Below are two scenarios that raise issues about the the relationship between the exercise of executive powers and their oversight, and foundational concepts studied in Government and Public Law. Please consider the scenarios set out below and answer the related questions. a. In a press conference, Chidinma Ibrahim, a reporter for Guardian Australia, noted recent news stories chronicling the Health Minister's rejection of applications from retail workers working in 'non-essential' retail stores for a determination that they are authorised workers under the Human Biosecurity (Stay at Home Requirements) Order 2020 (Cth). She asked the Prime Minister, Ara Margossian, why the Health Minister had been given such a wide power to limit who could leave their homes to go to work. Mr Margossian admitted that there was little evidence to suggest that retail workers going to work in a workplace where retail customers could only 'click and collect' items was a source of spread of COVID-19. However, he said: 'not only will the Minister receive what she wants in terms of additional powers or additional resources, but more than what she needs or wants'. Explain why this statement is inconsistent with: i. constitutionalism; and ii. TRS Allan's definition of the rule of law.

b. Maya Krishnan lives alone. She is really worried about getting lonely and the impact it will have on her mental health if there is no way for someone to come and visit her at home while the order is in place. She writes to the Commonwealth Ombudsman asking them to conduct a review into the Minister's decision not to include a 'social bubble' in the list of reasonable excuses for leaving your place of residence under Part 3 of the Human Biosecurity (Stay at Home Requirements) Order 2020 (Cth). i. Can the Ombudsman directly review the Minister's decision? Why or why not?

ii. The Ombudsman is limited to making non-binding recommendations for the government to consider. Is this a reflection of political constitutionalism? Why or why not?