Hello, I am new here (approved yesterday). I do not have any background with regional security matters, so if I say anything that is uninformed or naïve then it probably is. Nonetheless, I have some contributions I would like to make.
I have put my thoughts in the spoilers below. I am not 100% certain on any of them, they are just the things which have popped into my head. Also, can someone please enlighten me on why the Election Commissioner is appointed by the CRS/will be appointed by the CSI. I am sure there is a good reason, I just can’t clearly see it at the moment.
If I understand correctly, the DC would have practical power over border controls and endorsements but the decisions on when they should be used would sit with the CSI, who gather and assess intelligence. Is that interpretation correct?
If so, I think it is acceptable to have the CSI approve DC members on the criteria listed (have I summarised them correctly?): minimum endorsements, minimum influence, and not denied by the CSI based on security grounds
I think having appointments to the CSI made by Cabinet and approved by the Assembly is a sensible proposal
I think elevation from a junior to a senior member should either be automatic (e.g. after six months of service) or on nomination from the Cabinet to the Assembly, so as to prevent the CSI from effectively locking out half of its members
I feel it would be good to have clearly defined criteria for what junior CSI members can do/see, so it is less of a “because the senior CSI members said so.” I do not know what exactly this encompasses, however.
Legislator requirement: I understand this is in relation to being involved in the forum-side. However, could the requirement be a current legislator or current/previous local council service? If the Assembly gets to vote on the candidates anyway, then they should not elect someone who is not interested in the forums anyway. However, this is more of a minor gripe.
DC requirement: if I understand this correctly, any candidates for delegate would require a minimum number of endorsements and a minimum regional influence (they do not have to be approved by the CSI). Is that correct? Can someone please enlighten me about the reasoning for this. If there is a requirement to have held office, then what would the endorsement/regional influence requirements actually be there for?
Service requirement: if I understand this correctly, it would be that candidates must have a minimum amount of service in an appointed or elected position. If so, I do not quite agree at the moment. The premise seems to be that you want people who know the region well. Being an office bearer would be useful. However, that is not what minimum requirements are about. My current position is that people should be able to run if they have given a minimum period of service to the region, not just in an elected or appointed position. I think that perhaps it should be:
Minimum six months (or maybe even one year) active service in one of the following: legislator, military, (maybe) ambassador
The above requirement does not apply to those who have served in an elected or appointed position (incl. local council) for three months (or six months)
In any event, this is me trying to wrap my head around things and not wanting to unduly restrict the election of the Delegate. However, since I am new, it is harder to grasp what are necessary requirements and what are extra precautions.
I am wary of the CSI handling legislator status, however, I would be satisfied with it if there was a safeguard. Below is one I thought up, I think it would work well but others may work better (i.e. if someone has a better system, I am not overly attached to my idea):
When legislator status is denied or revoked, the Assembly is notified
The Assembly can (by simple majority) demand evidence from the CSI on why it denied or revoked legislator status
Once the Assembly has been given time to review the evidence (not sure, maybe a week), it can vote with a 2/3rd supermajority to override the CSI
If the vote to override the CSI fails but gets more than 1/3rd of the vote, the evidence is referred to the High Court
The High Court may overrule the CSI’s decision if and only if it finds the decision to be manifestly unreasonable given the evidence
This provides for a review mechanism on the CSI decision and direct accountability to the Assembly. By having a very high threshold of a 2/3rd supermajority, decisions should be unlikely to be overridden and should only be overridden for a good reason. If the CSI’s decision can’t even get the support of 1-in-3 of those voting then that decision may seriously have an issue. Further, if 1-in-3 of those voting think the decision should not be upheld, then having the court look over it would be good (in case the decision was a bad one done against an unpopular person).
If the thresholds I have listed are too low, you could go for 75% supermajority override of the CSI and 50% majority to refer it to the High Court. My initial opinion is that this may be too high, particularly if the decision is made against an unpopular individual.
Again, someone else may have better ideas for safeguards, this is just what I came up with.
Thank you for considering my views and also for your patience as I wrap my head around all of this. Sorry for the extra dot points everywhere, I wanted spacing between them and that is what I got.
Former Associate Justice of the High Court of the South Pacific (4 December 2019 to 5 February 2021)
(This post was last modified: 12-19-2018, 10:51 PM by Nat.)
Reply
The following 1 user Likes Nat's post:1 user Likes Nat's post • Beepee
![[+]](/images/collapse_collapsed.png "[+]")
DC and CSI![[-]](https://tspforums.xyz/images/sidr/blue/collapse.png)
