2016] The Prevention and Reduction of Statelessness in Australia 499 required to mount judicial proceedings are considerable; and judicial review (as opposed to merits review) is constrained.263 It has recently been reported that a Citizenship Loss Board has been created within the executive to assist the Minister to assess cases of revocation pursuant to the Allegiance to Australia Act.264 However, the Board is not established, constituted or regulated by statute. As George Williams has observed, neither the membership of the Board nor its proposed procedure has been published, and it appears that the procedure will be a closed one that will not accord procedural fairness to applicants.265 There is an interesting question whether the High Court’s decision in Plaintiff M61/2010E v Commonwealth266 would dictate that the rules of procedural fairness need apply to the Citizenship Loss Board, given that that case also involved a so-called non-statutory decision-making body established in order to assist the Minister to decide whether or not to exercise a discretion.267 The 263 The Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights has noted that the procedural rights concerning a fair hearing are seriously compromised by the constructive renunciation provisions described above: Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, above n 217, 59--67 [2.161]--[2.210]. In terms of judicial review pursuant to s 75 of the Australian Constitution, the Committee explained that ‘judicial review is not sufficient to fulfil the international standard required of ‘‘effective review’’, where it is only available on a number of restricted grounds of review that do not relate to whether that decision was the correct or preferable decision’: at 62 [2.177]. This issue was also the subject of many submissions to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security’s inquiry: see Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, above n 188, 55--6 [4.77], 147 [7.76], 149 [7.85]--[7.86]. 264 Santilla Chingaipe, ‘What is the Citizenship Loss Board and How Will It Work?’, SBS News (online), 14 April 2016 <http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2016/04/14/what-citizenshiploss-board-and-how-will-it-work>. 265 George Williams, ‘Stripping of Citizenship a Loss in More Ways than One’, The Age (online), 17 April 2016 <http://www.theage.com.au/comment/stripping-of-citizenship-a-loss-inmore-ways-than-one-20160417-go87as.html>. We note that a freedom of information request by The Guardian newspaper elicited the minutes of the Citizenship Loss Board’s meeting on 23 February 2016, revealing that the Board is chaired by the Department of Immigration and Border Protection and composed of legal representatives from a range of government departments and agencies: Citizenship Loss Board, Draft Minutes of Meeting (Department of Immigration and Border Protection (Cth), Canberra, 23 February 2016). See also Paul Farrell, ‘Government Officials of Secretive Citizenship Loss Board Named’, The Guardian (online), 22 July 2016 <https://www.theguardian.com/australianews/2016/jul/22/government-members-of-secretive-citizenship-loss-board-named>. 266 (2010) 243 CLR 319. 267 Ibid 336 [15], 343 [41]--[43]. However, we note that the minutes of the first meeting of the Citizenship Loss Board suggest that ‘the Board is a inter-departmental committee providing advice, not a decision-making body’: Citizenship Loss Board, Draft Minutes of Meeting (Department of Immigration and Border Protection (Cth), Canberra, 23 February 2016),