Labour Leader Mahendra Chaudhry is deeply saddened at the untimely death of former Labour Parliamentarian and government Minister Anup Kumar.

“He was a close political colleague and a dear friend,” he said of the man who had served as his Minister for Commerce, Business Development and Trade when he was Prime Minister 1999/2000.

Anup Kumar was elected to the House of Representatives in May 1999 with a huge majority from the Vanua Levu West Indian Communal Constituency.

He left Fiji with his wife Kushma and two young children in 2001 to settle in Brisbane, Australia but stayed in constant touch with the political situation in Fiji, and was deeply concerned about the plight of the Indo - Fijian community under a racist post 2000 coup government, Mr Chaudhry said.

As a Minister, Anup was astute, quickly cultivating good relations with the business community and winning their confidence.

He was popular with the grassroots people because of his caring and compassionate ways. Anup was born and bred in a fairly isolated rural community. As such, he empathized with the poor and the underprivileged in society.

He was, however, deeply affected by the Coup of 19 May 2000, being held hostage at gunpoint for 56 days with 43 members of my government by terrorist George Speight and his men, with support from the CRW Wing of the Fiji Military Forces.

In his new homeland of Australia, Anup was ably supported and encouraged by his hardworking and determined wife Kushma as they struggled to succeed in a somewhat competitive and discerning environment.

But succeed they did as a family. Anup worked in various jobs over the years, ran a business with his boys while Kushma successfully pursued her teaching career.

All this while, Anup kept a keen interest in the affairs of the Fiji Labour Party - phoning me or emailing his views on political events here and supporting the Party. He also helped with our fundraising drives. I thank him most sincerely for staying true to the Labour cause

All was going well and Anup had even found the time to study Law when tragedy struck. It was swift and in next to no time snatched him away from his loving family and dear friends.

Anup's is a loss hard to bear for Kushma and the boys - Ashwin and Ashneel. He was so close to them.

But such is the reality of our existence - here today, gone tomorrow. We must accept it as the hard truth and cope with its agonies as best we can.
​
Deepest condolences to Kushma, Ashwin and Ashneel.

​Title: Staff Report to Council: Update and Issues for Decision Making (identical to Agenda item and paper title)
 
Purpose
 
The purpose of this paper is to inform and update the Council on the progress on staff matters reported to the May 2023 Council (C95).
 
Executive Summary: (maximum 100 words summarising key points)
 
The USP staff across the 14 campuses acknowledge the Council’s support towards staff matters raised at the May 2023 Council with advice that the Management works with the staff members and unions to resolve issues.
 
Council should note that the issues were raised through fora of the SMT/Union Quarterly meetings and Staff Policy (one final meetings for the year for each remain outstanding) and it was only through decisions at Union meetings (AUSPS and USPSU - October 2023) that notified the Management of the decision that strike action compliant with Fiji Labour Laws was voted for, that the VC gave this priority and appointed the Chief Operating Officer and the Executive Director People and Workforce Strategy (EDPWS) to negotiate with the academic and professional staff on the Log of Claims submitted by AUSPS. The Log of Claims contained the issues submitted to the May Council.
 
The non-financial issues have been dealt with, however, for the salary adjustment, the management has advised that there is no room for negotiation. The staff noted the 2% in October 2022 and another 2% in January 2023 which were not backdated. In June 2023, an increment was given to qualifying staff excluding those who had received promotion in a 12-month period.  Cost of living has skyrocketed and with what the university has saved in staff costs for positions not filled totals $14.8m.
 
