Can a state legislature pass a law that directs a state administrative tribunal to determine conclusively the limits of its jurisdiction?

Can a state legislature pass a law that directs a state administrative tribunal to determine conclusively the limits of its jurisdiction?
Order Description
This is an essay topic based upon the Australian administrative law system. As such this essay topic is based upon these laws. Any answer to this topic must be based around the Australian administrative law’s and the system itself, thankyou very much. I can upload the actual assignment instruction sheet as well.
Assignment Questions
Instructions
Students can choose to answer the problem question or choose one of the essay-based questions that have being set or you may, subject to approval, write on a topic of your choice
I do not require detailed referencing for the problem: if you quote from a judgment please cite in full the first time only, all subsequent citations can use abbreviated form and page or paragraph
I do require detailed referencing for the essay, but only require full citation first time you refer to a source; thereafter, use expressions such as ibid. or op cit.

Question 1

The Melbourne Airport Corporation (‘the MAC’) is a statutory corporation established by the Melbourne Airport Corporation Act 2001 (Cth) (‘the MAC Act’). The MAC leases Melbourne Airport from the Commonwealth and operates Melbourne Airport under the lease. Section 3 of the MAC Act provides that ‘the business of the MAC must be managed with the objective of maximising the net returns to its shareholders.’ The Commonwealth is the sole owner of shares in the MAC.
The Commonwealth Airports Act 1996 (‘the Airports Act’) relevantly provides:
Section 3 Objects
The objects of this Act are as follows:
(1) To establish a system for the regulation of airports that has due regard to the interests of airport users and the general community;
(2) To promote the efficient and economic development and operation of airports; and
(3) To implement international obligations relating to airports.
Section 4 Final Master Plans
(1) For each airport there is to be a final master plan.
(2) A final master plan is a draft master plan that has been approved by the Minister.
(3) The purposes of the final master plan for an airport are:
(a) to establish the strategic direction for efficient and economic development at the airport;
(b) to provide for the development of additional uses of the airport site and areas lying adjacent to the boundary of the airport site.
(4) A final master plan remains in force for 5 years.
Section 5 Draft Master Plans
(1) An airport lessee company must give the Minister, in writing, a draft master plan within 6 months of the expiration of a final master plan.
(2) Before giving the Minister a draft master plan, the airport lessee company must on behalf of the Commonwealth:
(a) prepare a preliminary version of its draft master plan;
(b) make a copy of its preliminary version of its draft master plan available to members of the public on its website, in all local newspapers and the Commonwealth Government Gazette; and
(c) invite members of the public to give written comments about the preliminary version of the draft master plan to the airport lessee company within 60 business days after publication of the preliminary version on its website.
Section 6 Review of Draft Master Plan by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal
(1) Applications may be made to the Administrative Appeals Tribunalfor review of decisions made by an airport lessee company under section 5 of this Act.
(2) For the avoidance of doubt a draft master plan is deemed to be a decision for the purposes of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975.
Section 7 Approval of Draft Master Plan by Minister
(1) This section applies if an airport lessee company gives the Minister, in writing, a draft master plan.
(2) The Minister must:
(a) approve the plan; or
(b) refuse to approve the plan.
(3) In deciding whether to approve the plan, the Minister must have regard to the following matters:
(a) the extent to which carrying out the plan would meet the requirements of users of the airport for services and facilities relating to the airport concerned;
(b) the effect that carrying out the plan would be likely to have on the use of land:
(i) within the airport site concerned;
(ii) in areas surrounding the airport.
(4) Subsection (3) does not, by implication, limit the matters to which the Minister may have regard.
(5) The rules of natural justice and procedural fairness do not apply to the Minister’s exercise of his or her powers under this section.
The MAC operates a car park at Melbourne Airport. Last year the MAC earned $100 million in revenue from car parking fees. The fees charged for parking at Melbourne Airport by the MAC have been criticised as excessive and exorbitant by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission.
The Halal Brothers own a 15 hectare property on the main highway leading to the entrance to Melbourne Airport. The boundary of the Halal Brother’s property is separated from the boundary of Melbourne Airport by a small creek.
The Halal Brothers decide to develop their property as a multi storey car park. In July 2009 they obtain permission for the relevant Victorian state and local government authorities to build a 15 storey car park on their property. In August 2009 they erect a sign outside their property directly facing the entrance of Melbourne Airport which reads ‘Opening mid-2010. Cheap Airport Multi Storey Car Park. $15 per day flat rate’.
The current final master plan for Melbourne Airport is due to expire on 1 July 2010. The MAC places a preliminary version of its draft master plan for the period 1 July 2010 to 30 June 2015 on its website in September 2009. The preliminary version makes no reference to proposed restrictions on the use of land surrounding Melbourne Airport, and the Halal Brothers accordingly do not make any submission to the MAC in relation to their proposed car park. In February 2010 the MAC forwards a draft master plan to the Minister. The draft master plan specifies a ban on car parks ‘on areas surrounding Melbourne Airport in order to promote the efficient and economic development and operation of Melbourne Airport’.
In March 2010 the Minister approves the draft master plan forwarded to her by MAC.
On learning of the new final master plan for Melbourne Airport, the Halal Brothers write to the Minister seeking an explanation for the ban on car parks on land surrounding Melbourne Airport. The Minister responds to the Halal Brothers request as follows:
1. In exercising my powers under the Act I approved the draft master plan of the MAC which was drafted after an extensive public consolation process conducted by it.
2. In approving the draft master plan of the MAC I was aware that you have received permission from the relevant state authorities to build a 15 storey car park. Based on international best practice, a building of higher than 10 stories in the vicinity of an international airport poses too great a potential hazard to the flight path of aircraft landing and taking off from the airport. Accordingly, I had no alternative but to ban car parks on areas surrounding Melbourne Airport, inclusive of your proposed 15 storey structure.
3. In addition, I was mindful of Australia’s obligations under UN Convention for the Prevention of Terrorism 2002 which requires signatory states to undertake all reasonable steps to ensure that their airports are protected from terrorist attacks. Given the extensive use of car bombs by terrorists, (e.g. the use of car bombs in the terrorist attack on Heathrow airport in London), I considered that privately run car parks adjacent to the airport site posed too great a terrorist risk.
4. All in all, it seemed me that my approval of the MAC’s draft master plan was the correct decision.
You are asked to provide the Halal Brothers with legal advice as they wish to proceed with building their car park. In the course of your investigations you have received a leaked memorandum from a political advisor to the Minister which states that the Minister has fabricated the concerns about terrorism in order to protect the profitability of the MAC’s car parking operations.
You are to assume that the MAC is an ‘airport lessee company’ for the purposes of the Airports Act, and that the Airports Act makes provision for the operation of an existing final master plan beyond the expiration of 5 years in circumstances where a draft master plan has not yet been approved by the Minister.

