Edelman J uses the term ‘textual fundamentalism’ to describe a mode of interpretation ‘that divorces the words from their context and purpose’1. The term has a long history with scriptural texts. It also resonates with the New Textualism approach to statutes in America2. Textual fundamentalism, notes the judge, drives narrow literalism and the isolation of words – both rejected in our system. Text, context and purpose exist in a ‘symbiotic relationship’, and a court should read provisions ‘with both eyes open to all context, within and outside the legislation’. As Edelman J has noted before, ‘context is, literally, those matters to be considered (simultaneously) together with the text’3. Trying to understand speech without context ‘is like an attempt to understand the meaning of a painting before the paint is applied to the canvas’4 – cf Episode 97.
Gordon Brysland – Tax Counsel Network gordon.brysland@ato.gov.au
See here for the official PDF of Episode 111 of interpretation NOW!
Thanks – Oliver Hood, Matt Freestone, Jeremy Francis, Janhavi Bhandari.
Footnotes:
1 Greylag Goose Leasing v P T Garuda Indonesia Ltd [2024] HCA 21 [107, 114-117].
2 MCI 512 US 218 (235), (2022) 135 Harvard Law Review 890 (910) illustrate.
3 SAS Trustee [2018] HCA 55 [64], cf Compass [2021] QCA 98 [201].
4 Harvey [2024] HCA 1 [106], cf Dharmananda Sliding Doors (2024) 35 PLR 1.