The Log of Claims for which resolution was achieved comprised the following (refer to Appendix 1):

• Five year contracts for Teaching Assistants (TAs)

• Workload
• Job Evaluation
• Regional Employment
• Operationalising Policies
• Women in Higher Education
• Staff Retention
• MOA (2022-2024)
• Concession for University Staff Children Studying at USP
• Job Evaluation

 
UNRESOLVED ITEM IN LOG OF CLAIMS
 
Academic Staff Representation to Council

The attached submission (Appendix 2) to Senate 4/2023 on November 2 2023 outlined the proposal to replace the second senate professorial representative to Council by an academic voted by the academic non professorial categories, from AL to AP. The Chair of Senate did not support the proposal but referred the matter to a Working Group of Senate and informed the Senate that this proposal would require two readings of Senate. There is no policy justification regarding the need for a Working Group or the two readings. Senate should have discussed the proposal and voted on it.
 
Recommendation 1
That Council corrects the Senate to vote on this proposal that will see equitable representation on Council. Staff representatives on Council recall DPC Walsh’s support for this proposal.
 
NEW ISSUES
 
Item 1: Salary adjustment for Academics and Professional Staff
This is submitted for Council consideration and approval as the University Management has refused to discuss or negotiate any salary adjustment in good faith with staff representatives. The refusal to discuss and consider the increases is against the ILO Convention on Collect Bargaining and Council decision C95.  

All levels of staff sacrificed salary adjustments in the 2019-2021 Triennium and 2022-2023 of the second triennium. This was in consideration of the uncertainties during COVID and the withholding of the Grant by Fiji Government for services rendered. In addition, the workload of many staff has doubled and trebled in the period with vacancies reported at 455 by the VCP at the May 2023 Council across the USP Regional campuses. The inadequate Extra Duties Allowance Policy has been recommended for review as it fails to reflect workloads and the lengthy periods of 12 months and more.

Therefore, Academic and Professional Staff seek the following:

• A 3% increase per annum in line with inflation as per Reserve Bank inflation rates noting the recent projected 6% inflation rate for 2023.
• The total requested is 15% for the 5-year period, 2019-2023
• Taking into account the 4% already granted; AUSPS seeks a 11% salary adjustment across the board
• Cost of the salary adjustment for Academic and Professional staff has been calculated at no more than $7.22m using the midpoint for each Level and Band without the superannuation. (Refer Appendix 3)

• That this is paid in Pay 25 this year.
• SMT exempted.

Recommendation 2
That Council approves the salary adjustments requested and payable in 2023 (Pay 25).
 
Item 2: Salary Adjustment for Administrative and Support Staff (I&J)
In the interests of efficiency and time, based on the decision to not negotiate with AUSPS on salary adjustment, the Administrative Staff Union (USPSU) is making a direct submission to Council. USP’s proposal for a 2% salary adjustment for 2024 is rejected outright by both unions. The insignificant 2% is well below the cost of living. To quote the Deputy Prime Minister and Minster for Finance, Professor Biman Parad ‘as inflation is expected to be 6% by the end of the year and according to the Reserve Bank of Fiji, it could impact people’s savings, spending and loan repayment abilities…….The formal sector average salaries and wages in the country has increased by 25% compared to 2019 and is cushioning the impact of inflation’. (FijiLive 7.11.2023). In the triennium of 2019-2021 USP revenue totaled a massive $52,954, 834.00 and no salary adjustment in consultation with the unions awarded to staff who surrendered benefits during this period.  
 
Therefore, the Administrative and Support staff (I&J) seek the following:

• A 5% increase per annum
• The total requested is 25% for the period 2019-2023
• Taking into account the 4% already granted; USPSU seeks a 21% salary adjustment across the board
• Cost of the salary adjustment for Administrative and Support staff has been calculated at no more than $6.63m using the midpoint for each Grade without the superannuation. (Refer Appendix 4)

• That this is paid in Pay 25 this year.
• The 2% annual difference in the adjustment between AUSPS and USPSU is supported by AUSPS.

