A Dangerous Step Backwards: How Tonga’s New Diplomatic Services Law Undermines Democracy
By Melino Maka, Political, Economic, and Good Governance Commentator for Tonga Independent News (Based in Tonga and New Zealand)
Introduction: Reform or Regression?
Last week, with little public debate and almost no serious resistance in the House, Tonga’s Legislative Assembly passed the His Majesty’s Diplomatic Services Bill 2025.
The government sold it as “modernisation” and “efficiency” — a way to unify foreign affairs and immigration under one streamlined structure, led “from the top” for a stronger international voice.
But peel back the smooth political messaging and the reality is stark: this law removes foreign affairs and immigration entirely from parliamentary oversight, placing them directly under royal control. In doing so, it reverses a key democratic safeguard won through the historic constitutional reforms of 2010, which were themselves rooted in the late King George Tupou V’s voluntary surrender of certain executive powers in 2007.
This is more than a bureaucratic reshuffle. It is a fundamental shift in how Tonga is governed — and most politicians, and much of the public, do not yet grasp what has just been signed away.
From 2007 Reform to 2025 Rollback
When King George Tupou V relinquished his executive powers in 2007, he set Tonga on a path towards a more democratic, accountable system of government. The 2010 constitutional changes transferred many decision-making powers from the monarch to ministers answerable to Parliament.
Foreign affairs — along with other key portfolios — became the responsibility of a Cabinet minister appointed by the Prime Minister. Immigration remained a separate ministerial function. Both could be questioned in the House, their policies debated, their budgets scrutinised in the Estimates.
In the years since, respected voices have warned that parts of our governance structure still escaped democratic oversight. In 2014, constitutional legal consultant Peter J. Pursglove issued a report that made it clear:
“While the Ministry of Justice remains accountable to the people through Parliament, the Office of the Lord Chancellor and the Office of the Attorney General are not publicly accountable and answer only to the King in Privy Council. This is contrary to the democratic principles upon which the new Constitution was founded.”
Former Justice Minister Hon. Clive Edwards tried to address these issues — to bring such offices within the reach of parliamentary scrutiny. He was blocked. Those reforms were buried.
Now, with the 2025 Diplomatic Services Bill, the same shield of unaccountability that protects the Lord Chancellor and Attorney General is being extended over our foreign policy and immigration system.
Before and After: The Shift in Power
The most effective way to understand the change is to compare the governance model before and after the new law.
Area | Before (Pre-2025 Bill) | After (His Majesty’s Diplomatic Services Bill 2025) |
Overall Structure | Ministry of Foreign Affairs within Cabinet government | His Majesty’s Diplomatic Services under a royal-appointed Diplomatic Services Board |
Oversight | Minister of Foreign Affairs appointed by PM, answerable to Parliament | Board under direct royal authority; no parliamentary oversight |
Accountability | Ministers can be questioned in the House; Hansard records debates | No minister to question; decisions insulated from parliamentary scrutiny |
Appointments of Ambassadors/Envoys | Recommended by Minister, approved by Cabinet, debated in Parliament | Made by monarch/board; outside Cabinet process |
Immigration Oversight | Separate ministerial portfolio under elected government | Merged into monarch-led Diplomatic Services |
Policy Direction | Set by Cabinet collectively; accountable to electorate | Set by monarch’s office; no collective ministerial responsibility |
Budget Oversight | Line-item in Estimates; debated and approved by MPs | Appropriation still required, but Parliament votes without policy control |
Checks & Balances | Parliament can challenge decisions through ministers | No mechanism for elected members to amend or block decisions |
Why This Matters
- Parliamentary Power is Eroded
The law strips Parliament of its ability to influence, question, or block foreign affairs or immigration policies. MPs will still pass budgets, but without the authority to direct or hold to account the people implementing them.
- Cabinet Loses a Voice
The Minister of Foreign Affairs role is abolished. Cabinet loses a seat and, more importantly, loses direct involvement in foreign policy. Immigration — a cornerstone of national security and sovereignty — is also gone from the ministerial table.
