Rejecting the doctrine of strict constructionism, Kirby declared that:"Clearly it would be wrong for a judge to set out in pursuit of a personal policy agenda and hang the law. Yet it would also be wrong, and futile, for a judge to pretend that the solutions to all of the complex problems of the law today, unresolved by incontestably clear and applicable texts, can be answered by the application of nothing more than purely verbal reasoning and strict logic to words written by judges in earlier times about the problems they then faced... contrary to myth, judges do more than simply apply law. They have a role in making it and always have."These lectures sparked a debate in the Australian media, echoing an ongoing debate in the United States, as to whether judges have the right to interpret the law in the light of its intent and considerations of natural law or whether judges should (or can) simply follow the letter of the law, leaving questions of its intent and underlying principles to elected representatives.