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; Please note that the following scenario andAct arectitious. Assume that earlier this year the Western Australian Parliament passed the Industrial Development Act 2016 ('the Act') which set up an administrative structure in terms of which all the normal planning and development Controls can be bypassed. In her second reading speech the Minister stated that the Act \"Will encourage industrial development in WA, by making provision for development approval processes that are more efcient, less time consuming and more predictable than the usual planning and development procedures\". The Act 3 5 provides that where the relevant Minister \"is satised that a major industrial development if. implemented would be of signicant benet to the State, he or she may decide to apply the procedures set out in this Act\". Where such a decision is made, the Act 5 6 then excludes all the normal planning and development procedures, including a requirement for an Environmental Impact Assessment ('EIA') of the proposed development. Instead of the usual procedures the Act 3 7 provides for a single hearing by a statutory Board constituted under the Act, called the Industrial Development Board ('the Board'). The Act 5 8(a) provides that the Board shall consist of at least ve members appointed by the Minister. The Minister is also given the power s 803) to appoint further members from time to time should he or shedeem it necessary. The Act 3 9 provides that at least ve members of the Board shall sit and decide matters referred to the Board. The Board is granted power by the Acts 10 to hear proposals for and objections to any proposed major industrial development, after such hearing the Board is to report to the Minister with recommendations on the development. The Act 5 11 then provides that the Minister \"shall consider the report and may thereaer in his or her discretion decide whether or not tolapprove the development\". Where such approval is granted, the Act 5 12 excludes all other planning and development controls. Pursuant to this legislation, Reecyc Corporation ('Reecyc'), applied to the State Government for approval to develop a large industrial-waste recycling plant in an area north of Perth. On receipt of the proposal, the relevant Minister issued a press statement praising the prOposal and saying that \"It promised much for the industrial and economic development in the State\". The Minister also stated that \"The circumstances surrounding this proposal demonstrate just why it is necessary to have legislation such as the Industrial Development Act to fast-track major proposals. She said, without the administrative capacity to approve the Reecyc proposal quickly, WA may lose the project, and all the economic benets that go with it, to South Australia\". Two days after the press release, the Minister announced her decision to appoint an Industrial Development Board of ve members, to hear the proposal and any objections to the development. You are consulted by a group of residents and property owners whose properties are adjacent to the area of land designated for the proposed development. You are instructed that they participated in the public hearings conducted by the Board and were represented by a solicitor. Their solicitor cross-examined the witnesses for Reecyc, and all parties were allowed closing addresses for or against the proposal. The Board then reported to the Minister and you are instructed that the Board recommended that the development be approved under the Act. At no stage were your clients given a copy of the Board's report or given an opportunity to comment on the report. They in fact wrote to the Minister, requesting a copy of the report and a proper opportunity to argue against any recommendations of the Board, but thisrequest was refused. You are further instructed that after receipt of the report from the Board, the Minister commissioned an opinion poll, testing public opinion in relation to the development north of Perth. The results of the poll were, however, not disclosed to your clients or anybody else. The Minister approved the development under the Act, setting only very limited conditions in relation to the development. Your clients have also estabiished that Jack, a son of one of the Board members which conducted the hearing, holds a small parcel of shares in Reecyc, which he acquired 10 years ago. Questions PART A (80%) You should answer both questions in Part A Your clients wish to mount a legal challenge against the approval of the Minister on the basis that they have been denied procedural fairness and require your reasoned advice on each of the following points (you should assume that they would have the necessary standing to mount a challenge): 1. they should have been given a hearing before the Minister took the decision to invoke the provisions of the Act and to appoint a Board in terms of the Act, as this deprived them of their ordinary rights of objection under the existing planning and development controls; 2. the Minister breached the rules of procedural fairness in: i. not disclosing the report of the Board to your clients so as to give them an opportunity to comment thereon before she took her decision; ii. in commissioning and using the opinion poll not disclosed to your clients. Questions - PART B (20%) You should answer only one (1) of the questions in Part B 3. Your clients are also require your reasoned advice on each of the following points regarding apprehended bias (you should continue to assume that they would have the necessary standing to mount a challenge): (a) the Minister's approval is vitiated by bias and prejudice on her part as evidenced by her praising of the project at an early stage (apply the reasonable apprehension of bias test); . (b) the Board's recommendation to the Minister, and consequently the Minister's approval, are invalid by reason of Jack's shareholding in Reecyc (apply the reasonable apprehension of bias test)