Your Honours,

I respectfully seek clarification on whether a distinction exists between appointed deputies (as provided in the Elections Act) and Cabinet advisors and trainees/interns (as provided in the Charter).

Charter, Article VI. The Executive:

Executive Authorities

...

(15) The Prime Minister and Cabinet Ministers may elect to appoint deputies and advisors, who will be considered junior members of the Cabinet, but will not have voting rights in any executive decision.

Elections Act, Article 7. Separation of Powers:

(1) Offices of the Coalition are the Delegate, the Prime Minister and Cabinet Ministers, the Chair of the Assembly, Local Councillors, the Chief Justice, and any of their appointed deputies.

Thank you for your time.

(This post was last modified: 03-10-2019, 02:51 PM by Kris Kringle.)

Reply

Determination of Justiciability

 

Whereas Amerion has requested this Court that a review be conducted on certain issues related to the interpretation of the law with the following question:

 

I respectfully seek clarification on whether a distinction exists between appointed deputies (as provided in the Elections Act) and Cabinet advisors and trainees/interns (as provided in the Charter).

 

Whereas this Court has conducted a careful review of the merits of such a request on the basis of its legal necessity and potential to impact present and future policies.

It is resolved with respect to this Legal Question as follows:

1. It is deemed justiciable.
   
2. It shall be assigned the case number HCLQ1901 and be referred to in full as Separation of Powers.
   
3. The Court invites all able and willing members to submit their views and stances on this Legal Question in the form of amicus curiae briefs, no later than 27 February 2019.
   
4. The Court reserves the right to consult with, and request private testimonies from, other government institutions and individuals, for the purposes of research and clarification of context.
   
5. The Court retains, in compliance with the Charter and the Judicial Act, the sole right to issue an opinion on this Legal Question.
   

It is so ordered.

 

Kris Kringle
Chief Justice

Former Delegate of the South Pacific
Posts outside High Court venues should be taken as those of any other legislator.
I do not participate in the regional server, but I am happy to talk through instant messaging or on the forum.

Legal Resources:
THE MATT-DUCK Law Archive | Mavenu Diplomatic Archive | Rules of the High Court | Case Submission System | Online Rulings Consultation System

(This post was last modified: 02-20-2019, 03:06 PM by Kris Kringle.)

Reply

Your honor,

this past Cabinet term, Amerion was appointed as a Cabinet advisor, whilst simultaneously serving as Chair of the Assembly. Amerion's role was not bound to a specific ministry, but rather to the Cabinet as a whole. I note the fact of this precedent so that it will be considered in the Court's determination.

Reply

Your Honours,

Please consider this post as my amicus curiae brief.

To address the Prime Minister-elect's post, I would like to draw the Court's attention to the Cabinet statement dated November 2, 2018, which announced the appointment.

... Additionally, we have decided to appoint Amerion as a Cabinet Intern during this term. The Cabinet has determined that Amerion has brought a lot to the region in his short time here, proving himself beyond capable in a numerous amount of areas. We all agree that Amerion could be an excellent leader in TSP in whatever ministry or facet of the government he chose to pursue. In his position as Cabinet Intern, he will have access to everywhere cabinet advisors would and he will be tasked with educating himself on the functions and processes of a working and efficient Cabinet so that hopefully he can find himself in a Cabinet position by the next election cycle. Additionally he shall be tasked with helping The Cabinet decide policy on issues so as to help him learn in a more hands on way.

Emphasis mine.

I believe the original intent was indeed as stated: to act and learn as a trainee. However, over time the distinction between an intern and as an advisor was arguably diminished.

In any case, I submit that the pieces of legislation cited in the Opening Post, namely the Charter and the Elections Act both intended for advisors/interns to fall under the category of deputies due to the Charter having stated the role of a deputy as being a 'junior [member] of the Cabinet ... [who] will not have voting rights in any executive decision.' This description of the role can also apply to advisors/interns and hence, the three terms should be considered interchangeably. This is all the more so given that cabinet ministries have since moved away from the formal position of deputies and now rely on Advisory Councils to advise the Minister in their duties.

