‘We Let People Decide': Tongan PM ‘Aisake Eke Optimistic Ahead Of November Election
Article – RNZ
Dr 'Aisake Eke is optimistic says his government is focused on doing its best, leaving the rest up to the Tongan people. Grace Tinetali-Fiavaai, RNZ Pacific Journalist
Tongan Prime Minister Dr 'Aisake Valu Eke is optimistic about this year's election and says his government is focused on doing its best, leaving the rest up to the Tongan people.
Dr Eke came to power last December after his predecessor Hu'akavameiliku Siaosi Sovaleni resigned in the face of a no-confidence vote brought against him by the current prime minister.
Tongans will head back to the polls in November.
In wide-ranging interview with RNZ Pacific at his office in Nuku'alofa in April, Dr Eke said, 'We just do our best and let the people decide.'
He also confirmed that he will recontest his seat in the Tongatapu 5 constituency.
Improving public service
Dr Eke said his government has sought to improve the public service since coming into office.
'Since we started at the end of January, we introduced some strategy and measures to improve, firstly, [the] efficiency and productivity of public services,' Dr Eke said.
He said this included issuing a directive for government offices to remain open during lunch hours and redirecting government which they deemed unproductive to essential sectors such as fisheries, health, and education.
On the subject of education, he said they brought back national examinations that had been shelved by previous governments and conducted a review of the school breakfast programme.
Volcanic eruption recovery
This year also marks three years since the Hunga Tona-Hunga Ha'apai volcanic eruption and the ensuing tsunami.
While the Hu'akavameiliku had started the recovery work, Dr Eke said around 20 families remain without permanent housing.
He said the government last month approved a supplementary budget of NZ$25 million for the ongoing recovery work.
'About $3 million of that is basically to go to completion of all the houses for the affected people,' he said.
'We aim to complete all of them by the end of this financial year which is in June.'
Although some families are still living in their original damaged homes, he said that in some cases this was a decision made by the communities themselves.
'For example, the Kanukupolu village, they wait for completion of all the houses. About 53 houses are almost completed. They want to come to move in as a group,' he said.
As part of ongoing disaster preparedness and lessons learned from the volcanic eruption, the Tonga National Disaster Management Office has worked with stakeholders to develop an effective tsunami early warning system.
Dr Eke said there have been continuous tests of the system, aimed at making members of the public aware of what they need to do.
'[What] we see is people now changing because this is perhaps several instances where they have to get away from their home and trying to go to a high point,' Dr Eke said.
'And I think that shows how much people learn how to prepare…how to actually conduct themselves.'
Welfare of seasonal workers
On Tongan workers taking part in the Recognised Seasonal Employer (RSE) scheme in New Zealand and the Australian Labour Mobility Scheme, the Prime Minister said said he had some concerns.
'In fact we have heard some reports, not only from them [the workers] themselves but also some of the commentators from Australia and New Zealand,' he said.
'I think we need the safety of our people there…and also at the same time we try to make our people, prepare them well.'
He emphasised that better pastoral care is essential and said Tonga is formalising partnerships with church groups to deliver social and spiritual support to workers abroad.
'Our people actually they value there faith. They vary their faith…that's why I think we should address their social side, the spiritual side, also physical and also their intellectual side,' Dr Eke said.
While economic benefits of the labour mobility schemes in both countries have been positive, Eke says the government has also seen some negative effects, including social impacts in the community on separated families.
Opportunities for economy
He said he wanted to grow and improve Tonga's economy through targeted investment and reform.
'Some of the policies need to be changed. We aim to make the economy viable using all the potential we have.'
He said one pressing issue was a stagnant private sector.
'The private sector over the past two decades or three decades it actually stayed the same, and that's a challenge we are facing.'
However, he said government has begun identifying growth sectors and working with donor agencies and governments to support them, particularly in fisheries and agriculture.
'We have done some work to improve the contribution of the fisheries sector, so we have started discussions with donors to for increasing the number of fishing vessels into the fishing industry.'
He added that the government is also reactivating its national steering committee to monitor economic performance and help craft a more effective strategy in the next financial year.
Infrastructure development is another pillar of the recovery plan, which includes advancing with the previous government's plans to build a bridge across from Ma'ufanga, outside Nuku'alofa, to the eastern division of Tongatapu.
'That actually [would] ease up the pressure on congestion, and also provides an evacuation channel for people to use when there is an emergency,' he said.
