To interpret 'Statutes' (otherwise known as 'Acts') you must be aware of the principles of interpretation. Often words are re-defined in Statutes, so they may have a meaning different from their ordinary meaning.    When searching for the definition of a word, the hierarchy shown below applies. You have to look down the priority list until you find the word definition for which you are seeking.
Priority Order of Word Definitions:

  1. Subsection of the Statute in question,
  2. Definition section of the Statute in question,
  3. Definition section of Statutes having the same subject matter,
  4. Interpretation Act,
  5. New Zealand Law Dictionary,
  6. Oxford Dictionary of Law (British),
  7. Black's Law Dictionary (American),
  8. New Zealand English Dictionary.

Be aware of the phrases "In every enactment", "In this Act", "In this section" or "In this subsection." These phrases allow local re-definitions of words that apply only to the Act, section or subsection so mentioned. These local definitions temporarily override the higher definitions until the end of the Act, section, or subsection is reached.

When used in a definition, the verb "includes" appears to have been adjudicated so as to expand the ordinary definition to include additional scope. Although we may not necessarily agree with this, we have to work with judgements which have been made even though said judgements may be incorrect. What "includes" does is force you to look elsewhere in the Act to find where your fundamental rights are recognised.

As an example, look at the Interpretation Act (herein the 'IA') where the word 'person' is defined to include a corporation as follows: Person includes a corporation sole, a body corporate, and an unincorporated body.   The IA defines the words to be used in all Statutes unless overridden by a local definition within that Statute (according to the hierarchy above). Therefore almost all Statutes really only apply to corporations, such as JOHN DOE, but the Statutes may also apply to natural-persons (with which we don't agree) unless you can discover where the Statues violate your human rights.

For example, in the Income Tax Act, section AA3 (2) states that "the Interpretation Act 1999 also contains definitions of terms, including in particular the term person, that apply to the interpretation and construction of this Act".   The word person is used but not re-defined anywhere differently from the IA, so the definition of the word person from the IA must apply. Therefore the Income Tax Act appears to apply to artificial-persons (but we have to consider natural-persons too, even though we don't agree), thereby allowing the Income Tax Act to apply to natural as well as artificial-persons. Where the Income Tax Act violates the natural-person's fundamental rights and freedoms must be discovered as required.

As another example, look in Black's Law Dictionary (7th Edition) at the general definition of person and you will see the general definition encompasses both natural and artificial:  1. A human being. 2. An entity (such as a corporation) that is recognized by law as having the rights and duties of a human being. 3. The living body of a human being.

From this general definition you will see that person includes both human beings and entities (corporations and other legal entities). However in the IA, person could have been defined as above, but it was not done so, creating doubt as to its interpretation.   A restrictive definition would ensure that most Statutes only apply to CORPORATIONS (artificial-persons) so as not to infringe on the natural-person's fundamental rights and freedoms as outlined in the Magna Charta and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, however it now appears that each natural-person must fight for and protect his human rights as they are no longer protected by the rule of law.   Tyranny is the ultimate result of such corrupt government practices which appear to exist world-wide.