon's Case (1584) 76 ER 637, 638.

11 Acts Interpretation Amendment Act 2011 (Cth) sch 1.

12 Acts Interpretation Amendment Act 1984 (Cth) s 7.

13 See Geddes, R S, ‘Purpose and Context in Statutory Interpretation’ (2005) 2 University of New England Law Journal 5, 17Google Scholar.

14 See Chief JusticeSpigelman, James AC, ‘The Intolerable Wrestle: Developments in Statutory Interpretation’ (2010) 84 Australian Law Journal 822, 823Google Scholar.

15 Dharmananda, Jacinta, ‘Outside the Text: Inside the Use of Extrinsic Materials in Statutory Interpretation’ (2014) 42 Federal Law Review 333, 340–4CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Stubbs, Matthew, ‘From Foreign Circumstances to First Instance Considerations: Extrinsic Material and the Law of Statutory Interpretation’ (2006) 34 Federal Law Review 103, 114–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

16 See Geddes, above n 13, 13–14.

17 See Justice John Basten, ‘Constitutional Dimensions of Statutory Interpretation’ (Speech delivered at the Constitutional Law Conference, The University of Melbourne School of Law, 24 July 2015).

18 Marbury v Madison (1834) 5 US 137, 177; see Gageler, Stephen, ‘Common Law Statutes and Judicial Legislation’ (2011) 37(2) Monash University Law Review 1Google Scholar; JusticeKenny, Susan, ‘Constitutional Role of the Judge: Statutory Interpretation’ (2014) 1 Judicial College of Victoria Online Journal 4Google Scholar.

19 Bropho v Western Australia (1990) 171 CLR 1, 20 (‘Bropho’). See Stubbs, above n 15, 115.

20 CIC Insurance Ltd (1997) 187 CLR 384, 408 (Brennan CJ, Dawson, Toohey and Gummow JJ) (citations omitted).

21 Ibid.

22 Dharmananda, above n 15, 341.

23 Ibid 342.

24 Ibid 341; see also Geddes, above n 13, 23; Stubbs, above n 15, 115–17.

25 Spigelman, ‘The Intolerable Wrestle: Developments in Statutory Interpretation’, above n 14, 823; see also Blaker, above n 8, 260–2.

26 Project Blue Sky Inc v Australian Broadcasting Authority (1998) 194 CLR 355, 384 (‘Project Blue Sky’) (citations omitted).

27 Ibid, quoting Bennion, Francis, Statutory Interpretation (3rd ed, 1997), 343–4Google Scholar.

28 Jackson QC, DF and Conde, JC, ‘Statutory Interpretation in the First Quarter of the Twenty-First Century’ (2014) 38 Australian Bar Review 168, 176Google Scholar.

29 See Treasurer of Victoria v Tabcorp Holdings Ltd [2014] VSCA 143 [101] (Maxwell P, Beach JA, McMillan AJA).

30 Corporate Affairs Commission (NSW) v Yuill (1991) 172 CLR 319, 340 (Gaudron J).

31 I acknowledge here that this important point was made by Justice Timothy Ginnane of the Supreme Court of Victoria in ‘Method in Statutory Interpretation’ a paper delivered at a Symposium on ‘The Coherence of Statutory Interpretation: Issues and Appraisal’, La Trobe Law School, Melbourne, 18 November 2016; see Stubbs, above n 15, 107–11.

32 Network Ten Pty Ltd v TCN Channel Nine Pty Ltd (2004) 218 CLR 273, 280–1 (‘Network Ten’).

33 Federal Commissioner of Taxation v Jayasinghe (2016) 247 FCR 40, 43 (‘Jayasinghe’).

34 Ibid.

35 Certain Lloyd's Underwriters v Cross (2012) 248 CLR 378, 388–91 (French CJ and Hayne J) (‘Cross’); SZTAL v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (2017) 347 ALR 405, 410 (Kiefel CJ, Nettle and Gordon JJ) (‘SZTAL’).