'And also that will help develop urban areas for economic growth.'
Global shifts
As current chair of the Pacific Islands Forum (PIF), Dr Eke said there has been a lot of progress made in a short space of time on the regional agenda, particularly finalising the governance framework for the Pacific Resilience Facility (PRF) and engaging global institutions on funding.
Eke also attended the PIF Troika Plus meeting in Fiji and the World Bank and International Monetary Fund spring meetings last month, the latter to advocate for more financial support for the region.
On rising global tensions and recent United States trade policies, Dr Eke said Tonga has been pinged with the 10 percent base tariff and is watching developments closely.
'When I look at it in terms of trade with America, in fact it is about a TOP$28 million surplus in favour of America,' he said.
'America is our best friend. We have similar values but there are sometimes economic policies, even though we look at it from an economic point of view, its not a good thing. But I think common sense will prevail.'
He remains hopeful and believes there will be more opportunities ahead.
He also encouraged Tongans around the world to invest in their homeland and develop local enterprises.
'I would like to say to the Tongan people there are (sic) a lot of potential here and you can make a better living.
'The motto of this country is God and Tonga is our inheritance. Working together with faith, optimism comes in, we can do a great thing.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
RNZ News
5 hours ago
- RNZ News
Broadcasting Standards Authority upholds RNZ broadcast
Photo: RNZ / Cole Eastham-Farrelly The Broadcasting Standards Authority (BSA) has agreed with RNZ that a 'fleeting' reference to overseas legislation in a broadcast interview - about the risks of young people developing problem gambling habits from playing video games - was not materially misleading. The BSA has not upheld Leon Xiao's complaint about the December 2024 Morning Report interview with the Problem Gambling Foundation's Director of Advocacy and Public Health. In March, the Media Council upheld a complaint by Mr Xiao about an online article based on the same interview. The BSA decision is available here . The earlier Media Council ruling is available here: Xiao and Radio New Zealand Ltd - 2025-014 (9 June 2025) .
Otago Daily Times
9 hours ago
- Otago Daily Times
Prime Minister's 'worthies' insult concerns scientists
By Eloise Gibson of RNZ A British scientist says it's concerning Prime Minister Christopher Luxon has dismissed him and other climate scientists as "worthies" for raising concerns about plans to lower New Zealand's methane emissions target. Paul Behrens, the global professor of environmental change at Oxford University, said the government appeared to be trying to deflect attention from questions about the country's agricultural greenhouse gases. "I think the characterisation of climate scientists as 'worthies' reflects a really concerning dismissal of evidence-based policy making," he said. "While the Prime Minister's remarks may aim to deflect criticism of New Zealand's agricultural emissions profile they overlook the clear global consensus that methane reductions are critical to limiting near term warming." Luxon denied he was dismissing science or deflecting attention from this country's farming emissions. "What a load of rubbish. My point was very clear - those scientists can write to leaders of 194 countries before they send it to me," he said. Though a decision is yet to be revealed, farming groups appear have swayed the government to reduce the current target, which is shrinking emissions somewhere between 24% and 47% by 2050. Several climate experts say the country will set a dangerous precedent for Ireland and other big methane emitters if it aims too low. When 26 international climate change scientists wrote to Luxon accusing him of "ignoring scientific evidence" showing global heating caused by methane has to reduce, the Prime Minister said it was lovely if "worthies" wanted to write him letters but New Zealand was already managing methane emissions better than "every other country on the planet". The scientists were worried that the government might be about to adopt a target that lets heating caused by methane emissions stay the same, rather than turning down the thermostat on the country's cows and sheep. That is because the government asked a scientific panel to tell it how much methane emissions would need to drop to just level off global heating from methane, not reduce it. The answer was 14% to 24% by 2050, about half the current target. The debate is whether that is enough. Federated Farmers and Beef + Lamb say yes, because methane is much shorter lived than the other main heating gases, carbon dioxide and nitrous oxide. One of the members of the government's panel, climate scientist Dave Frame, said New Zealand should lower its target unless other countries commit to bigger cuts to methane from farming than they have currently. He said the planet was not on track to limit heating inside 1.5°C hotter than pre-industrial times, despite countries' promises. "If the world really did cut emissions in line with what those kind of guys are talking about, then I think we should absolutely be part of it. In the absence of that action, I think a 'no additional warming target' is a reasonable fall back position." Dr Frame said unlike more profitable dairy farming, sheep and beef farms could not absorb the cost of methane-cutting technologies. Another member of the government's panel, atmospheric scientist Laura Revell, said it was a tricky call for the government. "Everyone is in agreement - those on the panel, those who wrote the letter - that methane is a greenhouse gas which global action is needed to address. "We know that the consequences of climate change are severe, we are seeing it already and every bit of warming we can avoid helps. "On the other hand, farming is a big part of the New Zealand economy and these emissions are associated with feeding people." The Climate Change Commission said the country should aim for a cut of at least 35% because the costs and impacts of global heating are turning out worse than expected. It said there is no reasonable excuse to do less on methane, under New Zealand's climate commitments.
