Statutory Interpretation (also known as 'Legislative Interpretation') is the reading and understanding of Acts, Bills or other official law documents made by Parliament. In short summary: - It is important to know **how** to read legislation; and - You must ensure not to **misconstrue** meaning from legislation. # Context Context of an Act is the beginning of understanding Legislation. The majority of Acts first section, Section 1, will contain the 'purpose' of the Act. For example, the Family Violence Protection Act Section 1: >[!QUOTE] Section 1 - FVPA 2008 >The purpose of this Act is to- >(a) maximise safety for children and adults who have experienced family violence; and >(b) prevent and reduce family violence to the greatest extent possible; and >(c) promote the accountability of perpetrator of family violence for their actions. When reading the Family Violence Protection Act, keeping these three principles in mind assists the reader in interpreting what a section might mean if it is not clearly apparent. ## An Example of Context A good example of this was a question I wanted to answer; what constitutes a contravention of a family violence order's clause of not being allowed to publish anything about the protected person? This question came up when an AFM emailed a local politician complaining about a cross-order situation. The AFM was listed as a Respondent on a cross-order. The AFM was prohibited from publishing any information about the person. The publish clause is not included within Section 81 of the Family Violence Protection Act. There is a definition of "publish" in the Act: >[!QUOTE] Publish as per s.3 FVPA 2008 >"publish" means disseminate or provide access to the public or a section of the public by any means, including by— >(a) publication in a book, newspaper, magazine or other written publication; or >(b) broadcast by radio or television; or >(c) public exhibition; or >(d) broadcast or electronic communication- >and publication must be construed accordingly. Now using statutory interpretation skills becomes important suddenly. The FVPA has numerous section (s. 166 to 169E) about restricting the publication of proceedings, which is *why* this definition exists. My argument would followed that we should then fall back onto the **purpose** of the Act. Does the breach the AFM committed: 1. Jeopardise the safety of any child or AFM? 2. Cause any further family violence? 3. Would charging the Respondent here hold them to account? Arguably, none of those boxes are ticked. Ultimately that same AFM forwarded the email to her daughter, knowing that the daughter would show her Father. She was charged for that email, but not the original one to the politician.