Just to nip this in the bud, so it doesn't devolve into an ever-repeating debate, here's a takedown of Belschaft's argument.

First, let's compare this draft with the Prohibited Groups & Organizations law that Belschaft primarily wrote:

	PGO	PNG
Who makes the initial request?	The Cabinet or the CRS	The Cabinet
Who approves of the request?	The Assembly	The Assembly
What are the qualifications?	a. Were actively involved and complicit in an attempt, successful or otherwise, to illegally overthrow the legitimate government of The South Pacific; b. Have coordinated efforts to directly exploit the elections or Assembly of The South Pacific; c. Groups that have engaged in or have attempted to engage in coordinated espionage against The South Pacific government or military; d. Groups that have or have attempted to sabotage The South Pacific's military operations.	(a) is an agent acting on behalf of a foreign region or organization; (b) was or is actively involved or complicit in an attempt, successful or otherwise, to illegally overthrow the legitimate government of The South Pacific or its allies and partners; (c ) has coordinated to exploit, manipulate, or unduly influence elections in The South Pacific or its allies and partners, on behalf of a foreign region or organization; (d) has engaged in or has attempted to engage in coordinated espionage against The South Pacific or its allies and partners; or, (e) has or has attempted to sabotage military operations of The South Pacific, outside of normal raiding and defending dynamics.
What's the impact?	Revocation of legislator status	Prohibition of residency/forum usage
When does it go into effect?	Seven-day grace period	Immediately after Assembly approval
What is the due process method?	If your legislator status has been revoked, you can go to the High Court to prove you aren't a member of the prohibited group	If you've been targeted, you can go to the High Court to prove that the Cabinet's claims are false
What's the time limit on going to the court?	Seven days	No time limit

As you can see, these are near-identical processes. Both of these laws would impact the legal rights of a legislator targeted by the Assembly's decision. Both have identical means of contesting the action: going to the High Court and proving the claims against them wrong. Additionally, there's the initial due process protection of the targets of these laws being able to argue against them during Assembly debate. No affected legislator would be silenced or blocked from contesting the accusations made against them.

Is this shared process violating due process rights in the Bill of Rights of the Charter?

Simply put, no. More specifically, the High Court defines due process in the Charter as follows:

(03-05-2018, 01:00 PM)Kris Kringle Wrote: While the Charter does not offer a conclusive definition of "due process", the Court understands it within the context of a series of procedures and guarantees that ensure expulsions are not arbitrary, can be reasonable contested and are consistent with the general values espoused by the Charter.

This is a three-prong test this bill meets, as does the PGO law already in existence.
 
This bill requires the Cabinet to reach a majority decision, the Assembly to debate the Cabinet's claims, and a final vote to approve them or deny the request for PNG status. Additionally, legislators can only be targeted for PNG status for a specific list of aggressive behaviors. There is procedure here-- the Cabinet's requirement to make a claim with reasonable grounds to it; the Assembly's debate and vote. There are safeguards against arbitrariness-- the specific list of applicable behaviors.
 
This bill allows contesting the claims in two ways. First, before the Assembly votes on the final approval/denial, the affected person(s) can directly and vigorously defend themselves. Second, if the Assembly does approve the PNG declaration, the affected person(s) can go to the High Court and prove the claims are wrong.
 
The PGO law has existed in our legal canon for about 5 years now. It was kept in our Criminal Code at the last Great Council. It conforms to the Charter's due process protections, and requires the Assembly to make the final decision. Our region has always believed that there are certain expectations of participation in good faith, protection of TSP's sovereignty, and an agreement that TSPers who are in other regions don't act as an agent for their other regions in TSP's government. The purpose of the PGO law -- and this PNG law based upon it -- is to uphold those values by rooting out those who violate them. If the PGO law is consistent with our values, then so too must this law be. They are functionally identical.

In fact, I would go so far to say that an individualized PNG law is more consistent with our values. By addressing behavior on an individual level, innocent people aren't swept up in a group prohibition, forced to denounce their friends because some higher-ups in their organization did bad things. It doesn't introduce guilt by association, because it's targeted towards the single individuals who are problems. That's far more consistent with our democratic values than the PGO law is today.