University Law Assignment: Interpretation of Statute and Good Food Act

This report provides an in-depth analysis of the interpretation of the Good Food Act 2017 (Cth), focusing on the application of various interpretative rules such as the literal, golden, mischief, and purpose rules. It examines the cases of Madge, KK Ltd, and Julian to determine whether they breached section 4 of the Act. The report considers the relevant provisions of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901, including sections 15AA and 15AB, and analyzes ministerial comments to determine the intent behind the legislation. The report concludes that based on the provided facts and applying the appropriate rules of statutory interpretation, none of the accused parties (Madge, KK Ltd, and Julian) have committed a breach of section 4 of the Good Food Act 2017. The analysis includes the definition of 'stale' and the context of food consumption within establishments versus outside of them.

RUNNING HEAD: INTERPRETATION OF STATUTE
INTERPRETATION OF STATUTE
Name of the Student
Name of the University
Author’s Note

1INTERPRETATION OF STATUTE
Issue:
The issue that has to be decided in the present assignment is whether the accused Madge,
KK Ltd and Julian have committed breach of section 4 of the Good Food Act 2017 (Cth).
Relevant law:
Interpretation of Statute refers to the method used by the courts to interpret any statute
that has been enacted in order to analyze its aim, provisions and application in respective
circumstances. The process of interpretation of any legislation by applying the said Act is very
complex and has to be done effectively. Legislation is a tool of communication and its
interpretation does not involve common sense. There are various methods that are followed to
interpret any statute that are as follows:
 Literal rule: this particular rule states that interpretation must be done by
extracting the meaning of the language in the statute directly1. Here the judicial
system has to interpret the words without going into its detail.
 Golden rule: this rule provides that there must be no ambiguity and the literal
meaning of the Act must be extracted2. As per the rule, the interpretation of the
Act must be according to the literal meaning of the legislation unless ambiguity is
present in the literature of the statute.
 Mischief rule: this rule is used mostly in the courts of England where the
ambiguous words if any are present in the Act are followed to find out the defect
1 Harris, Andrew, and Andrew Walker. "Interpretation of ‘Unnatural Death’in Coronial Law: A Review of the
English Legal Process of Decision Making, Statutory Interpretation, and Case Law: The Implications for Medical
Cases and Coronial Consistency." Medical law review 27.1 (2018): 1-31.
2 Anenson, T. Leigh. "Statutory Interpretation, Judicial Discretion, and Equitable Defenses." U. Pitt. L. Rev. 79
(2017): 1.

2INTERPRETATION OF STATUTE
in the current law and also suggest the remedy to extract the meaning of the
legislation to serve its main aim3. It is however the duty of the Judicial system to
find out the loopholes, if any present in the legislation and also to provide
appropriate remedy to nullify such loopholes.
 Purpose rule: if there is any ambiguity found out in the literal approach of the
statute, this rule is used to bring out the aim of the statute for interpreting it as a
whole.
When a statute is to be interpreted, the judge has the main duty to determine the
reason behind its enactment and also to find out whether its purpose is being clearly
mentioned in the Act4. In Australia, Acts Interpretation Act5 enumerates the
provisions needed to interpret any statute or Act. As per section 15 AA of the said
Act, to interpret any Act, the interpretation that will be achieving the object of the Act
in the best possible way must be preferred over other interpretations6.
Further, section 15 AB7 of the said Act states that while interpreting any provision of any
Act, if any of the materials not becoming its segment has the capability to assist in ascertaining
the actual meaning of that provision, importance must be given to that particular material in
order to confirm that the meaning of the provision is the one in the ordinary way or to find out
the meaning when the provision is dull of ambiguity or the ordinary meaning leads to an absurd
result. Further without limiting the scope of subsection 1 of section 15AB, any relevant report
given by the Parliament committee or of either of the House of the Parliament made to the
3 Duffy, James, and John O'Brien. "When interpretation acts require interpretation: Purposive statutory interpretation
and criminal liability in Queensland." UNSWLJ 40 (2017): 952.
4 Dharmananda, Jacinta, and Patricia Lane. "Teaching Statutory Interpretation in Australia: What’s Next?." Statute
Law Review 39.1 (2016): 27-45.
5 Acts Interpretation Act 1901.
6 Acts Interpretation Act 1901, s. 15AA.
7 Acts Interpretation Act 1901, s. 15AB.

