Interpretation of Section 4 of Good Food Act 2017 (Cth)

Running head: FOOD SAFETY LAW
FOOD SAFETY LAW
Name of the Student
Name of the University
Author Note

FOOD SAFETY LAW1
Issue
Whether section 4 of the Good Food Act 2017 (Cth) has been breached by KK Ltd,
Madge and Julian.
Rule
Interpretation of a statute is known as the process in which interpretation is made by a
court of the statutes that are enacted by the Parliament for the bringing out of the meanings of its
applicability in relevant situations and the objectives. Even after the Act’s provisions are being
laid down in a form of writing, the interpretation process is considered to be of complex. As
stated by Pearce and Geddes1, Legislation is treated as the communication instrument and
interpretation of legislation is does not include common senses. However, Hon M Kirby AC2
opined that the interpretation of legislation is not to be treated as science but as an art. There are
various rules regarding the interpretation of statutes, which are:
 LITERAL RULE: The fundamental rule of interpretation is the literal rule, where the
direct extracted meaning of the statute’s language has been implied by the interpretation.
The rule’s foundation is the political impartiality where the legislation is being
interpreted by the judiciary in the literature word’s direct meaning without getting
involved into any further details. However, the rule emphasizes the fact that the making
of law is not the duty of the judiciary but is the Parliament’s duty. The judiciary’s duty is
to apply the law within the meaning of the law and imparting decisions in disputes3.
1 DC Pearce and RS Geddes, Statutory Interpretation in Australia (LexisNexis Butterworths, 2014) 146.
2 Kirby Michael, ‘Statutory Interpretation: The Meaning of Meaning’ (2011) Melbourne University Law Review 3.
3 Nygh, Peter E and Peter Butt, "Butterworths concise Australian legal dictionary . Sydney." (New South Wales:
Lexis Nexis Butterworths, 2004).

FOOD SAFETY LAW2
 GOLDEN RULE: It has been stated by this rule that there has not been any existence of
ambiguity in this case, and no decision results in the contradicting of the legislation’s
language, the law’s literal meaning needs to be adhered for bringing out the legislation’s
meaning in the literal sense4. As per this rule, no matter how discretionary the decision
would be, the interpretation would be according to the statute’s literal meaning until and
unless ambiguity has been found in the legislation’s literature.
 MISCHIEF RULE: The English Courts mostly apply this rule where the words of
ambiguity nature are being construed in detecting the defect in laws which are existing
and remedies are implied for bringing out the statute’s meaning in its objective’s best
interest5. It is the judiciary’s duty of finding the loopholes of the legislation and providing
remedy against such.
 PURPOSE RULE: Whenever an ambiguity has been found in legislation’s literal
approach, the application of this rule is made for bringing out the statute’s objectives or
purposes for interpreting the same as a whole6.
A provision has been contained by the Western Australia, under section 18 and 19 of the
Interpretation Act 1984 (WA)7, as the interpretation of the provision has been made for the
purpose of the preferred legislation upon the construed provision that has not promoted the
legislation’s purpose. The Acts Interpretation Act 1901 (Cth) under section 15AA (1)8 broadly
specifies the same.
4 Id.
5 Id.
6 Id.
7 Interpretation Act 1984 (WA).
8 S. 15AA(1) Acts Interpretation Act 1901 (Cth).