Mason and Deane JJ, in dissent, rejected the notion that functions, such as those granted under s 20 of the "Telecommunications (Interceptions) Act 1979 (Cth)" to provide for the ability of judges to issue telephone taps, could be exercised constitutionally by 'judges' as defined by s 18 of the Act. Mason and Deane JJ were of the opinion that conferring non-judicial functions could not be granted to a Chapter III court without undermining the doctrine in "Boilermaker's Case" and the separation of powers prescribed by the Constitution as 'a safeguard of individual liberty'.