36 SZTAL (2017) 347 ALR 405, 410 (Kiefel CJ, Nettle and Gordon JJ), 414–45 (Gageler J); see Spigelman, ‘The Intolerable Wrestle: Developments in Statutory Interpretation’, above n 14, 831.

37 See Blaker, above n 8, 262–9; Dharmananda, above n 15, 335, 346, 351–4; Spigelman, above n 14, ‘The Intolerable Wrestle: Developments in Statutory Interpretation’, 827–31.

38 Alcan (NT) Alumina Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Territory Revenue (2009) 239 CLR 27, 46–7 [47] (‘Alcan’).

39 Lacey v Attorney-General (Qld) (2011) 242 CLR 573, 592 (‘Lacey’).

40 (2012) 248 CLR 378, 388–9 (French CJ and Hayne J).

41 Federal Commissioner of Taxation v Consolidated Media Holdings Ltd (2012) 250 CLR 503, 519 (‘Consolidated Media Holdings’) (footnotes omitted); see Thiess v Collector of Customs (2014) 250 CLR 664, 671 [22] (French CJ, Hayne, Kiefel, Gageler and Keane JJ) (‘Thiess’) where this statement of interpretive principle was quoted with approval.

42 Thiess (2014) 250 CLR 664, 671 [22] (French CJ, Hayne, Kiefel, Gageler and Keane JJ).

43 Australian Education Union v Department of Education and Children's Services (2012) 248 CLR 1, 13 (‘Australian Education Union’).

44 Black-Clawson International Ltd v Papierwerke Waldhof-Aschaffenburg AG [1975] AC 591, 613 (Lord Reid).

45 Project Blue Sky (1998) 194 CLR 355, 384 (McHugh, Gummow, Kirby and Hayne JJ); Singh v Commonwealth (2004) 222 CLR 322, 336 (Gleeson CJ).

46 Spigelman, ‘The Intolerable Wrestle: Developments in Statutory Interpretation’, above n 14, 828.

47 Ibid.

48 (2014) 250 CLR 664, 671 [22].

49 Ibid.

50 Consolidated Media Holdings (2012) 250 CLR 503, 519 [39] (French CJ, Hayne, Crennan, Bell and Gageler JJ) (emphasis added).

51 SZTAL (2017) 347 ALR 405, 410 [14].

52 Ibid 414–15 [37] (footnote omitted).

53 Spigelman, ‘The Intolerable Wrestle: Developments in Statutory Interpretation’, above n 14, 828.

54 SZTAL (2017) 347 ALR 405, 415 [39].

55 Ibid 410 [14].

56 Gleeson, Murray, ‘The Meaning of Legislation: Context, Purpose and Respect for Fundamental Rights’ (2009) 20 Public Law Review 26, 29Google Scholar.

57 Nettle, Geoffrey, ‘Justice Hayne's Contribution to Public Law: An Overview’ (2015) 26 Public Law Review 282, 282Google Scholar.

58 Ibid.

59 Lacey (2011) 242 CLR 573, 592 [43] (French CJ, Gummow, Hayne, Crennan, Kiefel and Bell JJ).

60 Zheng v Cai (2009) 239 CLR 446, 455–6 [28] (French CJ, Gummow, Crennan, Kiefel and Bell JJ) (‘Zheng’) (footnote omitted).

61 Basten, John, ‘Choosing Principles of Interpretation’ (2017) 91 Australian Law Journal 881, 882Google Scholar.

62 Hayne, Kenneth, ‘Statutes, Intentions and the Courts: What Place Does the Notion of Intention (Legislative or Parliamentary) Have in Statutory Construction?’ (2013) 13 Oxford University Commonwealth Law Journal 271, 272CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

63 Nettle, above n 57.

64 Hayne, above n 62.

65 See John F Manning, ‘The New Purposivism’ [2011] The Supreme Court Review 113, where similar contemporary interpretive developments on the United States Supreme Court are detailed regarding a re-assertion of the centrality of statutory text within a broadly purposive approach.

