Statutory interpretation

The Court recognised the applicability of the Project Blue Sky case principle for resolving apparently conflicting provisions [note: we are not talking here of the Week 9 principle relating to the effect of non-compliance with a statutory provision]:
[30] Where there are apparently conflicting statutory provisions, the Court’s task is to endeavour to resolve or alleviate the conflict, so far as possible, by giving each provision a meaning which best gives effect to the language and purpose of the provisions, while maintaining the unity and harmonious goals of the Act viewed as a whole: Project Blue Sky at 381-382 [69]-[70] (per McHugh, Gummow, Kirby and Hayne JJ). The court must strive to give meaning to every word used in the provisions and ensure, so far as possible, that no clause, sentence or word is rendered superfluous, void or insignificant: Project Blue Sky at 382 [71] referring to Commonwealth v Baume (1905) 2 CLR 405 at 414 (per Griffith CJ).
Show how, in reasoning to a conclusion on the issue of the legal meaning of the unit of inquiry, the Court applied this ‘principle of harmonious construction’.

find the cost of your paper