3INTERPRETATION OF STATUTE
Parliament or that House must be considered also in order to interpret any provision of the
statute. This has been given in section 15AB (2) (c ) of the said Act.
Application:
In the present case, three cases have been provided that are to be analyzed in the light of
the Good Food Act 2017 (Cth ). This Act came into effect on 28th January of 2017. In the present
case, Madge who is a chef established a soup kitchen located in Rose Bay to help the unfortunate
and homeless people. He opened the soup kitchen on 4th May of 2017. Thus she as well as her
kitchen comes under the ambit of the Good Food Act as she opened the kitchen after the
enactment of the Act and the kitchen is located in Australia. She served her first soup free to the
homeless. She considering sustainability and to help the planet decided to serve food which has
crossed ‘the best use by’ date as otherwise she will have to dispose them. Here Madge is not
liable under section 4 as she was not serving food that is adulterated, stale, spoilt or
contaminated. Here though the object of the Good Food Act is ensuring people eat good food
without endangering their health and focusing on quality as well as freshness, during enactment
of the Act, the Minister of Food of the House of Representatives added that “This bill is designed
to ensure that unnecessary food waste is eliminated – food
should only be thrown out where it is clear that it will cause poor health
outcomes. For example, if food is out of date yet safe to eat then it may be
served.” Thus as per section 15AB (2) (c ) of the Acts Interpretation Act 19018, this comment
made by the Minister must be considered. Hence, food served by Madge though passed its ‘best
use by’ date, yet it can be considered safe since canned food usually do not expire in spite of
being stamped with date. Here though the date is passed, still it is not stale because according to
8 Acts Interpretation Act 1901, s. 15AB (2)c.

4INTERPRETATION OF STATUTE
definitions given in section 2 of the Good Food Act, stale includes ‘where food is substandard
due to poor packaging’. Thus Madge is not liable under the Good Food Act.
Madge got her canned goods to be used in her kitchen from KK Ltd located in Victoria.
Thus, this donor also comes within purview of Good Food Act as it is located in Australia. KK
Ltd got expert advice that canned goods can be considered safe since canned food usually do not
expire in spite of being stamped with date. However, KK ltd being the supplier of canned food
does not come under the Good Food Act as this Act focusses on regulation of “freshness and
quality of food prepared by restaurants in Australia” as given in section 1. Further section 3 that
states the objects enumerates that “the object of this legislation is to ensure that citizens and
visitors eat good food in all eating establishments”. Hence, KK ltd being only supplier and not an
eating establishment does not come under the purview of the said Act. Hence he is not liable
under section 4 by following the literal rule.
In the case of Julian, the Good Food Act is not applicable by applying the literal rule. A
customer bought pastry from pastry shop run by Julian and when the customer almost halfway
home bit the pastry discovered aluminium in it. Here though Julien supplied contaminated food
but as per section 4(2), since the food was consumed outside the store, Julian is not liable as
section 4(2) states that section 4 is applicable only when the food is consumed in the
establishments for eating and not when the food is carried away. Thus Julian is not liable under
section 4.
Conclusion:
Thus it can be decided that in the present assignment, the accused Madge, KK Ltd and
Julian have not committed breach of section 4 of the Good Food Act 2017 (Cth).

5INTERPRETATION OF STATUTE

6INTERPRETATION OF STATUTE
References:
Books and Journals:
Anenson, T. Leigh. "Statutory Interpretation, Judicial Discretion, and Equitable Defenses." U.
Pitt. L. Rev. 79 (2017): 1.
Dharmananda, Jacinta, and Patricia Lane. "Teaching Statutory Interpretation in Australia: What’s
Next?." Statute Law Review 39.1 (2016): 27-45.
Duffy, James, and John O'Brien. "When interpretation acts require interpretation: Purposive
statutory interpretation and criminal liability in Queensland." UNSWLJ 40 (2017): 952.
Harris, Andrew, and Andrew Walker. "Interpretation of ‘Unnatural Death’in Coronial Law: A
Review of the English Legal Process of Decision Making, Statutory Interpretation, and Case
Law: The Implications for Medical Cases and Coronial Consistency." Medical law review 27.1
(2018): 1-31.
Legislation:
Acts Interpretation Act 1901.