66 Nettle, above n 57, 282–3.

67 (2017) 347 ALR 405, 414 [37] (Gageler J).

68 Nettle, above n 57.

69 Specifically, ‘that, in the ordinary case, an opportunity should be given to a person affected by a decision to deal with any adverse information that is “credible, relevant and significant”’: Saeed (2010) 241 CLR 252, 261 (French CJ, Gummow, Hayne, Crennan and Kiefel JJ), quoting Kioa v West (1985) 159 CLR 550, 629 (Brennan J).

70 Migration Act 1958 (Cth) s 51A(1).

71 Saeed (2010) 241 CLR 252, 263 (French CJ, Gummow, Hayne, Crennan and Kiefel JJ).

72 Re Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs; Ex parte Miah (2001) 206 CLR 57 (‘Ex parte Miah’).

73 Commonwealth, Parliamentary Debates, House of Representatives, 13 March 2002, 1106–7, quoted in Saeed (2010) 241 CLR 252, 264 [30] (French CJ, Gummow, Hayne, Crennan and Kiefel JJ).

74 Migration Act 1958 (Cth) s 56.

75 Saeed (2010) 241 CLR 252, 266 (French CJ, Gummow, Hayne, Crennan and Kiefel JJ).

76 Ibid 267–8 [43].

77 Ibid 264–5 [31].

78 Ibid 265 [33].

79 Ibid, citing Catlow v Accident Compensation Commission (1989) 167 CLR 543, 550 (Brennan and Gaudron JJ) (‘Catlow’); see Stubbs, above n 15, 114.

80 Ibid.

81 CIC Insurance (1997) 187 CLR 384, 408 (Brennan CJ, Dawson, Toohey and Gummow JJ).

82 Kenny, above n 18, 11.

83 Spigelman, ‘The Intolerable Wrestle: Developments in Statutory Interpretation’, above n 14, 830.

84 Dharmananda, above n 15, 346.

85 Ibid 346.

86 Ibid 348.

87 Fortress Credit v Fletcher (2015) 254 CLR 489 (‘Fortress Credit’); Tabcorp Holdings Ltd v Victoria (2016) 328 ALR 375 (‘Tabcorp’); Southern Han Breakfast Point Pty Ltd v Lewence Construction Pty Ltd (2016) 340 ALR 193 (‘Southern Han Breakfast Point’).

88 Tabcorp (2016) 328 ALR 375, 379–80, 384–5, 391–3 (French CJ, Kiefel, Bell, Keane and Gordon JJ).

89 Fortress Credit (2015) 254 CLR 489, 500 (French CJ, Hayne, Kiefel, Gageler and Keane JJ); Southern Han Breakfast Point (2016) 340 ALR 193, 204 (Kiefel, Bell, Gageler, Keane and Gordon JJ).

90 Dharmananda, above n 15, 348.

91 Ibid 346.

92 Ibid 349.

93 Catlow (1989) 167 CLR 543, 550 (Brennan and Gaudron JJ).

94 Saeed (2010) 241 CLR 252, 264 (French CJ, Gummow, Hayne, Crennan and Kiefel JJ).

95 Nettle, above n 57.

96 Saeed (2010) 241 CLR 252, 271 (French CJ, Gummow, Hayne, Crennan and Kiefel JJ).

97 Catlow (1989) 167 CLR 543, 550 (Brennan and Gaudron JJ).

98 Re Bolton; Ex parte Beane (1987) 162 CLR 514 (‘Beane’).

99 Ibid 518.

100 Ibid (Mason CJ, Wilson and Dawson JJ).

101 Ibid.

102 Ibid.

103 Ibid 517–18.

104 Ibid 540–3 (Toohey J).

105 Ibid 520 (Mason CJ, Wilson and Dawson JJ), 523 (Brennan J), 532 (Deane J).

106 Ibid 523 (Brennan J).

107 My thanks to one of the referees for this point.

108 (2011) 242 CLR 573.