Otago Daily Times
9 hours ago
- Otago Daily Times
The Regulatory Standards Bill: What is it and why the controversy?
By Nik Dirga of RNZ Explainer - A new bill would make big changes to how legislation is drafted in New Zealand, but has also drawn considerable criticism as it works its way through Parliament. The Regulatory Standards Bill presented by ACT Party leader David Seymour is complex, but the heart of the matter is about how the rules and regulations that we all live by are put together, and whether that can or should be done better. It's now out for public comment through submissions to the select committee, due by 23 June. The bill has been called everything from a libertarian power grab to a common-sense solution to cutting red tape. But what's it all about, really? RNZ is here to tell you what you need to know. What is the bill? The bill proposes a set of regulatory principles that lawmakers, agencies and ministries would have to consider in regulation design. Those principles cover the rule of law, personal liberties, taking of property, taxes, fees and levies and the role of courts. Makers of legislation would be required to assess proposed and existing legislation against those principles. The definitions in the legislation as drafted set out Seymour's ideal for what makes good law, but are contested. (See end of article for a complete summary of the principles.) Seymour called the principles "focused on the effect of legislation on existing interests and liberties," while Victoria University of Wellington law professor Dean Knight said they are "strongly libertarian in character". The bill would set up a Regulatory Standards Board to consider how legislation measures up to the principles. Members of the board would be appointed by the Minister for Regulation, currently Seymour. In putting the bill forward, Seymour said: "In a high-cost economy, regulation isn't neutral - it's a tax on growth. This government is committed to clearing the path of needless regulations by improving how laws are made." The bill wants politicians to show their workings, he said. "This bill turns the explanation from politicians' 'because we said so' into 'because here is the justification according to a set of principles'." The bill was part of the coalition agreements National, ACT and New Zealand First agreed to in 2023 which included a pledge to improve the quality of regulation and pass a "Regulatory Standards Act as soon as practicable" (page 4). The bill passed its first reading in Parliament on 23 May. It is now before the Finance and Expenditure Select Committee and open for public feedback. You can read the complete text of the bill right here: Read the Regulatory Standards Bill 2025. The government's departmental disclosure statement also gives further information regarding the scrutiny of the bill. Okay, but what is regulation, anyway? The Ministry of Regulation, which was formed just last year with Seymour named as the minister in charge, says that "regulation is all around us in our daily lives". "It's in the workplace, the sports field, the home, the shopping mall - in our cities and the great outdoors. Regulation protects our rights and safety, our property and the environment." But what does that actually mean? "Fundamentally, it's a law, something that tells you you have to do something or something that tells you you can't do something," said constitutional law expert Graeme Edgeler. Aren't there already legislative guidelines for Parliament? Yes, such as the Legislation Design and Advisory Committee (LDAC), which produce legislative guidelines and advises on legislative design. "There already are a range of 'best practice' lawmaking guides and practices within government, such as the LDAC's 'Legislation Guidelines', Regulatory Impact Statements, and departmental disclosure statements under the Legislation Act," University of Otago law professor Andrew Geddis said. Seymour has said the bill is about adding transparency, not enforcement. In an FAQ on the bill, the Ministry for Regulation says the bill "does not require new legislation to be consistent with the principles". "It requires that legislation is assessed for any inconsistency with the principles, and that this assessment is made available to the public. Agencies and ministers are required to be transparent about any identified inconsistencies, but this would not stop new legislation from progressing." Geddis said while the bill was intended to operate in the executive branch of government only, it may have implications for the courts. "Once the particular standards of 'good lawmaking' included in the RSB are written into our law by Parliament, the courts cannot but take notice of that fact," he said. "And so, these standards may become relevant to how the courts interpret and apply legislation, or how they review the way the executive government makes regulatory decisions." Haven't ACT tried to pass something like this bill before? That's right - similar legislation has been introduced to the House three times, and failed to become law three times. Previous tries saw the 2006 Regulatory Responsibility Bill Member's Bill by former ACT leader Rodney Hide; the Regulatory Standards Bill in 2011 also introduced by Hyde and produced by the Regulatory Responsibility Taskforce; and a 2021 Member's Bill by