First of all, thank you for your kind words! 
What would be such a situation, in your opinion?
As you know the Charter states in pertinent part that: “The Prime Minister may issue Executive Orders to address an immediate and pressing issue created by ambiguity or holes in a particular law, which will immediately have the effect of law.”
I would only exercise this power if an ambiguity or hole in the law posed an immediate threat to regional security or stability. It is my belief that it is not the executive’s role to fill gaps in inadequately written laws; that responsibility should lie with the legislature. Accordingly, I view this provision as a reserve power to be used with the utmost restraint. If a situation arises where I must legislate by Executive Order, I would first give the Assembly the opportunity to pass the necessary legislation through the ordinary process before resorting to using that power.
Would you support the Assembly establishing a fixed set of executive ministries with defined responsibilities (and, hence, a fixed set of Cabinet ministers that the PM would appoint), or do you prefer the status quo in which the PM is empowered to create and dissolve ministries at will?
No, I believe it is a fundamental principle of the separation of powers that the Prime Minister should have the authority to create and dissolve ministries at will. Cabinet ministers and ministries derive their mandate from the Prime Minister, and thus, the Prime Minister should have broad discretion to establish ministries and appoint or dismiss ministers as needed. This flexibility is essential for the Prime Minister to effectively implement their agenda, which reflects the democratic will of the citizenry. If voters feel that a Prime Minister has abolished valuable ministries or created unnecessary ones, they can express their dissatisfaction through the electoral process.
Do you believe that the PM should have ultimate authority to command the SPSF, or should it be shared with the Admiralty?
Given the critical importance of regional security, I believe it would be prudent to establish a legal framework granting the Prime Minister shared ultimate authority over the command of the SPSF alongside the Admiralty. However, this framework should include a provision allowing the Prime Minister to unilaterally command the SPSF in situations of such urgency that consultation with the Admiralty is not reasonably feasible.
What functions the position of Regional Security Advisor perform that are not currently performed by the MoD, MoFA, or CRS?
The Regional Security Advisor would not be a Cabinet member but rather a personal advisor to me as Prime Minister. This role is particularly important given my limited experience in regional security matters, as it would provide me with a knowledgeable individual to consult. Additionally, the Regional Security Advisor could offer a broader perspective on regional security matters, something that might be overlooked if the MoD, MoFA, and CRS are too narrowly focused on their specific areas of responsibility.
I’m not aware that we have an ambassador program at present. What do you envision being the role of ambassadors and how will you ensure that this new program will not suffer from the same challenges that (as I understand) plagued its predecessors, namely that ambassadors end up doing nothing more than posting updates on foreign regions’ forums and have no substantive involvement in FA?
I will copy a part of my reply to @Griffindor, since the first part of your question addresses the same subject matter:
I envision an active ambassador program, ideally with an ambassador assigned to every region where we maintain an embassy. These ambassadors would be responsible for maintaining regular contact with the Minister of Foreign Affairs (or their equivalent) in their respective regions and reporting back to the Cabinet. This would help ensure that our government remains informed about developments in other regions, including the state of their governments.
In addition to fostering diplomatic ties, I would encourage our ambassadors to be active participants on the RMBs of their assigned regions. They would share information about TSP, such as updates on regional happenings, and serve as a point of contact to answer questions about our region.
Regarding the second part of your question, if an ambassador fails to fulfill their duties, I will dismiss them. That said, I believe there is significant value in posting updates on foreign regions’ forums and RMBs, as sharing news from our region and cultural exchanges are important aspects of an ambassador’s role. Ideally, however, I want my ambassadors to actively engage with the respective region’s Minister of Foreign Affairs and provide regular reports back to me. However, this also hinges somewhat on the political landscape of each region, which would be beyond the scope of my control.
Interesting. It really sounds like you are talking about two different positions here. One is someone to argue cases before the Court on behalf of the government, i.e., a Solicitor General. The other is someone who will advance the government’s legislative agenda, i.e., a whip. I guess this is more of a comment than a question, so I guess my question is—why do you see these two function as logically fitting within the same position?
I agree that these responsibilities could be divided into two separate positions, but given the workload, I believe the Minister of Justice could handle both. To assist with this, the Minister of Justice could appoint a Solicitor General, which I think is an excellent idea. The Solicitor General would serve under the Minister of Justice and could be an ideal position within the cursus honorum that I discussed in my response to @Griffindor I don’t envision the Minister of Justice functioning as a whip. Rather, their role in relation to the Assembly would involve assisting with drafting and advocating for government backed legislation on behalf of my administration.
This has nothing to do with your platform, but I just wanted to state that I entirely take responsibility for the current administration’s lack of Sunshine Act releases. I was—and am—committed to the values of transparency reflected in the Act, but unfortunately RL just got away from me this term. I would be interested in continuing the effort under the next administration, but I certainly understand if the incoming PM would prefer someone who hadn’t proven themselves too busy to meaningfully advance the ball in four months.
From what I’ve seen, you’ve been doing outstanding work in the Assembly, and I was particularly impressed by your briefs in the cases concerning the Resolution to Restore Regional Accountability before the High Court. If I am elected Prime Minister, it would be an honor to collaborate with you on addressing our shared concerns, including matters related to the Sunshine Act.