109 Criminal Code Act 1899 (Qld) s 669A(1).

110 Lacey (2011) 242 CLR 573, 578.

111 Ibid 582 (French CJ, Gummow, Hayne, Crennan, Kiefel and Bell JJ).

112 Ibid 588–91, outlining the reasoning and decision of the Queensland Court of Appeal.

113 Ibid 598 (French CJ, Gummow, Hayne, Crennan, Kiefel and Bell JJ).

114 Ibid (footnote omitted).

115 Ibid.

116 Project Blue Sky (1998) 194 CLR 355, 384.

117 Lacey (2011) 242 CLR 573, 592 (French CJ, Gummow, Hayne, Crennan, Kiefel and Bell JJ).

118 Ibid (footnote omitted).

119 NAAJA (2015) 256 CLR 569.

120 Ibid 581 (French CJ, Kiefel and Bell JJ), 605 (Gageler J).

121 Ibid.

122 Ibid.

123 Ibid 646 (Nettle and Gordon JJ).

124 Ibid s 133AB(2)(a).

125 Ibid s 133AB(3).

126 NAAJA (2015) 256 CLR 569, 645 (Nettle and Gordon JJ).

127 Ibid 589 (French CJ, Kiefel and Bell JJ), citing Northern Territory, Parliamentary Debates, Legislative Assembly, 22 October 2014, Parliamentary Record No 15.

128 Ibid 590 (French CJ, Kiefel and Bell JJ), citing Northern Territory, Parliamentary Debates, Legislative Assembly, 22 October 2014, Parliamentary Record No 15.

129 Ibid 609 (Gageler J), citing Northern Territory, Parliamentary Debates, Legislative Assembly, 26 November 2014.

130 Ibid.

131 Ibid 605–10 (Gageler J).

132 Ibid 582, 588–9, 592 (French CJ, Kiefel and Bell JJ), 605 (Gageler J), 645 (Nettle and Gordon JJ).

133 Ibid 591–2 (French CJ, Kiefel and Bell JJ), 652 (Nettle and Gordon JJ).

134 Ibid 581 (French CJ, Kiefel and Bell JJ).

135 Ibid 645 (Nettle and Gordon JJ).

136 Ibid 650 (Nettle and Gordon JJ).

137 Ibid.

138 Blaker, above n 8, 269.

139 Ibid.

140 Ibid.

141 See SirSales, Philip, ‘A Comparison of the Principle of Legality and Section 3 of the Human Rights Act 1998’ (2009) 125 Law Quarterly Review 598, 605Google Scholar.

142 Katzmann, Robert A, Judging Statutes (Oxford University Press, 2014) 31 (footnote omitted)Google Scholar.

143 NAAJA (2015) 256 CLR 569, 609 (Gageler J), citing Northern Territory, Parliamentary Debates, Legislative Assembly, 26 November 2014.

144 Ibid 646 (Nettle and Gordon JJ), noting that ‘as a matter of syntax, the terms of the stipulation of a period of “up to” four hours in s 133AB(2)(a) are redolent of an outer limit of four hours.’

145 Ibid 608, citing Northern Territory, Parliamentary Debates, Legislative Assembly, 26 November 2014.

146 (1998) 194 CLR 355, 381.

147 That is the import of the proposition made in Consolidated Media Holdings (2012) 250 CLR 503, 519 (French CJ, Hayne, Crennan, Bell and Gageler JJ): ‘“[t]his Court has stated on many occasions that the task of statutory construction must begin with a consideration of the text.” So must the task of statutory construction end.’

