The limitations clause provides guidance on the ways in which human rights can be permissibly limited. This can be relevant to the task of interpreting statutes in a way that is consistent with human rights. A statutory restriction on human rights may be permissible (and therefore consistent with human rights) if it is justified by the limitations clause, for example because it is proportionate the achievement of some other public purpose or the fulfilment of a different, competing human right. The limitations clause will also be relevant in assessing whether decisions or actions of public authorities that limit human rights are permissible. This will be particularly relevant to claims by individuals that their human rights have been breached. Public authorities will need to have regard to the interpretative clause when making decisions or taking action pursuant to statutory authority. More generally, they will need to have regard to the limitations clause in relation to any decision or action that has the potential to impact on human rights. • Interpretive clause An interpretive clause requires courts to interpret legislation, where possible, in a way that is consistent with human rights. At the same time, the interpretive clause must require courts to respect the parliamentary intention underlying the statute – noting that, in a dialogue model, parliamentary intention will prevail, due to the ultimate supremacy of Parliament. The Commission’s approach to the interpretive clause is designed to chart a middle ground between a constitutionally suspect approach that would grant too much interpretive power to the courts to alter the meaning of legislation; and an approach that would simply be akin to the existing common law principle of legality. The approach that received the most support in consultations is the following formulation. 24 All primary and subordinate Commonwealth legislation to be interpreted, so far as is reasonably possible, in a manner that is consistent with human rights. In addition to this clause, the Commission also proposes clarifying that courts cannot declare that Acts of Parliament are invalid on the ground that they are incompatible with human rights. However, a statutory instrument that is not compatible with human rights may be invalid if it goes beyond what is authorised by the empowering Act, read in accordance with the interpretive clause. • Limitations clause A limitations clause describes the circumstances in which human rights may be permissibly limited. Most human rights are not absolute, and circumstances may require that different rights be balanced against important public interests, and against countervailing rights. For example, it may be necessary to balance the right to freedom of expression with the right to privacy; and the right to access information with national security interests. The Commission proposes an overarching limitations clause be included in the Human Rights Act. The limitations clause should be based on the ‘proportionality’ test that is strongly established in international law and applicable to human rights instruments. The wording of the limitations clause should serve a dual purpose of being a straightforward and complete legal test for the courts to apply, and a clear directive to public servants on how to conduct the limitations analysis in their day-today work.