It has been seven years since the Chief Justice of Australia delivered the State of the Australian Judicature address. After some time between drinks, Chief Justice Robert French AC of the High Court of Australia delivered his address to all Chief Justices of Australia and the Chief Justice of the High Court of New Zealand at an event hosted by the Law Council of Australia and Australian Bar Association last Friday.

His speech validated many of the positions and endeavours currently embraced and being undertaken by the Law Council and its constituent bodies. But it was primarily a statement by the Chief Justice of Australia on behalf of the judicature about the national character of our judiciary and our profession.

The judicature holds a very special place in our system of governance. It is the independent judicial arm of government which is seized with the responsibility for the administration of justice. It has no bias, and exists to apply law without fear or favour. It is increasingly necessary for judges to apply skills of statutory interpretation, given the proliferation of law by statute falling from the parliament, but also applies our established common law.

The judicature, headed by the Chief Justice of Australia, deals with issues confronting it through the Council of Chief Justices constituted by the heads of the highest state, territory and federal courts.

In his addres, the Chief Justice spoke of the need for maintenance of the independence of the Australian judiciary, a concept generally understood by the governments and people of Australia, but in respect of which we must be ever vigilant in maintaining the separation of powers. A court is not, we were reminded by the Chief Justice, just another government agency. Indeed it is anything but.

Chief Justice French reminded us that the Council of Chief Justices is devoted to Australia’s cultural diversity and to meeting the challenges facing migrants and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in their dealing with the courts. Of course there is much work to do in that area, and it is an area in which Executive Governments across Australia should assist, as I have argued in this column before. The work of the judicature in this area is through a Judicial Council on Cultural Diversity established in 2014 and chaired by the WA Chief Justice Wayne Martin AC. It’s work is both necessary and laudable.

Another challenge and opportunity referred to by the Chief Justice is that of the globalisation of professional services, including legal services. The opportunity in this area, as I have argued in a previous column, springs from the enormous potential to export the very high standard of law practised in Australia to other jurisdictions, most obviously in the Asia Pacific, China and India.

The rules surrounding, for example, international arbitration and the giving of effect to the many international conventions to which Australia is party, are the building blocks for such internationalisation, and is work currently being undertaken by the Chief Justice himself along with NSW Chief Justice Bathurst AC. Other Australian chief justices and heads of jurisdiction have also been involved, and the Australian legal profession and public should be grateful for the efforts of the judicature in this area. It is and ought to be a collective effort, and there is much to be gained both economically and in the proliferation of the rule of law in our region.

(It also raises a separate and intriguing question as to whether there should be established an Australian Commercial Court to serve such purposes, but that is another discussion, and unrelated to the address.)

The Chief Justice remarked on the success of the establishment of the Australian Legal Profession under what is called the “uniform law”. Until uniform law commenced on 1 July last year, it was each state or territory for itself. However, to day, only NSW and Victoria are party to it. All other states and territories, including South Australia, are yet to sign up. Under the Presidency of David Caruso, the Law Society of South Australia is actively examining the advantages and disadvantages of such a move. Ultimately it a question for our Attorney-General and our Parliament, but it would not be a good look to again be the last to amend our Legal Practitioners Act. There may be some sense in having first movers’ advantage as the next one in after NSW and Victoria. After all in this state we need every economic edge we can find.

The judicature is, like the rest of Australia, concerned about the continuing scourge of family and domestic violence. It is a large problem indeed and under-resourcing of courts, such as the Family Court and Federal Circuit Court (that bear the brunt of sorting out family conflicts) hardly helps. The latter is my view and is not attributable to our Chief Justice, however the under-resourcing of our courts is hardly a secret.

Another topic discussed by the Chief Justice is the appalling rate of incarceration of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. I dealt with that topic in this column following the Law Council Symposium on the topic late last year.

The Chief Justice also referred to a matter dear to my own heart, as readers of this column would have seen, and that is encroachment of parliamentary-made law on our common law rights, freedoms and privileges and the work of the Australian Law Reform Commission in this area. To be clear, the courts cannot be viewed as the defender of the common law. Indeed their role is to interpret statute, and as I have said before, where the parliament is clear about the removal of a right, freedom or privilege, then the courts will find it so. The judicature’s function is not policy. Judges are not politicians. They exist to administer justice.

Nevertheless it is for the body politic to take up the cudgels with our respective parliaments. Parliamentary law, while lawful, may not be good. We elect our politicians, and it is for us to send them a clear message if we are concerned about the continuing erosion of rights, freedoms and privileges. They might even be persuaded to restore a few already gone, but let’s not hold our collective breath.

In relation to this question, should we the Australian people require the establishment of a standing commission to examine, collate and tell the Australian people how are parliaments are treating our rights (my question, not the Chief Justice’s)? My assessment is that half the time the public are either unaware of the continuing erosion of rights, freedoms and privileges, or if they are, they’re being talked into acquiesce by politicians who sell policy under the guise of good law. It can be, as the Chief Justice remarked, “death by a thousand cuts of significant rights and aspects of those freedoms”, and at times, to what ultimate effect if any?

The Chief Justice concluded it was essential that the Australian judicature be seen as impartial, independent and fearless; that it be competent, that it have the confidence of the people, and that it needs to recognise the necessary limitations on its own judicial power and work within that for the betterment of law and the community.

We are very lucky in this nation to enjoy the rule of law in every aspect of our lives, and the state of the judicature is a reflection of just that. Happily the report card is that it is healthy, robust and in touch with the needs of the Australian public.

Morry Bailes is the managing partner at Tindall Gask Bentley Lawyers, treasurer of the Law Council of Australia and is a past president of the Law Society of SA. The opinions expressed in this column are his own.

His column appears every second Thursday.