BPH - Why PEP11 can be drilled - Part 2, page-9

It's a funny situation, because prior to the 25/10/2022 it was touching the edges of PEP-11 with:
"b. examine and report on the implications arising from the appointments, including on:
i)the functioning of departments of state, Government Business Enterprises and statutory bodies;" https://www.ministriesinquiry.gov.au/publications/terms-reference Because this includes NOPTA (a statutory body, a regulator, administering offshore titles in accordance with the OPGGS act).

But now that Asset Energy has amended their original application (after the Bell Inquiry was initiated), so much so, that it now includes a constitutional argument, this part has a direct impact on BPH's case:
"c. examine and report on the practices and processes which apply to:
i)the appointment of ministers to administer departments of state under section 64 of the Constitution; and
ii)directions that ministers hold certain offices under section 65 of the Constitution;" https://www.ministriesinquiry.gov.au/publications/terms-reference

https://www.comcourts.gov.au/file/Federal/P/WAD106/2022/actions

However, the Bell inquiry's scope is limited, because I would go further to say section 75(v) of the constitution has been highlighted by at least one professor of law as relevant to the former Prime Minister's appointments' validity. And obviously the inquiry does not cover: predetermination, political bias, procedural unfairness, etc etc.

What some shareholders are hoping for is: the inquiry may uncover facts, these not yet known facts may prove i) bias, ii) procedural unfairness, 3) constitutional crisis. 4) predetermination. We just got a massive dose of information from the Economics Legislation Committee on the 10/11/2022 which was eye opening, and highly recommended viewing: https://parlview.aph.gov.au/mediaPlayer.php?videoID=595587&operation_mode=parlview