The staff and their unions have assessed the financial situation of the University based on USP Council financial reports of surpluses each year 2019-2022. The most recent update informed Senate 4/2023 (October) that the University is currently FJD$19m in surplus. Noting reported savings of FJD14.8m (Appendix A C95) from vacant positions, the University has the ability to pay as the pressure continues in the workplace with negative outcomes. There have been multiple staff resignations without all the positions being filled and staff overloaded with work and carrying out multiple tasks for long periods without the right compensation. This has led to low morale in the workplace, people being regularly sick as pressure mounts up and which is evidenced in the increase in the Medical Insurance which currently stands at $2.7m in October 2023 and estimated to reach $3.59m by December 2023.

Evidence is provided below:

Audited Financial Statements 2022
University Financial Performance 2019-2022

Staff are aware that the FNU has awarded its staff 5% in October 2022 backdated to January 2022. In April 2023, another 2% backdated to January 2023 and a bonus of $1200 for each staff. In addition, staff who served 3-4 years were granted 1-2 incremental steps in their salary range and those on tenure got 3-4 incremental steps up.
The University has argued that it cannot pay and must set aside funds should the ADB call on its loan. This loan is payable to 2046 and annual payments are budgeted. This also applies to the FNPF loan etc.
We believe that USP as the premier higher education institution in the Pacific that the USP wishes to be known as that is in a position to respond positively to the staffs’ need and deserved request, reiterating for services rendered.
Item 3: FNPF additional 2% contribution
Recommendation 3
That the University revert to payment of the additional 2% over the statutory rate with effect from 1 January 2024.
 
Item 4:  Council Secretariat and VCP failure to Communicate C95 outcomes to Staff
To date, the CSS which falls under the remit of the VCP failed to inform staff of the outcomes of the May 2023 Council Meeting despite requests made three working days after the May Council; at Senate and at the Union Quarterly Meeting with AUSPS. VCP response has been ` I will talk to Totivi’. This action is a denial of justice and transparency and good governance. It is an attempt to throttle the freedom of staff access to the information of Council on University matters that impact staff.
Recommendation 4
The Staff wish this noted as part of the VCP’s performance review as he signs off on the release by Secretariat.
 
Item 5: Vice Chancellor and President Position
The AUSPS Ordinary General Meeting held on 7 September 2023 voted by secret ballot (94%) to not support the re-appointment of the VCP Professor Pal Ahluwalia. USPSU held its Annual General Meeting on 7 September 2023 and voted unanimously to not support the re-appointment of the VCP. The unions also draw the Council’s attention to the ‘Ordinance to Govern the Terms and Conditions of Service of the Academic and Professional Staff of the University. Item 15 Retirement and Reemployment of Retirees ‘A member of staff shall retire at the end of the calendar year in which he/she attains the age of sixty-five’. The two Unions together represent over 600 members of staff.  These have been conveyed to the Joint Committee of Council and Senate.
 
Recommendation 5
That Council proceeds to advertise the position of the VCP. That the position is not restricted to a Professor and serious consideration is given in the search of applicants for qualified regionals.
 
Item 6: Senate Nominee to the Joint Committee on the Reappointment of the VCP
The Staff question the process of appointment of Professor Surendra Prasad to replace Professor Maurizio Cirrincione on the Joint Committee of Council and Senate on the Reappointment of the VCP. Given that he only received 6 votes/38 votes (15.8%) and was deemed unsuccessful and validated by the committee comprising Mr Totivi Bokini- Ratu, Secretary to Council and Manager, Ms Neelta Goundar -HR Business Partner and Mr Avishay Raj- Deputy Director Finance on 7 June 2023, along with Professor Daud Hassan who was also deemed unsuccessful, fresh elections should have been called. With 6 votes, Professor Surendra Prasad does not have the confidence of the Senate members. Professor Cirrincione received 14 votes and Dr Tamara Osborne -Naikatini with 16 votes.

Recommendation 6
That Council notes this and sets a minimum voter percentage that reflects the confidence of the Senate.
 
