1. Factual Background
Harry White, a senior officer at the Australian Tax Office (ATO), is challenging the recommendation for his suspension without pay and disciplinary action as outlined in a report by Commissioner Alan Darin, SC. This report resulted from a Royal Commission investigation into confidential tax information leaks facilitated by Joe Brown, a senior partner at the consulting firm CWP, which advised the ATO on tax avoidance. The investigation scrutinized the process of engaging consultants, the enforcement of secrecy provisions, and the potential for prosecuting Joe Brown. Despite being directly implicated in the report's adverse findings and recommendations, Harry was unable to contribute a written statement or review the report due to his mental health condition. Furthermore, Harry has raised concerns about potential bias in the report, suspecting conversations between Commissioner Darin and a journalist, who are known to be long-time friends.

2. The Federal Court’s Jurisdiction to Hear the Application
In order to be satisfied with the threshold requirements for ADJR judicial review, “Decision”, “Of an administrative character” and “Made under an enactment” are necessary (ss 5 and 3 of the ADJR Act).
2.1 Decision 
Is the report’s recommendation regarding Harry White considered a “Decision” for the purpose of judicial review? 
According to s3(2) and ABT v Bond, a decision must be final, operative, and determinative unless the statute specifically provides for the making of a decision; and it must be a substantive determination. Furthermore, s 3(3) includes recommendations within the scope of decisions that can be judicially reviewed.
In this case, the Commissioner's recommendation regarding Harry's suspension and disciplinary action is a substantive determination because the Public Service Commission usually follows the recommendations from a Royal Commission and its recommendation finally and operatively affects Harry's employment status and rights. This is also consistent with the scope of decisions as extended by s3(3) of the ADJR Act. Harry wishes to challenge the recommendation for his suspension without pay and for disciplinary action to be taken against him. The decision was made by Commissioner Alan Darin, SC, as part of the Royal Commission's report and involves the Commonwealth government. The source of power is the Royal Commissions Act 1902 (Cth), specifically section 1A, which authorized the Governor-General to appoint the Commissioner.
Therefore, the recommendation is considered a "decision" for the purposes of judicial review under the ADJR Act.
2.2 Of an administrative character
The process of preparing and submitting the Royal Commission's report, including the formulation of recommendations, is of an administrative nature because it involves the application of statutory powers and affects individual rights and obligations( Federal Airports Corp v Aerolineas Argentinas) 
2.3 Made under an Enactment
Is the recommendation made under an enactment?
According to GU v Tang, the High Court held that this entailed two criteria: (1) the decision had to be expressly or impliedly authorized by the enactment, and (2) the decision itself had to confer, alter, or otherwise affect rights or obligations.
In this case, the Commissioner's decision to recommend Harry's suspension and disciplinary action is expressly authorized by the Royal Commissions Act 1902 (Cth), satisfying the first criterion. Because the recommendation directly affects Harry's employment status and rights, it alters his rights or obligations, satisfying the second criterion.
Therefore, the decision is made under an enactment, fulfilling the requirements for judicial review under the ADJR Act.
2.4 Conclusion 
Therefore, the threshold requirements for ADJR judicial review are satisfied.

3. Standing
Does Harry have standing?
According to s5(1) and s3(4) of the ADJR Act and Argos, an aggrieved person under s 5 of the ADJR Act includes individuals whose economic interests are adversely affected by a decision. In this case, Harry has an economic and financial interests which are directly impacted by the Commissioner's report, leading to his suspension without pay and potential disciplinary actions. 
Therefore, Harry has standing.

4. Ground
4.1 Procedural Fairness (s 5(1)(a))
In order to have procedural fairness, right to a fair hearing and right to an unbiased decision-maker should be satisfied (Kioa v West (1985)).
4.1.1 Type of interests affected & Legitimate Expectations 
According to In Schmidt v Secretary of State for Home Affairs [1969] 1 All ER 904, a legitimate expectation is a reasonable expectation that a legal right or liberty will not be interfered with, or will be received. In this case, Harry had a reasonable expectation of being treated fairly and retaining his position because the disciplinary actions and suspension without pay directly affect Harry's legal rights and liberty. 
4.1.2 Breach of the fair hearing rule 
There is a breach of the hearing rule because Harry was not given adequate prior notice or the opportunity to present his case fully. This is particularly significant as Harry's mental health issues, exacerbated by the hearing stress, were not accommodated, violating procedural fairness principles that require individuals to have a reasonable chance to respond to adverse material(Re MIMA; Ex parte Miah). Also, despite Harry's request for an adjornment due to illness regarding the submission of the written statement, the Commissioner did not grant a adjornment (MIC v Li). These lack of notice and accommodation contravenes the principle that individuals should be informed of the case against them and given an opportunity to address it(VEAL v Minister for Immigration).
4.1.3 Apprehended bias 
According to Ebner v Official Trustee in Bankruptcy, a fair-minded lay observer reasonably apprehend that the judge might not bring an impartial mind to the resolution of the question the judge is required to decide. In this case, the relationship between Commissioner and journalist and the subsequent media coverage could lead a fair-minded observer to doubt the impartiality of the Commissioner's investigation, aligning with the standards of bias. The premature disclosure and the Commissioner's conduct suggests a risk that he did not bring an impartial mind to the inquiry, thus compromising the fairness of the process.
4.1.4 Conclusion
Therefore, there is a breach of procedural fairness.

