Finally, Chief Justice Gleeson emphasised the constitutional role of the Courts in determining such matters as the powers of governments and parliaments, the enforcement of the rights of citizens, and other ways to maintain the institutional structures of our polity. The judicial system provides a forum, parallel to our parliamentary system, for the public discourse by which our society and polity affirms its core values, applies them and adapts them to changing circumstances. The resolution of disputes by the authoritative process of the Courts involves a public affirmation of rights and, often, the social denunciation of improper behaviour. This is a social role, well beyond the resolution of a particular dispute. We do not live in a Confucian society in which overriding value is given to the restoration of social harmony.
Western civilisation recognises the rule of law in which people are entitled to assert their rights.
In many disputes, some parties are plainly in the wrong and we should not shirk from saying so. There are virtues in resolving disputes for the sake of doing so - especially where an ongoing relationship is involved. But there are also virtues in proclaiming that someone is right and someone else is wrong. Nothing I have said should be understood as detracting from the importance of alternative dispute resolution or the judicial contribution to efficiency and expedition. There is no doubt that the involvement of the judiciary in the legal process has changed over recent decades.