Item 7: Intention to Reduce the Ratio of Professional Staff to Academic by 50% in 2024
The Plan proposed for 2024 and shared at the Staff Forum/VCP noted the University’s intention to reduce the ratio of professional staff to academic staff by 50% from 1: 2.62 to 1: 1.32. This will result in ongoing heavy workloads being currently experienced by Professional (Levels 1-5) and Administrative (I&J) (Grades 1-6) and likelihood of job losses. Given the structure of the University there is a need for multiple positions e.g. Finance, Library, ITS and Student Academic Services personnel. This is an alert to Council of the possible impact on both staff and quality of services to our students. People interaction is important.

Recommendation 7
Council to note and closely track impact on Professional staff positions in the 2024 Budget disucssions. A report to be presented to the May 2024 Council.
 
Item 8: Appointment of Dr Mahendra Reddy

The academic appointment of Dr Mahendra Reddy under the Appointment without Advertising Policy (Policy number: 1.6.4.41) has drawn the ire of all USP staff and some former academics. The staff have conveyed their concerns to the Vice Chancellor and President in a letter dated 3 November 2023. Academic merit and integrity under the USP values are intertwined and cannot be separated.

The concerns are as follows:

1. He was a part of the Fiji Government that did not honour the decision of Parliament to pay its obligations and its outstanding member contribution due to USP. This was a clear attempt to destroy USP as a regional institution.
2. Dr Reddy tried to undermine academic freedom by attacking the contribution of USP academics towards public policy debate in Fiji. This is evident from his statements in and outside of the Fiji Parliament.
3. Dr Reddy was part of a Government that placed the regionally owned University in financial jeopardy that the students and staff of 12 countries are still feeling the effects of and now will be a beneficiary of the funds for personal gain that he voted to withhold for no valid reason. Staff increased workloads at all levels and negative impact on staff health are the result of the actions/decisions he took as a member of the Fiji First Government.
4. His actions in Parliament went against the USP values that we are all measured against and expected to uphold.  This raises serious questions about Dr Reddy’s ethics and integrity.
5. Dr Reddy has been out of academia since joining politics in 2014 and his research output is zero over the last 6 years. https://academiainsider.com/what-is-a-good-h-index-for-each-academic-position/

 
Recommendation 8

1. The staff request the Council to bear this in mind on the reappointment of the VCP.
2. That Dr Reddy is not offered a new contract.

 
Item 9: Relocation of VCP and COO to Laucala Campus
​
Recommendation 9
Staff refer the Council to the Staff Paper (May 2023 Council) on the above matter. Ideally the relocation should take place in January 2024 in good time for the commencement of Semester 1 2024.
 
Item 10: Professor of Oceans and Climate Change
The issue of the renewal of contract for the Professor of Oceans and Climate Change is under challenge by a policy on the timing of submission for Staff Review and Contract renewal. Of international repute, the current holder raises the university’s profile as the highest-ranking researcher at USP with an H-Index of 64. With the income that she brings to the university and the reputation she has every effort should be made to retain her services for the benefit of the institution. Personal differences should be put aside.

Recommendation 10
That Council support the renewal of contract for one year as the incumbent turns 65 in June 2024 and the policy allows employment to December 2024.
 
Recommendation(s):
 
Recommendation 1
That Council corrects the Senate to vote on this proposal that will see equitable representation on Council. Staff representatives on Council recall DPC Walsh’s support for this proposal.
 
Recommendation 2
That Council approves the salary adjustments requested and payable in 2023 (Pay 25).
 
Recommendation 3
That the University revert to payment of the additional 2% over the statutory rate with effect from 1 January 2024.
 
Recommendation 4
The Staff wish this noted as part of the VCP’s performance review as he signs off on the release by Secretariat.
 
Recommendation 5
That Council proceeds to advertise the position of the VCP. That the position is not restricted to a Professor and serious consideration is given in the search of applicants for qualified regionals.
 
Recommendation 6
That Council notes this and sets a minimum voter percentage that reflects the confidence of the Senate.
 
Recommendation 7
Council to note and closely track impact on Professional staff positions in the 2024 Budget disucssions. A report to be presented to the May 2024 Council.
 
