FedCon question - Re Webster (1 Viewer)

[dissipate]

In Re Webster in relation to the types of contracts s44(v) CC applies
to, Barwick CJ (from the bottom of p278 to the top of p279 (CLR) or para 13 in Austlii) says that the obligations of members of parliament are different from the obligations of local authorities.

Is he saying that regarding members of parliament, they are not
allowed to have executory contracts with the Executive not because of
potential conflicts of interest/duty but because they might be
influenced by financial gain?

And in comparison, local authorities are not allowed to have executory
contracts with the Executive because of conflict of interest/duty
which could lead to misapplication of funds?

Why is Barwick CJ comparing members of parliament with local authorities anyway? s44(v) only applies to potential members of parliament and not a potential local authority officer person?

 

[MoonlightSonata]

In Re Webster in relation to the types of contracts s44(v) CC applies
to, Barwick CJ (from the bottom of p278 to the top of p279 (CLR) or para 13 in Austlii) says that the obligations of members of parliament are different from the obligations of local authorities.

Looking at his judgment, he doesn't say the obligations are different per se. What I think he is saying is that the purpose behind s 44(v) Constitution is not the same purpose as the justification behind the disqualification in local council legislation dealing with disqualification of members. Basically, using an analogy with council legislation of statutory duty or whatever is inappropriate to discover the purpose of s 44(v).

 

[dissipate]

ok thanks for the reply MS!