- Concentration of Power
These functions now sit in a single, centralised structure under direct royal authority. There is no constitutional mechanism for Parliament to check that power.
- Risk of Policy Capture
When a single decision-making point controls all diplomatic and immigration matters, the risk of undue influence — whether from foreign governments, private actors, or special interest groups — increases dramatically.
- Public is Shut Out
Without parliamentary debate, there is no platform for the public’s concerns or questions on diplomatic and immigration issues to be raised through their elected representatives.
The Geopolitical Context
Tonga has made this change at a time when the Pacific is a battleground for influence among global powers — the US, China, Australia, New Zealand, and others.
Centralising the voice of Tonga “from the top” may seem like a way to project unity. But in practice, it removes the checks and balances that protect small nations from being overrun by larger powers’ agendas.
In the Westminster democracies we often compare ourselves to — New Zealand, Australia, the UK, Japan, Denmark — the head of state may formally sign treaties, but foreign affairs remains a ministerial responsibility under parliamentary control.
Our new model looks far more like Gulf monarchies such as Saudi Arabia, Brunei, or Oman — systems where foreign policy is a personal prerogative of the ruler, not the people’s representatives.
The Budget Question
Even under the new arrangement, the Constitution and the Public Finance Management Act still require all public spending to be appropriated by Parliament. This means the new His Majesty’s Diplomatic Services will need its own vote in the Estimates.
But here’s the problem:
- MPs will be asked to vote funds for an agency whose policies they cannot influence.
- Budget transparency may suffer if allocations are not broken down into clear categories like overseas missions, immigration control, and administration.
- Tonga’s debt distress remains high, with repayment pressures projected to stay elevated for years. Any new overhead for this agency must be offset elsewhere, or it risks adding strain to already tight finances.
Impact on Cabinet and Political Balance
With the removal of the Foreign Affairs ministry:
- The number of Cabinet ministers drops by at least one.
- The Crown Prince, who currently holds the Foreign Affairs portfolio, may no longer sit in Cabinet unless reassigned.
- This could subtly shift political alliances and influence within the executive.
While fewer ministers might sound like a cost saving, the reality is more complex: the political cost of removing an elected or accountable voice from a major portfolio may outweigh any administrative savings.
Where This Leaves the People
The true danger of this reform is not that it instantly changes Tonga’s day-to-day diplomacy — the same embassies will operate, the same visas will be processed.
The danger is structural:
- It sets a precedent that key government functions can be removed from parliamentary control with a single piece of legislation.
- It normalises decision-making without public or parliamentary debate.
- It signals to future governments — and to the world — that Tonga is willing to trade democratic accountability for “efficiency.”
A Call for Awareness and Vigilance
Many MPs may have voted for this law without fully understanding its long-term implications. Many in the public will hear “streamlining” and think it’s just a name change. It isn’t.
This is a constitutional shift that reverses part of what was gained in 2010. Once lost, such powers are difficult to restore.
If we care about our democracy, our sovereignty, and the principle that government should be accountable to the people through their elected representatives, then we must:
- Demand transparency in how His Majesty’s Diplomatic Services is funded and run.
- Insist on public reporting of its policies and decisions.
- Keep the conversation alive — so this isn’t the first step in a series of quiet rollbacks.
Conclusion: The Barrel We’re Facing Down
As Hon. Clive Edwards warned years ago, and as Peter J. Pursglove’s report spelled out in black and white, offices insulated from parliamentary oversight are a breach of the democratic principles on which our modern Constitution was built.
The His Majesty’s Diplomatic Services Bill 2025 extends that breach into the realm of foreign affairs and immigration — the very gateways of our sovereignty.
We have been told this is progress. In truth, it is a step backwards. And if we are not careful, it will be the first of many.
God help this tiny, proud, and poor nation if we give away our democratic safeguards without even realising what we’ve lost.
