[Draft] Charter of the South Pacific

Should the last part of this read “but this list may not be read as to allow limits to the free exercise of other rights.”?

Also, the reading of the rest of the section feels off,since it didn’t start with “Members shall enjoy the right:” or something similar.

Something similar, I’d prefer this to read “Chair of the Assembly” so we have the title of the office clearly listed in the Charter.

“In the event that the Chair is resigns, loses legislator status. . .”

I’d also like to bring up the idea of dropping super majority requirements for constitutional laws, and maintaining the 60% threshold solely for amendments to the Charter.

I have incorporated these suggestions.

I’m not exactly opposed to the idea, but at the same time I think it makes sense to make constitutional laws slightly more difficult to amend. They are constitutional laws, after all. In any case, that would go in the Legislative Procedure Act, which I encourage anyone to draft.

I think leaving constitutional laws and charter amendments at a 60% threshold is fine, but we will need to be conscious of what we label as constitutional law.

1 Like

Can we change this to include composition of moderators, too? Right now, it gives admins the ability to appoint, but nothing said about dismissing.

Administrators have autonomy to conduct their own proceedings and manage the composition of their team the administration and moderation teams, provided that new administrators must secure the approval of a simple majority of the Assembly, and administrators and moderators may be removed by the High Court upon conviction for abuse of powers.

That seems very reasonable to me. I’ve added it to the draft.

I’d like to suggest the following amendment to retain the scope for to either an elected or appointed Cabinet depending on the Elections Act. This would give us some flexibility to change our executive structures depending on circumstances without amending the Charter and would allow a wholly elected cabinet, a wholly appointed cabinet or a cabinet with a mix of elected and appointed ministers. If we choose not to establish any elected ministers the Prime Minister could obviously appoint anyone to any role they think is needed whilst if we do specify an elected minister of Foreign Affairs, Defense, Subversion, etc then the PM would be able to appoint people to additional roles as needed. This would end the strange distinction between ministers and cabinet advisors.

VI. The Executive

  1. The Prime Minister is the head of government of the South Pacific and the leader of the Cabinet, elected in a manner prescribed by law.
  2. The Prime Minister is responsible for establishing and directing policy related to foreign affairs, defence, community development, and any other matter related to the furtherance of regional interests.
  3. The Prime Minister is assisted by a ministers responsible for implementing and executing policy, either elected or appointed in a manner proscribed by law.
  4. Elected ministers hold their offices for the duration of the executive term or until recall, resignation or loss of legislator status.
  5. Appointed ministers serve at the pleasure of the Prime Minister or until recall, resignation or loss of legislator status.
  6. Ministers may appoint and dismiss deputies, and delegate to them the duties of their office, at their own discretion.
  7. The Prime Minister may issue emergency orders to address immediate and pressing issues created by ambiguity or gaps in the law, but any such order will be reversed if the Assembly does not incorporate it into law within a week of its issuance.

That seems like a pretty absurd environment. Either we elect our executive or we let the leader appoint with advice and consent. I don’t understand why we would have any kind of weird hybrid system.

Mr. Chair, I move this Charter to vote.

The motion is recognised and will be brought to a vote 2022-11-12T14:00:00Z.

1 Like