Recommendation 8

1. The staff request the Council to bear this in mind on the reappointment of the VCP.
2. That Dr Reddy is not offered a new contract.

 
Recommendation 9
Staff refer the Council to the Staff Paper (May 2023 Council) on the above matter. Ideally the relocation should take place in January 2024 in good time for the commencement of Semester 1 2024.
 
Recommendation 10
That Council support the renewal of contract for one year as the incumbent turns 65 in June 2024 and the policy allows employment to December 2024.
 
​

As the lunchtime break commenced during a parliamentary session, I headed to the Opposition chambers on the second floor to drop off my belongings before grabbing a quick bite.

Little did I know that a surprising encounter awaited me.

To my amazement, the unmistakable vehicle of FijiFirst Leader and former Prime Minister Frank Bainimarama was parked outside Parliament.

Excitement and curiosity surged within me, prompting a spontaneous decision to seize the opportunity to meet our esteemed FijiFirst leader.

Rushing back up to the chambers, I found myself face-to-face with the cheerful and widely admired former Prime Minister.

A spontaneous gathering ensued, with fellow MPs joining in for an impromptu session of guidance and camaraderie.

Seated together, we engaged in a candid exchange of thoughts.

Former PM and FijiFirst Leader Bainimarama generously shared his insights and provided valuable guidance.

Amidst the serious discussions, the atmosphere lightened as we collectively found humor in what was deemed by many as the current government's "pathetic performance."

Amidst our discussions, it seemed only fitting to express gratitude for Bainimarama's successes during his tenure as Prime Minister.

His leadership saw noteworthy achievements that significantly impacted Fiji's growth and development.

From economic milestones to social initiatives, Bainimarama's tenure left an indelible mark on the nation.
​
The lunchtime encounter turned into an unexpected yet cherished moment, fostering camaraderie among MPs.

‘Bainimarama cannot remain a member of the Constitutional Offices Commission under Section 78 of the 2013 Constitution of Fiji.’

According to Suva lawyer Richard Naidu (‘Bainimarama remains as Leader of the Opposition, February 19, The Fiji Times), the FFP MP Frank Bainimarama, despite his suspension from Parliament for breach of privilege, not only remains the Opposition Leader but, among other constitutional roles, retains his membership in the Constitutional Offices Commission (COC).

Mr Naidu was relying on Section 78 of the 2013 Constitution of Fiji.  We, however, beg to differ with Mr Naidu’s interpretation regarding Mr Bainimarama’s membership of the COC. Let us examine the Standing Orders of the Parliament of Fiji (Standing Order 15(3)(1) that was amended by the FFP government and gazetted on February 20, 2017.

What rights do a Parliament member forfeits on suspension by the Privileges Committee?

A member who is suspended from the service of Parliament under Standing Order 76 or 77 must not do any of the following: a) enter the Chamber; b) vote; c) serve on a committee; d) lodge a question or notice of motion.

Despite Mr Naidu’s view, we would like to argue that Mr Bainimarama cannot serve on the COC. Although it is not technically a committee, for there are standing, select, and special committees, the COC is an extended committee of Parliament.

The word “commission” is absent from the Standing Orders of the Parliament of Fiji. Standing Order 127 provides for the establishment of a Privileges Committee.

This committee comprises the following members:

1. the Deputy Speaker, the Chairperson of the Committee; and
2. five members appointed by the Speaker in consultation with the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition.

The mandate of the Committee is to: a) bring to the attention of Parliament any breach of privileges of Parliament committed by any person; b) consider any question of privilege which may be referred to it by Parliament or by the Speaker; c) inquire into any complaint that may be referred to it by Parliament or the Speaker regarding any breach of privilege by any person; and d) provide reports and recommendations to Parliament as a result of such referral.

Last week, the Privileges Committee advised Parliament on Mr Bainimarama’s suspension and penalties.

The Parliament, the supreme authority to make laws, voted to suspend Mr Bainimarama. The COC, by extension, is linked to the legislature.