Thank you for your time.

(This post was last modified: 02-21-2019, 12:22 AM by Amerion. Edit Reason: Noted that this post is an amicus curiae brief )

Reply

Nat's amicus curae brief on HCLQ1901

In HCLQ 1805 the Court found that statues with a single plain meaning should be interpreted that way unless it results in absurdity. I submit that the the Charter's wording in Article VI, Section 15 is such that it may have a single plain and non-absurd reading and, if that is so, the Court should find in favour of this reading.

(15) The Prime Minister and Cabinet Ministers may elect to appoint deputies and advisors, who will be considered junior members of the Cabinet, but will not have voting rights in any executive decision.

By usage of the word "and" it would appear that there are two separate positions (one being deputy ministers and the other being advisors), both of which are "considered junior members of the Cabinet, but will not have voting rights in any executive decision." Therefore, a legal distinction between the two offices exist. However, the Charter does not discuss the distinction between the nature of the offices, presumably leaving this to the discretion of the ministers who appoint such officers.

It may be argued that having a distinction between deputy ministers and advisors is absurd in view of Article 7 of the Elections Act, which prohibits deputy ministers from holding multiple positions but does not similarly do so for advisors. I am personally unsure whether this claim would be true or not. If it is held that this does produce an absurdity, this could be remedied by interpreting "deputies and advisors" to refer to a single office of deputy/advisor. However, if it is held that no absurdity exists then the single plain meaning of the Charter should be upheld; that is, there are two distinct offices under the law, one of deputy ministers and the other of advisors.

Former Associate Justice of the High Court of the South Pacific (4 December 2019 to 5 February 2021)

(This post was last modified: 02-21-2019, 01:00 AM by Nat.)

Reply

Your Honors,

As with the other posts, please consider the following to be my amicus curiae brief.

I've reviewed some of the statements above, as well as the relevant sections of the Charter and Elections Act, and I noticed that there does not seem to be legal precedent for trainees or interns in the current framework, if we take a trainee or intern to be a position given with the intent that the appointed "learns the ropes," so to speak. An "advisor" or "deputy," on the other hand, has the implication not that the appointed should be learning the ins and outs of the job, but actually is expected from the outset to carry out some of the duties associated with the office or provide counsel to the Cabinet member as to actions that should be taken. I am not sure that this distinction has been specifically addressed with any of the statements or opinions brought before Your Honors thus far.

My concern lies partially with the conflation of the two terms "deputy" and "advisor," as their precise legal definition carries different connotations, which Nat has highlighted above, and partially with where the inclusion of "trainee/intern" falls within that. My course of action would be either one of two things:

• Create distinct legal definitions and powers/restrictions for the three terms and what they are considered to mean in the eyes of the Court. This would have the primary advantage of legal clarity and preciseness of language with no need for questions of conflation, though it would carry some complications. Firstly whether an intern or advisor or deputy should or should not be considered an officer of the Coalition has ramifications for muddling the separation of powers, and additionally it might create more barriers for a case like Amerion's where the general job duties change, as per the information submitted within his brief.
  
• OR apply existing law equally to all positions of this type. Separation of powers and existing law in the Charter and Elections Act would apply the same to any position appointed by a member of the Cabinet. This would be my first recommendation since it allows for the role to be constructed as the Cabinet member needs it, with some level of autonomy on their part, without influencing other branches of government or causing problems with separation of powers. It would also allow positions like Amerion's to change as the appointed learns the ropes and takes on a more advisory or deputy capacity. Conflation of terms would also be less of a problem since the legal precedent would apply equally to any person appointed to serve under a Cabinet member, regardless of the position's title or job description.
  

Thank you for your time, Your Honors.

Respectfully submitted,
Witchcraft and Sorcery

 
Witchcraft and Sorcery

---

Former Prime Minister and Minister of Defense. Formerly many things in other regions. Defender. Ideologue. he/they.

