Hi Guys, I would appreciate your help in explaining to me how to approach Procedural Fairness question (Admin law). A detailed structure would really help me greatly with my studies! :)

PROBLEM SCENARIO NB: The characters, legislation and policies featured in the following scenario are ctitious. There is increasing public concern abOut the risk of brain cancer in Australia following several highly publicized tort cases in the USA. That litigation found a causal link between the development of brain cancer and the electromagnetic radiation emitted by mobile phones and mobiie phone transmitters. The Minister for Health has decided there needs to be an informed, independent investigation of the potential risk to health posed by electromagnetic radiation emitted from mobile devices and transmitters. She used her power under the B1_bli_c Health and Disease Act 2010 (thh) (the Act) to initiate an inquiry. Public Health and Disease Act 2010 {thh) s 3 Object and Purpose of the Act - The protection, promotion and improvement of the Public health of the Australian community. The development of policy and regulation informed by relevant developments in scientic and medical knowledge and research, as well as other expert assessments of factors impacting Public health. 3 19 The Commonwealth Expert Panel on Health and Disease (the Panel) shall advise the Minister on: :1) Matters relating to the protection, promotion and improvement of the Public health and risks posed to the maintenance of Public health. b) Relevant developments in scientic and medical knowledge and research and other expert assessments of factors impacting Public health. 5 20 The Minister for Health may refer to the Expert Panel specic matters concerning Public health for inquiry. a) The Expert Panel inquiry will assess the issues for investigation in the context of established scientic and medical knowledge and research and other relevant expert assessments. b) To the extent that it is practicable to do so, the Expert Panel should adopt a policy of public consultation in relation to any Public health inquiry referred by the Minister. _ . __ . _.1. [Pa g9, s 21 The Expert Panel will establish a multidisciplinary Working Party as necessary to conduct any inquiry referred by the Minister. 3) The Working Party will be convened by a member of the Expert Panel b) Members of the Working Party and will be appointed for their relevant expertise in the subject matter of the inquiry. 7 c) Members of the Working Party may be members of the Expert Panel or be external honorary appointments. 5 22 The Working Party should identify and consult with any interested parties. Consultation will require: a) Publication of a formal notice of the inquiry b) Invitation to all stakeholders and members of the public to make submissions c) The Working Party to consider any submissions received. 8 23 The Expert Panel will, where appropriate, make recommendations to the Minister for: a) The development of policy to support releVant public health measures b) Regulatory measures necessary to address matters of public health concern identied by the inquiry. The Expert Panel established a Working Party at the request of the Minister to inquire into the possible link between disease and the electromagnetic radiation emitted from mobile telephones and mobile telephone transmitters. Professor Harvey, a cancer epidemiologist and member of the Expert Panel, convened the Working Party. All members of the Working Party were appointed for their specialist expertise and on a voluntary and honorary basis. The Working Party was multidisciplinary; it was comprised of several scientists with bio-medical expertise in cancer, a cancer oncologist, an electronics engineer, a health economist and a iawyer. Each member of the Working Party held senior level, full-time positions in their respective fields. The demands of their primary jobs meant that the opportunity for face-to- face meetings at which all members of the Working Party were present was limited. The Working Party relied on the assistance of a small secretariat and research staff provided by the Expert Panel. .2._| P ag e The Inquiry's Terms of Reference: i. Review the relevant scientic evidence linking electromagnetic radiation emitted from mobile telephones and mobile telephone transmitters to disease ii. Estimate the extent and impact of any illness found likely to be due to mobile telephone use and exposure to electromagnetic radiation emitted from mobile telephones and mobile telephone transmitters. iii. Make recommendations to reduce any illness found likely to be due to mobile telephone use and exposure to electromagnetic radiation emitted from mobile telephOnes and mobile telephone transmitters. The Inquiry Process The Working Party published a formal notice of its inquiry and received over 100 submissions, some quite lengthy. The vast volume of material received by the Working Party invited some form of systematisation to make it practically possible for the Working Party to consider each submission. The following approach was adopted in an effort to efciently deal with the material: 0 Preparation of summaries of each submission by research staff - Summaries were made available to all members of the Working Party, with copies of the actual submissions and any supporting material available upon request 0 Individual members were only to focus on material appropriate to their area of expertise - To guarantee the scientic veracity of claims made in submissions, only the peer reviewed scientic material included in any submission was to be considered by the Working Party. Submissions to the Inquiry The Mobile Telephone Service Providers Association of Australia (the Association) made a lengthy submission to the Inquiry. The Association represents all mobile telephone 'service providers' (Teicos) licenced to operate in Australia. The Association disclaimed any demonstrable link between disease such as cancer and mobile telephone use and exposure to electromagnetic radiation emitted from mobile telephones and mobile telephone transmitters. The Association's submission gave particular prominence to a report titled, The Mythical Health Hazard of Mobile Phones: the negligible impact of electromagnetic radiation emitted from mobile telephones and mobile telephone transmitters. The Association commissioned . . ...3-.| 15.21. .g. e the Mythical Health Hazard report 12 months earlier, it was written by a group of scientists employed by a private research consultancy. The report supported its conclusions by reference to a wide range of scientic and nonscientic literature, only some of that literature had been subject to peer review. Copies of the supporting literature were included in the Association's submission. Inquiry Finding and Draft Recommendations _ The Working Party established a demonstrable link betWeen mobile phone use and brain cancer in people with moderate to heavy mobile telephone use. It also found a possible link between cancer in children and their exposure to electromagnetic radiation emitted from mobile telephones and mobile telephone transmitters. The Working Party drafted Recommendations for presentation to the Minister. The Draft Recommendations canvassed a range of regulatory controls on mobile telephone transmission and the design of mobile telephones. It is possible the new controls could ban the sale, hire and use of certain types of mobile telephone devices, as well as limit the coverage of mobile telephone transmitters in areas and circumstances where children are involuntarily exposed to the transmission. The Association makes a request to see the Draft Recommendations. The request was denied by Professor Harvey, on the basis that, \"scrutiny of the Draft Recommendations by parties with 'vested interests' may exacerbate the widespread concern about the potential risk to health of exposure to electromagnetic radiation emitted by mobile phone devices and transmitters. The Association has already had ample opportunity to inform the Inquiry of its position.\" The Draft Recommendations are still to be settled by the Expert Panel and have not yet been presented to the Minister. End of problem scenario. Please turn to the next page for questions Mia g2? 1. Discuss whether the Working Party has denied the Mobile Phone Providers Association procedurally fair hearing. In your answer to PARTA do not discuss: bias or any other grounds of judicial review, jurisdiction, justiciabiliiy, merits review, standing, jurisdictional error orprivative clauses. 3 Professor Harvey, the Convenor of the Working Party, has recently appeared as an expert witness for the plaintiffs in a negligence acon. The plaintiffs are the parents of three primary school children who have each developed brain cancer, which it is alleged was caused by exposure to electromagnetic radiation emitted by the phone towers adjacent to the children's school. The defendants in the action are two Telco's that operate the mobile phone towers. The court has not yet decided the case. Regardless of your answer to Part A [1), is the Expert Panel's Working Party Inquiry and Report tainted by bias? 0 You should only apply the 'reasonable apprehension of bias' lest