Seymour. Unlike previous versions of the bill, the 2025 iteration adds a regulatory standards board to consider issues, removing courts from the equation "in relation to a recourse mechanism for legislation inconsistent with the principles". The bill has been somewhat softened in this incarnation, Edgeler said. "This is the weakest form of the regulatory standards proposal that there has been." He also noted that future governments could repeal or amend the bill as well. And as the Ministry for Regulation says, "any recommendations made by the Regulatory Standards Board would be non-binding". "It won't stop any future government doing something it actually wants to do," Edgeler said. So what are some of the concerns about the bill? The bill has drawn considerable feedback, with earlier public submissions strongly negative. After the discussion document was launched on the bill in November, the Ministry of Regulation received about 23,000 submissions. Of those, 88 percent opposed the bill, 0.33 percent - or 76 submissions - supported or partially supported it, and about 12 percent did not have a clear position, the ministry reported. Seymour has since dismissed the negative submissions and alleged some of them were made by 'bots'. Among the top concerns the ministry's analysis of the feedback found were that the bill would "attempt to solve a problem that doesn't exist"; "result in duplication and increase complexity in lawmaking" and "undermine future Parliaments and democracy". Bill opponent University of Auckland Emeritus Professor Jane Kelsey has said the bill is too in line with minority party ACT's ideology and will "bind governments forever to the neoliberal logic of economic freedom". Other government agencies have also weighed in. In a report on the bill after launching an urgent inquiry, the Waitangi Tribunal found that "if the Regulatory Standards Act were enacted without meaningful consultation with Māori, it would constitute a breach of the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi, specifically the principles of partnership and active protection". It called for an immediate halt to the bill's advancement to allow more engagement with Māori. In a submission received by Newsroom under the Official Information Act, the Legislation Design and Advisory Committee said it had "misgivings about the capacity of this bill to offer improvement" and it might have "significant unintended consequences". In terms of the financial impact, a regulatory impact statement by the Ministry for Regulation estimated the bill would cost a minimum of $18 million a year across the public service under the minister's preferred approach. Seymour said the cost of policy work across the government was $870m a year, and the bill was about 2 percent of that. And in an interim regulatory impact statement, the Ministry of Regulation itself expressed some ambivalence about the bill. The ministry said its preferred approach was to "build on the disclosure statement regime ... and create new legislative provisions". It said it supported the overall objectives of the bill but "that an enhanced disclosure statement regime with enhanced obligations, will achieve many of the same benefits" and also impose fewer costs. Does it remove the Treaty of Waitangi from governance? It does not say that, but the bill's silence on Māori representation in government has troubled opponents. "On the consultation point, Māori clearly weren't adequately engaged with before the RSB was created and introduced into the House," Geddis said. "The Waitangi Tribunal's report on the RSB is unequivocal on this issue." Geddis said in contrast, that LDAC guidelines contain an entire chapter of guidance on how Te Tiriti should be considered. "That very silence creates uncertainty as to how the principles in the RSB are meant to interact with these principles of the Treaty." Under principles of responsible legislation outlined at the start the bill, there is a statement that "every person is equal before the law," which some have said dismisses Māori concerns. Te Pāti Māori co-leader Debbie Ngarewa-Packer at the bill's first reading last month attacked the bill. "If you look through the whole 37 pages, which I encourage that you don't, the silence on the impact for Te Tiriti is on purpose. The bill promotes equal treatment before the law but it opens the door [for] government to attack every Māori equity initiative." Seymour has insisted Māori voices were heard through public consultation. "We had 144 Iwi-based groups who submitted... If that's not enough, then I don't know what is," he told RNZ's Guyon Espiner. What does the bill say about property rights? A section that has drawn attention says "legislation should not take or impair, or authorise the taking or impairment of, property without the consent of the owner unless there is a good justification for the taking or impairment; and fair compensation for the taking or impairment is provided to the owner; and the compensation is provided, to the extent practicable, by or on behalf of the persons who obtain the benefit of the taking or impairment". The question many opponents have raised is what "compensation" might mean and who might seek it. "Applied to the real world, this means that anything the government does that decreases corporate profits opens it up