While expressing his views on Bainimarama’s suspension, Mr Naidu conceded that there might “be a legal argument” to his interpretation of Section 78 of the Constitution. On Mr Bainimarama’s continued membership of the COC, we argue that on suspension, he forfeited the right to COC membership. Mr Bainimarama must resign from COC.

If he refuses, the Privileges Committee will reconvene and remove him from the COC. The drafters of the 2013 Constitution had not envisaged a situation whereby the Leader of the Opposition had to be suspended from Parliament for breach of privilege.

In this case, Mr Bainimarama. He was meant to rule for eternity.

And any non-FFP MP found guilty by the Privileges Committee – Ratu Naiqama Lalabalavu, Tupou Draunidalo, and Ratu Isoa Tikoca – were given the boot out of Parliament.

We argue that Mr Bainimarama is booted out of the Constitutional Offices Commission.

It is unacceptable that while he is barred from partaking in constitutional matters inside Parliament, he is free to sit outside Parliament on the COC and deliberate on issues of national and constitutional importance to Fiji. Otherwise, what is the point of suspending him from Parliament?
​
The Standing Orders disqualify him from serving on any committee or commission after the Privileges Committee suspended his primary membership of Parliament. Out must mean Out. Tuba. Tuba.

'Wherever I go now,’ the first British colonial governor Sir Arthur Hamilton Gordon wrote, ‘the natives shout Woh! and crouch down, as before their own great chiefs, and they admit and understand that I am their master’.

His house was declared tabu: all persons passing it on the road or sailing before it in canoes, gave the tama, or shout of respect to a high chief. The people had no choice, for it was Gordon who had created the Bose Levu Vakaturaga or the Great Council of Chiefs, and had come to see himself as chief of the Fijian chiefs.

The GCC is, therefore, merely a colonial invention, which Gordon had created in order to rule Fiji through the chiefs. In fact, there was nothing new about Gordon’s invention, for the British had devised similar institutions, to rule Africa through the African chiefs on that continent.

The British also introduced the African native system of government into Fiji. In other words, the British were not treating the Fijian chiefs as special although they couched their policies in that term.

However, Gordon mixed and matched titles to create Fijian customs, traditions, and institutions. He borrowed the title ‘Buli’ from Bua, where it applied to a minor chief, and that of ‘Roko Tui’ from the head of the priestly clan in Tailevu and Rewa.

It was not long before the Fijian chiefs began to accept the institution and the paraphernalia and the inventions that went with it as uniquely Fijian. They also swore to obey everything that Governor commanded them to perform during the long years of British colonialism.

As historians of Fiji have argued, there is no evidence that the councils set up by Gordon were ‘purely native and of spontaneous growth’.

The chiefs rarely met in Council until the imported institutions of government required them to do so.

In 1875 the Government interpreter David Wilkinson refused to accept that the GCC was a body based on Fijian tradition: ‘The Fijian custom being that high Chiefs seldom, if ever, meet each other in Council.’ The GCC was directly subject to Gordon’s authority, the regulation that provided for its establishment stating:

‘The Governor is the originator of the Council and he alone can open its proceedings’.

The power Gordon held over the GCC was manifestly demonstrated when he threatened to abolish it on finding out that some of its chiefly members were drunk.

He recorded his dealings with the chiefs in his personal diaries that he published in four volumes between 1897 and 1912.
​
The disputes over chiefly successions, which are still prevalent today, were rampant. Ratu Bonaveidogo of Macuata, giving evidence on the position of Tui Macuata when asked to explain the customs of his tribe in the matter of chiefly succession replied that the custom was to fight about it.

Another contentious issue was the ownership of land, which has again reared its ugly head following the introduction of the Indigenous Lands Claims Tribunal and the Qoliqoli Bills.

The Bua Government was the earliest in the country to have taken the effective measure to control the sale of land in Fiji, passing, in 1866, an ‘Act to regulate the sale and leasing of lands within the kingdom and state of Bua’.