148 NAAJA (2015) 256 CLR 569, 647–8 (Nettle and Gordon JJ).

149 Ibid 646.

150 Ibid 647–8 (footnotes omitted).

151 Ibid 648–9.

152 Ibid 649.

153 International Finance Trust Co Ltd v NSW Crime Commission (2009) 240 CLR 319, 349 (French CJ).

154 Sales, above n 141, 605.

155 See Daniels Corporation International Pty Ltd v Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (2002) 213 CLR 543, 522–33 (Gleeson CJ, Gaudron, Gummow and Hayne JJ).

156 Kioa v West (1985) 159 CLR 550, 609 (‘Kioa’).

157 Ibid 610–11.

158 Saeed (2010) 242 CLR 252, 258 (French CJ, Gummow, Hayne, Crennan and Kiefel JJ).

159 Ibid 258–9.

160 Groves, Matthew, ‘Exclusion of the Rules of Natural Justice’ (2013) 39 Monash University Law Review 285, 290Google Scholar.

161 Plaintiff S10/2011 v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship (2012) 246 CLR 636, 666 (‘Plaintiff S10’) (citations omitted).

162 Aronson, Mark, Groves, Matthew and Weeks, Greg, Judicial Review of Administrative Action and Government Liability (Lawbook Co, 6th ed, 2017) 415.Google Scholar

163 Ibid.

164 Ibid.

165 Ibid 416.

166 For detailed non–exhaustive lists of fundamental rights, freedoms and principles at common law see Momcilovic v The Queen (2011) 245 CLR 1, 177–8 (Heydon J) (‘Momcilovic’); Spigelman, James, Statutory Interpretation and Human Rights (University of Queensland Press, 2008) 27–9.Google Scholar

167 See Plaintiff S157/2002 v Commonwealth (2003) 211 CLR 476, 492–4 (Gleeson CJ); Al Kateb v Godwin (2004) 219 CLR 562, 577 (Gleeson CJ); Spigelman, Statutory Interpretation and Human Rights, above n 166, 86–90.

168 Momcilovic (2011) 245 CLR, 1, 47 (French CJ), quoting Allan, TRS, ‘The Common Law as Constitution: Fundamental Rights and First Principles’ in Saunders, Cheryl (ed), Courts of Final Jurisdiction: The Mason Court in Australia (The Federation Press, 1996) 146, 148Google Scholar; see Robert French, ‘Protecting Human Rights Without a Bill of Rights’ (Speech delivered at the John Marshall Law School, Chicago, 26 January 2010) <http://www.hcourt.gov.au/assets/publications/speeches/current-justices/frenchcj/frenchcj26jan10.pdf>.

169 Spigelman, Statutory Interpretation and Human Rights, above n 166, 1–50.

170 Beane (1987) 162 CLR 514, 523 (Brennan J).

171 Electrolux Home Products Pty Ltd v Australian Workers’ Union (2004) 221 CLR 309, 329 (‘Electrolux’).

172 See Meagher, Dan, ‘The Principle of Legality as Clear Statement Rule: Significance and Problems’ (2014) 36 Sydney Law Review 413, 435–9Google Scholar.

173 R v Secretary of State for the Home Department; Ex parte Simms [2000] 2 AC 115, 131 (Lord Hoffman).

174 Hart, Henry M and Sacks, Albert M, The Legal Process: Basic Problems in the Making and Application of Law (N Eskridge, William Jr and Frickey, Philip P, eds) (Foundation Press, 1994) 1376Google Scholar.

175 Spigelman, Statutory Interpretation and Human Rights, above n 166, 89–90.

176 Eskridge, William N Jr and Frickey, Philip P and Garrett, Elizabeth, Legislation and Statutory Interpretation (Foundation Press, 2nd ed, 2006) 352–4Google Scholar.

177 Eskridge, William N Jr and Frickey, Philip P, ‘Quasi-Constitutional Law: Clear Statement Rules as Constitutional Lawmaking’ (1992) 45 Vanderbilt Law Review 593, 612Google Scholar.