to possible legal action," bill opponent Ryan Ward wrote for E-Tangata. What do supporters say? Writing for the New Zealand Institute, Bryce Wilkinson said criticisms of the bill as "a 'dangerous ideological' drive towards limited government are arrant nonsense". "The bill itself is a mild transparency measure," Wilkinson has also written. "The Regulatory Standards Bill's modest aim is to make wilful lack of disclosure harder." "At the end of the day we are putting critical principles into lawmaking," Seymour told Newsroom. "We know bureaucrats don't like this law. For New Zealanders that's a good thing." So how can we have our say on it? Now is the time to do it. Public submissions to the Finance and Expenditure Committee will be accepted until 1pm Monday 23 June. Submissions are publicly released and will be published to the Parliament website. What happens after that? Does the bill look likely to pass? Here's what happens next. The select committee is due to report back on submissions by 22 November, although Seymour has asked that to be moved up to 23 September, Newsroom reported. After the select committee, the bill would proceed to a second reading, then a committee of the Whole House, and a final vote in the third reading, which would need support from more than half of Parliament to pass. If the bill passes, it would likely come into effect on 1 January 2026. While the Treaty Principles Bill, also championed by ACT, failed in Parliament in April and was voted down by every party but ACT, Edgeler said the path for this one was less shaky. "This one, of course, is more likely to pass because the promise in the coalition agreement is to pass it," Edgeler said. That agreement requires National to support the bill all the way through, which is different to the agreement's clause on the Treaty Principles Bill. By extension it also requires New Zealand First to support it all the way through because their agreement requires them to support the agreement with ACT. "Whether it passes in the exact form, who knows, whether New Zealand First continues its support or insists on changes which might drastically alter it, or even water it down further, is a different question." NZ First leader Winston Peters has described the bill as a "work in progress" and Geddis said: "It is possible that the changes NZ First want so alter the RSB's content that it ceases to deliver what ACT wants it to, creating a stand-off between the two coalition partners." Geddis agreed the coalition agreement makes it difficult for National to not support the bill. "Given that these agreements are treated as being something close to holy writ, and given how much political capital David Seymour is investing in this bill, it seems unlikely that National will feel able to withhold its support. That then leaves NZ First as being, in effect, the decider." One last question - what were those regulatory principles again? From the bill itself, in summary, the principles are: • the importance of maintaining consistency with various aspects of the rule of law; and • legislation should not unduly diminish a person's liberty, personal security, freedom of choice or action, or various property rights, except as is necessary to provide for, or protect, any such liberty, freedom, or right of another person; and • legislation should not take or impair property without the owner's consent unless certain requirements are met. The requirements include that there is a good justification for the taking or impairment and fair compensation is provided to the owner; and • the importance of maintaining consistency with section 22 of the Constitution Act 1986. Section 22 of that Act provides that it is not lawful for the Crown, except by or under an Act, to levy a tax, borrow money, or spend public money; and • legislation should impose a fee for goods or services only if the amount of the fee bears a proper relation to the cost of providing the good or service; and • legislation should impose a levy to fund an objective or a function only if the levy is reasonable in relation to: - the benefits that the payers are likely to derive or the risks attributable to them; and - the costs of efficiently achieving the objective or providing the function; and • legislation should preserve the courts' constitutional role of ascertaining the meaning of legislation; and • legislation should make rights and liberties, or obligations, dependent on administrative power only if the power is sufficiently defined and subject to appropriate review; and • the importance of consulting, to the extent that is reasonably practicable, the persons that the responsible agency considers will be directly and materially affected by the legislation; and • the importance of carefully evaluating various matters as part of a good law-making process. These include: - the issue concerned; and - the effectiveness of any relevant existing law; and - the public interest; and - any reasonably available options (including non-legislative options); and • who is likely to benefit and who is likely to suffer a detriment; and • legislation should be expected to produce benefits that exceed the costs of the legislation to the public or persons; and • legislation should be the most effective, efficient, and proportionate response to the issue concerned that is available.
