Elected officials and the bias rule

Politicians as a class do not enjoy a good public reputation. They are widely regarded as unreliable and untruthful, in largely part because their actions do not match their words. There can be good reasons for politicians to change their mind or resile from earlier public statements, such as a changed of circumstances or the advent of a sudden crisis such as the COVID epidemic. But there are also good reasons why elected officials should honour their prior statements. OA key one is integrity. Public confidence in government politicians and governance will be improved if politicians are seen as reliable and likely to honour their word. RThe requirements of integrity can pull the other way. The bias rule requires against bias has this effect because it requires decision-makers to approach their tasks with an appropriate level of impartiality, but this creates . a tension for politicians. An apprehension of bias will arise if a decision-maker is held to have pre-judged an issue, or does not have a sufficiently open mind. This creates a tension for politicians. The bias rule requires them to approach issues without strongly preconceived views or anything akin to prejudgment, yet making statements and promises about future conduct is the lifeblood of politics. This article examines how the courts have balanced those issues and when applying the bias rule to the decisions of elected officials. The article argues that the bias rule is applied to politicians in these cases in a weak manner that offers no real form of judicial oversight.