178 See Eskridge, William N Jr, ‘Book Review: The New Textualism and Normative Canons’ (2013) 113 Columbia Law Review 531.Google Scholar

179 Eskridge Jr and Frickey, above n 177, 595–6.

180 See Young, Ernest A, ‘The Continuity of Statutory and Constitutional Interpretation: An Essay for Phil Frickey’ (2010) 98 California Law Review 1371, 1380Google Scholar.

181 See Meagher, Dan, ‘Legality’ in Saunders, Cheryl and Stone, Adrienne (eds), The Oxford Handbook of the Australian Constitution (Oxford University Press, 2018) 1084–93Google Scholar.

182 Electrolux (2004) 221 CLR 309, 329.

183 See Spigelman, JJ, ‘Principle of Legality and the Clear Statement Principle’ (2005) 79 Australian Law Journal 769Google Scholar; Meagher, above 174, 415–28.

184 Lee v New South Wales Crime Commission (2013) 251 CLR 196, 310 (Gageler and Keane JJ).

185 Australian Communist Party v Commonwealth (1951) 83 CLR 1, 193 (‘Communist Party case’).

186 Electrolux (2004) 221 CLR 309, 329 (Gleeson CJ).

187 See Lisa Burton Crawford and Patrick Emerton, ‘Statutory Meaning Without Legislative Intention: Defending the High Court's “New Approach” to Statutory Interpretation’ (Paper delivered at workshop in honour of Emeritus Professor Jeffrey Goldsworthy, Melbourne, 18 July 2017); Saunders, Cheryl, ‘Constitutional Dimensions of Statutory Interpretation’ in Connolly, Anthony J and Stewart, Daniel (eds), Public Law in the Age of Statutes: Essays in Honour of Dennis Pearce (Federation Press, 2015) 27–48Google Scholar.

188 Zheng (2009) 239 CLR 446, 455–6 (French CJ, Gummow, Crennan, Kiefel and Bell JJ).

189 Basten, John, ‘Constitutional Dimensions of Statutory Interpretation’ (2018) 25 Australian Journal of Administrative Law (forthcoming)Google Scholar.

190 See Spigelman, Statutory Interpretation and Human Rights, above n 166, 1–50, 86–90.

191 Momcilovic (2011) 245 CLR 1, 47 (French CJ).

192 See Goldsworthy, Jeffrey, Parliamentary Sovereignty: Contemporary Debates (Cambridge University Press, 2010) 311CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Meagher, above n 172, 430–1.

193 Finn, Paul, ‘Statutes and the Common Law’ (1992) 22 University of Western Australia Law Review 7, 27Google Scholar.

194 See French, above n 168, 30.

195 Beane (1987) 162 CLR 514, 523 (emphasis added).

196 See Young, above n 180, 1384.

197 NAAJA (2015) 256 CLR 569, 605–6.

198 Ibid 608.

199 Ibid where Gageler J had recourse to what the Attorney-General for the Northern Territory said upon introduction of the relevant Bill into the Legislative Assembly to identify what his Honour said was the ‘true and much broader purpose’ of the statutory provisions at issue.

200 Ibid 605.

201 Ibid, quoting Kumar Katyal, Neal and Schmidt, Thomas P, ‘Active Avoidance: The Modern Supreme Court and Legal Change’ (2015) 128 Harvard Law Review 2109, 2112Google Scholar.

202 Ibid 604–5.

203 See Gageler, Stephen, ‘Legislative Intention’ (2015) 41 Monash University Law Review 1Google Scholar.

204 Ibid 7.

205 Lacey (2011) 242 CLR 573, 592 (French CJ, Gummow, Hayne, Crennan, Kiefel and Bell JJ).

206 Justice Gageler's distinctive interpretive approach in fundamental rights cases was evident also in R v Independent Broad-based Anti-Corruption Commissioner (2016) 256 CLR 459.

207 NAAJA (2015) 256 CLR 569, 581 (French CJ, Kiefel and Bell JJ).

208 CIC Insurance (1997) 187 CLR 384, 408 (Brennan CJ, Dawson, Toohey and Gummow JJ).