This article considers the meaning given to the interpretation provisions of the statutory bills of rights of New Zealand, the United Kingdom, Victoria and the Australian Capital Territory. The article compares the language of each instrument and the interpretations given to that language by the courts of each jurisdiction. Consideration is also given to what might explain the differing approaches to interpretation adopted in each jurisdiction. The article demonstrates that the impact of statutory bills of rights on principles of statutory interpretation can, but will not necessarily, vary enormously and does so for reasons depending very little upon the terms of the interpretation provisions themselves. These issues are significant with respect to the roles of the courts and Parliament in the protection of human rights and will be under consideration by the High Court in the appeal in Momcilovic v The Queen.
|Article number||22 PLR 97|
|Number of pages||14|
|Journal||Public Law Review|
|Publication status||Published - 2011|