Gageler J 7. argument, if sound, would mean that the result in In re Wood was wrong and that the orders made in the proceeding on the reference in that case were without jurisdiction. 26 The argument, in my firm opinion, is misconceived. In re Judiciary and Navigation Acts does not mean that the judicial power of the Commonwealth can only be exercised in respect of a controversy between parties. It does not mean that the subject-matter of an exercise of the judicial power of the Commonwealth cannot be couched in the form of a question. The joint judgment of five Justices in Mellifont v Attorney-General (Q)7 rather explained the critical passage expressing the holding in In re Judiciary and Navigation Acts8 as containing two critical concepts: "One is the notion of an abstract question of law not involving the right or duty of any body or person; the second is the making of a declaration of law divorced or dissociated from any attempt to administer it". 27 Div 2 of Pt XXII exhibits neither of those problematic characteristics. An answer given by the Court of Disputed Returns to a question referred by the Senate respecting the qualifications of a Senator or a vacancy in the Senate is not an answer to an abstract question of law and is not given in circumstances divorced from an attempt to administer the law as stated in that answer. The answer is determinative of the status of the Senator whose qualifications might be in issue, and of the obligations of those having duties to perform to fill such vacancy as might be determined by such an answer to exist. 28 The questions referred to the Court of Disputed Returns by the Senate on 8 November 2016, if answered adversely to Senator Culleton in the manner for which the Attorney-General contended in the hearing before the Full Court, would conclusively determine that, by reason of s 44(ii), there is a vacancy in the Senate for the place for which Senator Culleton was returned. By those answers, the Full Court would go on in the judicial administration of the law to determine that the vacancy should be filled by a special count of the ballot papers and would reserve any directions necessary to give effect to the conduct of that special count to be made by a single Justice. The answers to the questions, and consequential directions, would not be advisory in the sense condemned in In re Judiciary and Navigation Acts, and the contrary is untenable. 29 Section 78B of the Judiciary Act does not, in my opinion, prevent me from dismissing so much of the summons as seeks to give effect to Senator Culleton's attempt to raise the constitutional objection to jurisdiction. French J made the point in Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v C G 7 (1991) 173 CLR 289 at 303; [1991] HCA 53. 8 (1921) 29 CLR 257 at 266-267.