4.2 Decision not authorized( s5(1)(d) of the ADJR Act)
Act (ADJR Act) s.5(1)(d) involves a three-step analysis:
Step 1: Determine the scope of the Decision Maker's (DM's) power.
In this case, the DM is Commissioner Alan Darin, SC, whose powers are delineated by the Royal Commissions Act 1902 (Cth) and the specific Letters Patent issued for the Royal Commission into the ATO and CWP consultancy. The scope of Darin's power includes investigating the process of engaging consultants, the adequacy of secrecy provisions, and the prospects of prosecuting Joe Brown for leaking confidential information.
Step 2: Consider the nature of the decision actually made.
The decision in question is the recommendation for Harry White to be suspended without pay and disciplined by the Public Service Commission for dereliction of duty and/or malfeasance in public office. This recommendation arises from findings related to the engagement of CWP, enforcement of secrecy provisions, and destruction of documents evidencing potential breaches of those provisions.
Step 3: Compare them to determine if the decision made was within that scope.
The recommendation for disciplinary action against Harry appears to exceed the ancillary nature of the Commissioner's investigative powers. While the Commissioner is authorized to make recommendations based on his findings, recommending specific disciplinary actions, especially suspension without pay, may not complement but rather supplement the statutory scheme outlined for the Royal Commission's conduct. According to Shanahan v Scott (1957) 96 CLR 245, activities that are ancillary in nature must complement, not supplement, the statutory scheme. The direct recommendation for suspension without considering alternative disciplinary measures or the nuances of Harry's involvement and his mental health issues could be viewed as an overreach of the Commissioner's authority under the Royal Commissions Act and the Letters Patent.

Therefore, in this case, because the specific recommendation for Harry White's suspension without pay and disciplinary action may go beyond the investigative and recommendatory scope conferred upon Commissioner Darin by the Royal Commissions Act and the Letters Patent, it could be said that this decision was not authorized by the enactment under which it was purported to be made. 

4.3 Unreasonableness (s5(1) (e) and s5(2)(g) of the ADJR Act)
According to Fares Rural Meat & Livestock Co Pty Ltd v Australian Meat & Livestock Corporation (1990) 19 ALD 731, Justice Gummow found three paradigms of unreasonableness:
The first paradigm involves the capricious selection of one of a number of powers. In this case, Commissioner Alan Darin's decision to refuse Harry additional time to submit his written statement, due to a strict adherence to the submission deadline, could be seen as capricious. This is because it disregards the significant impact of Harry's mental health condition on his ability to participate in the Commission's process, and other options or powers to extend the deadline were not considered or applied.
The second paradigm involves discrimination without justification. In this case, the Report's recommendation for Harry's immediate suspension without pay and discipline appears to discriminate against Harry, particularly when considering that no prosecution of Joe Brown was recommended due to the destruction of documentary evidence. This discrepancy because it implies a harsher treatment towards Harry, who was unable to defend himself adequately, without a clear and justified reason for such differentiation in treatment.
The third paradigm involves the exercise of power by withdrawing an approval or benefit in a manner that was out of proportion to the scope of the power. In this case, the recommendation for Harry's suspension without pay and disciplinary action can be considered disproportionate because it fails to take into account Harry's inability to engage fully with the Commission's process due to his mental health condition. The severe penalty recommended is out of proportion because it does not consider the circumstances leading to Harry's perceived dereliction of duty or malfeasance, including the constraints on his ability to respond to the allegations against him.
5. Remedies
5.1 Interim Relief (Stay of Proceedings (s15 (1) of the ADJR Act)
Harry can use interim relief to halt the implementation of the Commissioner's recommendations pending judicial review. This is crucial to prevent irreparable damage to his reputation and career while the lawfulness of the decision is assessed.
5.2 Quashing the Decision (s16(1)(a) of the ADJR Act)
Harry can seek to have the decision quashed, arguing that it was based on a failure to consider relevant considerations and was unreasonable. This would invalidate the Commissioner's recommendations and remove their legal effect.
5.3 Referring the matter to the decision-maker on conditions(s16(1)(b) of the ADJR Act)
Harry could request that the case be referred back to either the Commissioner or another appropriate decision-maker for reconsideration, ensuring that all relevant factors, including his health condition, are fully considered.
5.4 Declare the right s of the parties(s16(1)(c) of the ADJR Act)
Harry might seek a declaration of the illegality of the decision including breach of procedural fairness in the decision-making process in terms of access to justice.
5.5 Direct the parties to do or to refrain from doing anything to do justice between the parties (s16(1)(d) of the ADJR Act)
This remedy could be used to refrain from proceeding with the administrative process including Public Service Commission to impose suspension without pay and disciplinary action.
6. Conclusion
Harry White's judicial review request emphasizes crucial aspects of administrative law, especially the importance of access to justice. The oversight of his mental health and inadequate response opportunity breach procedural fairness and reasonableness, affecting Harry's right to a fair process. His pursuit of remedies seeks to correct these violations, advocating for a decision-making process that respects individuals' rights and upholds the principles of justice.