Reverting to the Delegate as head of government doesn't seem like a good idea, for the reasons already cited by others. That wouldn't really be a change, anyway, so much as a reversion to the longtime status quo that was only recently changed (recently in the grand scheme of things, in any event).

A Cabinet appointed by the Prime Minister is neither necessarily good nor necessarily bad. I'm sure we've all seen examples of appointed cabinets elsewhere working well, as well as examples of appointed cabinets not working well. I'm not sure what problem(s) that change would solve though. If your contention is that the Cabinet is too inactive, an appointed Cabinet could be just as or even more inactive, as appointed Ministers are often less directly accountable to the public. There is also the possibility of appointments based on friendship with and loyalty to the Prime Minister, rather than based on merit or the quality of a platform agenda. I should note that this is a hypothetical problem, not one I think would be an actual problem with the current Prime Minister.

Change for the sake of change is rarely a good idea. The changes that have been made to TSP's government were significant, implemented at a relatively rapid pace, and adopted fairly recently when you look at the grand scheme of things and how long this region's government has existed. It doesn't seem prudent to make major changes so soon after major changes were just made, based on perceived problems that not everyone agrees are actual problems.

Modest legal clarification of the role of the Prime Minister may be prudent. I could see a Prime Minister being uncertain, under current law, in regard to how much is too much, e.g., whether setting an agenda for the Cabinet is overstepping his legal authority.