High Court ~ ‘Members of Australian Parliaments have a duty to act ‘in the public interest’; they have a ‘fundamental obligation’ to ‘serve’;

Justice Keane reached similar conclusions and quoted28 more fully the statement of Justice Isaacs in The King v. Boston: The fundamental obligation of a member in relation to the Parliament of which he is a constituent unit still subsists as essentially as at any period of our history. That fundamental obligation … is the duty to serve and, in serving, to act with fidelity and with a single-mindedness for the welfare of the community. (emphasis in original)

The judgments in the High Court indicate that Members of Australian Parliaments have a duty to act ‘in the public interest’; that they have a ‘fundamental obligation’ to ‘serve’; that they should act ‘with fidelity with a single-mindedness for the welfare of the community’; that they are obliged ‘to act according to good conscience, uninfluenced by other considerations, especially personal financial considerations’; that they should avoid putting ‘themselves in a position where their duty to the people they represent and their own personal interests may conflict’.

KING V BOSTON

 


If you can spare a few dollars for the creators of this website to continue their research to bring you more great content, any amount, no matter how great or small, would be greatly appreciated.