Parliamentary Intention: Deciphering Its Role in Statutory Interpretation in the Australian Constitutional Context.

This article examines the evolving role of parliamentary intention in statutory interpretation within the Australian constitutional context, focusing on recent High Court decisions in *Lacey v. Attorney-General (Qld)* and *Zheng v. Cai*. It critiques the High Court's shift away from viewing objective parliamentary intention as foundational, instead treating it as a judicial construct grounded in constitutional principles relating to the separation of powers and the interaction of government branches. The article argues that over-reliance on interpretive presumptions, such as the principle of legality and the "always-speaking" approach, without adequately considering parliamentary intention informed by text, context, and purpose, leads to unsatisfactory and sometimes contradictory interpretive outcomes. It further contends that recognizing parliamentary intention aligns with constitutional values of democracy and separation of powers by respecting Parliament's role as the democratically elected lawmaker and ensuring courts do not overstep their judicial function. Ultimately, the article advocates for a statutory interpretation methodology that gives due weight to parliamentary intention to faithfully reflect the legislature's deliberated choices.