In the course of writing your advice you should address the following issues:
Aggregate total of fifty (50) marks:
1.Merits review
(Five [5] marks)
2. Whether the draft master plan and the conduct of the MAC in relation to the making of the draft master plan is judicially reviewable under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977
(Six [6] marks)
3. On the assumption that the draft master plan made by the MAC is not judicially reviewable under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977, the prospects of the Halal Brothers successfully obtaining a judicial review remedy with respect to the draft master plan as made by the MAC
(Nine [9] marks).
4.Judicial review of the Minister’s approval of the draft master plan
(Twenty [20] marks)
5.How, if at all, would your advice differ with respect to seeking judicial review of the draft master plan if the legislation contained a clause to the effect that the ‘Minister’s decision with respect to the draft master plan is final, conclusive and authoritative, and shall not be subject to review or appeal on any ground or in any court or tribunal whatsoever, and the remedy of certiorari is not available.’
(Ten [10] marks)

Question 2

With reference to the Australian Citizenship Amendment (Allegiance to Australia) Bill, Professor Ben Saul argued in his submission to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security “[l]oss of citizenship should not automatically follow from conviction, but require a further administrative decision affording procedural fairness and accompanied by effective judicial review.”

What is the relevance of procedural fairness within Saul’s statement and will judicial review be ineffective in practice within the context of the Australian Government stripping citizenship?

Question 3
Can a state legislature pass a law that directs a state administrative tribunal to determine conclusively the limits of its jurisdiction?
Question 4
Subject to my approval of your choice of topic, you can set your own research-based essay
This can be on Australian administrative law or, if you have trained in or are otherwise familiar with the administrative law of a non-Australian jurisdiction, it can include a comparative aspect