Tonga looks for a new Prime Minister

Mau fakamalo atu ki he fili melino, pea mo e talamonu ki he kau memipa fo'ou kotoape 'o e Falealea Tonga. Tau toe fekumi aipe kiha palemia poto fakapotopoto, mo'ui faka-molale, pea mo mohu visone ke 'unuaki 'a Tonga kimu'a meihe ngaahi palopalema 'oku tau lolotonga tofanga ai. 'Ikai foki ke kovi ke toe 'oange moha ta'u 4 ke fakalavalava ai ngaahi fokotu'utu'u 'a e palemia lolotonga. Kuo mau lave'i atu 'i he ngaahi 'backgrounds' 'o e kau fakafofonga 'o e kakai, kuo 'i ai 'a e kakai fe'unga ki he PM, pea na'a koha taimi faingamalie 'eni ki he kau fakafofonga 'o e kakai ke fili hanau taha ke PM. 'Oku mau tui ko e fili koia 'oha PM fe'unga ke fakalele 'a e fonua, ko e taha ia 'o e fatongia mahu'inga, fakatou'osi ki he kau fakafofonga 'o e hou'eiki nopele, pea mo e kau fakafofonga 'o e kakai, he 'e makatu'unga ai lelei 'a e fonua meihe taki 'a e palemia.....SAIA

It's interesting to see what the PM election outcome will be. He can choose to have 4 non-elected members in his cabinet - but he must keep cabinet number to less than half of the number of all elected members (not counting the Speaker). i.e. it cannot be more than 12 if my calculation is correct. Electoral candidates who are experts in their field (and are current Govt caretakers ) as part of their election campaign, did suggest that the Cabinet number is too small not only for the number of portfolios there ought to be looked after, but the 17 peoples reps is hardly a large enough pool from which to draw the necessary skills required for Cabinet. This revelation suggests that a PM may be reluctant to recruit all 4 non-elected members which he is entitled to, to address any skills deficiency - because there could be political repercussion for PM there, ie bypassing elected MPs because they are not good enough? From the campaigns that we've heard, there is a general feeling that the current electoral boundaries need to be reviewed; second, something called a Cabinet Manual needs to exist and if it does, how much is it followed? Cabinet responsibility needs strengthened ie annual reports etc need to be submitted on time. Some of the Ministers are behind with their AR by 2 years according to Auditor General. What the House would do about these ministers remains to be seen. Or does the House even realise it has to do these things up or not? With the review of the electoral boundaries of course could come the review of the number representatives. However the overall rank could swell but still without the particular skills a PM would be looking for. But that's democracy, the people will counts no matter the qualification or quality of the people they choose. These are just a few of the things we might see develop in the House in the next four years ... There is a lot of things to be done. But identifying what these things are and what to do about them is the challenge ...TU'ANAKI

One of the things that needs to be looked at is the procedure for VONC (Vote of no confidence). Developing a procedure for VONC was a matter referred to the law committee but was not adequately addressed. One of the important issues was - At what point in the VONC procedure does the non-elected member Not vote? Constitution says that a non-elected Minister "shall not be entitled to vote in any vote of no confidence in the PM" Does the Constitution mean non-elected Minister must refrain during the whole VONC process or only in the final ballot determining the VONC motion? In the last VONC, during the discussions, a number of ballots was made on issues in the VONC motion. The non-elected Ministers did vote on those issues. These issues were incidental to the very question of whether the PM should remain or not! The only vote they refrained from was the final ballot to determine the VONC motion. I would like to think that the Constitution means that the non-elected Minister is to refrain from voting during the whole VONC process, from beginning to end.
Second, in regard the evidence in support of the VONC - what form should these take? In the form of a charge as in a contempt of Parliament case? The weakness in the last VONC was lack of supporting evidence for the motion. Naturally, Govt would not release any documents it saw would be used against them. This led to the arguments going round in circles. So,most of the allegations were no better than just stories or recitals of political aspirations etc etc. which if in a court, these would be thrown out as hearsay. But this is not a Court. We don't need all these strict evidence thing in Parliament for a VONC - or do we? To what extent? How to go about putting these in place in their Standing Orders etc.. is up to Parliament, and these need to be put in place before the time a VONC comes up in 18 months. Otherwise we are heading n for another long winded VONC that we don't have the time and resources for.
Another thing that ought to be looked at is - Sufficient time must be allocated to reviewing regulations. This is particularly crucial because Parliament needs to strengthen its scrutiny of Govt, which is one of its core roles. However, Parliament cannot be blamed for under-performing in this respect - How can Parliament perform when Ministers do not submit their Annual Reports on time? Oral question time is practically non-existent (although the Rules says this is to be done between 1:30pm - 4:30pm on Thursdays); On top of that, insufficient time is dedicated to scrutinising subsidiary legislation that Ministers make. Scrutinising regulations is being squeezed into the program towards the end of the session and is always rushed. Parliament needs to be perform yes, but this in the most part depends on Govt. abiding by their constitutional duty to account to Parliament to enable parliament to examine their performance on the basis of those reports, submissions etc and to hold them to account. Cabinet does not seem to be in a hurry to push Ministers to submit these things! Let alone report to Parliament about a lot of other things. While Cabinet has not fully lived up to their accountability duties, yet it has the audacity to treat the Auditor General's report with such indignation, which has attracted Cabinet international criticisms. A lot of work truly needs to be done to move our democracy forward !.... TU'ANAKI..