Reply

Question for Prime Minister @Roavin:

• Does the Cabinet have any formal or customary definitions and/or role descriptions for a Deputy Minister, an Advisor and an Intern? What powers do they have vis à vis each other, and vis à vis Ministers?
  

Former Delegate of the South Pacific
Posts outside High Court venues should be taken as those of any other legislator.
I do not participate in the regional server, but I am happy to talk through instant messaging or on the forum.

Legal Resources:
THE MATT-DUCK Law Archive | Mavenu Diplomatic Archive | Rules of the High Court | Case Submission System | Online Rulings Consultation System

Reply

Your Honor,

outside of whatever is already prescribed by law, the Cabinet does not have formal definitions for different categories of junior Cabinet participants. This has been the case since at least the Cabinet term that was inaugurated in June 2016. To my knowledge, previous Cabinets in the region's history have not had such definitions either. In terms of customary definitions, I can only speak with authority about Cabinets since about mid-2016.

Deputies are generally assumed to be bound to one of the ministries. They have not been utilized since the Great Council (with a brief exception in late 2016), so I can only provide limited perspective. To my knowledge, deputies were frequently in use in pre-GC2016 Cabinets, with some Ministers even having multiple deputies. The senior Ministers themselves set the scope of any appointee's role, ranging from advising for a specific department within the Ministry to a near-full stewardship of the Minister role during absences of the nominal holder. This was before my nation's founding, however, so the Court may be better served by requesting or compelling testimony from other individuals to glean details from that time.

Interns are intended to be individuals that have shown promise and a willingness to put in some work, and where there is a reasonable expectation that they could be a good Cabinet Minister at some point. There is not much precedent here; last term, Amerion was appointed as an Intern (for the entire Cabinet), but considering his experience across NS and his lack of desire to be a senior Cabinet member, he served more as a general advisor than as an intern. This term, we want to appoint one intern per ministry as per the ideals I mentioned above, with each intern being bound to their ministry. In the past, I believe deputyships were sometimes used for this, for example I was appointed Deputy MoRA by Punchwood in mid-2016 in a role that is ostensibly compatible with what I consider an intern to now be.

Advisors have significantly more recent precedent. In June 2017, I appointed Tsunamy as Senior Cabinet advisor. His role was not to be an active participant in the day-to-day Cabinet operations, but rather to serve as a final sanity check for what we (an extremely young Cabinet) were doing. He served in this capacity, more or less, until October 2018. In October 2018, the Cabinet appointed Sandaoguo as Senior advisor in a much more active role, nominally advising the Cabinet on security matters and, in practice, advising many times on Foreign Affairs matters as well. At the same time, Amerion could be considered a general advisor along a similar vein, even though the appointment was nominally as an intern.

Junior Cabinet participants, in general, have the same level of rights and powers within their role, in that they can participate in discussions that are in the plain Cabinet office (rather than in more classified areas). In practice, there may be differences in how much value is placed in what an individual Junior Cabinet participant writes, and some of these differences may be inherent with the title.

Reply

Your Honours,

If possible, I seek further clarification as to whether a job at the High Court would fall under 'appointed deputies', as provided by Article 7. Separation of Powers of the Elections Act:

(1) Offices of the Coalition are the Delegate, the Prime Minister and Cabinet Ministers, the Chair of the Assembly, Local Councillors, the Chief Justice, and any of their appointed deputies.

Emphasis mine.

I apologise if this question would qualify as a separate Legal Question and if so, am happy to file it as such.

Thank you for your time.

Reply

This would indeed qualify as a separate legal question. I would, however, advise that you wait for HCLQ1901 to be release, in case it indirectly resolves your question.

Former Delegate of the South Pacific
Posts outside High Court venues should be taken as those of any other legislator.
I do not participate in the regional server, but I am happy to talk through instant messaging or on the forum.

Legal Resources:
THE MATT-DUCK Law Archive | Mavenu Diplomatic Archive | Rules of the High Court | Case Submission System | Online Rulings Consultation System

Reply