The provisions of the Judiciary Act purporting to allow the High Court to hear advisory opinions were invalid (per Knox, Duffy, Powers, Rich and Starke)
The word "matter" in chapter III of the Constitution relates to legal rights or duties currently in dispute. It does not extend to theoretical legal interpretation (per Knox, Duffy, Powers, Rich and Starke)
The court found that the High Court could not issue legal opinions unattached to a specific case. The joint majority judgment stated:[4][5]
But we can find nothing in Chapter III of the Constitution to lend colour to the view that parliament can confer power or jurisdiction upon the High Court to determine abstract questions of law without the right or duty of any body or person being involved.
On the issue of what constituted a matter they said:[6][7][8]
In our opinion there can be no matter within the meaning of s 76 of the Constitution unless there is some immediate right, duty or liability to be established by the determination of the Court.
References
^Helen Irving* "Advisory Opinions, The Rule Of Law, And The Separation Of Powers", Macquarie Law Journal (2004) Vol 4 105
^John M. Williams, "Advisory Opinions: 'A Well-Covered Harbour'", Bond Law Review volume 22 | Issue 3 Article 13 p. 169.