The Act stripped the power of the chiefs to sell or lease land and vested it to the Government, which fixed the price and shared the profits with the landowners. However, any rebellious tribe who did not conform to Tui Bua or conspired against him, faced expulsion, as the Korovatu people found to their cost in 1866.

The Yasawa islands, conquered by Ma’afu on behalf of Tui Bua, was not spared – the rebellious chiefs of Nacula and Tavewa found their islands sold to planter Hennings as a punishment for supporting Bau.

Other chiefs, especially Ratu Seru Cakobau and the Tui Cakau were equally ruthless. A year before the Deed of Cession was signed, as historian Peter France and others have demonstrated, the survivors from the vanua of Magodro, Qaliyalatina, and Naloto, following the outbreak of war in Ba, were deported from their lands and offered for sale to white settlers, their lands being confiscated and included in the offer of cession to British Crown.

The Lovoni people, who had revolted against Cakobau, had their lands mortgaged and sold by auction, and they themselves were sold as plantation labour at three pounds a head. Cakobau also gave away 200,000 acres of land to the Polynesian Company, including the Suva Harbour, in exchange for the payment of debts to the Americans. King Cakobau’s son Ratu Epeli, on being appointed as Lieutenant-Governor of Ba and Yasawa sold most of the northern islands to European settlers.

Commenting on the deeds of sale in Nasarawaqa, Bua, the Lands Commission noted that ‘they bear the signature of an extravagant of chiefs, most of whom had very little to do with the lands sold, culminating with the name of Ratu Epeli of Bau, who had about as much authority at that time, and in that part of Fiji as the Emperor of China’. Chief Ritova had alienated over 100,000 acres of land along the coast of Vanuabalavu.

The Tui Cakau had even given away the rights of levy over Cicia to Ma’afu in exchange for the Tongan chief’s canoes. Ma’afu had also taken up residence at Lomaloma after putting down a rebellion on Vanuabalavu and assuming control over the islands. The Tui Cakau had also given away a coastal stretch on Natewa Bay to planter Hennings, and also sold Natasa in Natewa, without informing its occupants. The lists are endless.

The missionaries were notey appropriated huge tracts of land in the name of Christianity and civilisation.

It was against that background that  behind – thGovernor Gordon finally summoned the chiefs in 1876 to outline the traditionally recognised rights to land so that legislation could be framed.The chiefs were not sure of the immemorial traditions to land rights. The Land Commissioners equally struggled, with Basil Thomson concluding as follows: ‘The Fijians had no territorial roots. It is not too much to say that no tribe now occupies the land held by its fathers two centuries ago.’

In the end the present system of land ownership was devised, with the Native Lands Trust Board as the guardian of land rights in Fiji. Those championing for the introduction of the Qoliqoli and Indigenous Lands Claims Bill have, as I have written elsewhere, law on their side. However, the whole land debate and legislation of the old was framed in the aftermath of native and settler disputes over land rights in Fiji.
​
Sir Arthur Gordon had never factored into his policy the likelihood of Fijians refusing to share with other fellow Fijians the proceeds of their tribal lands, seas, and foreshores in the 21st Century. Commodore Voreqe Bainimarama and other interior Fijians have nothing to benefit from the Qoliqoli Bill, and it is this that I suspect that is driving him and others to oppose it to the bitter end. He even went to the extent of claiming that the Lauans pushing for the Bill will not be affected from its fall out. After all, the Lauan chief Ma’afu was not even a signatory to the Deed of Cession, which had unconditionally ceded Fiji to Queen Victoria in 1874.

The question that follows is who should be held accountable for the wanton loss of Fijian lands? Who should pay compensation? It is quite clear that it should be the descendants of the chiefs and the churches in Fiji. It is wrong, especially for the present chiefs and the Government, to blame only the colonialists and white settlers.

It was the present chiefs’ ancestors who are the real culprits, for it was they who sold the lands or sold lands over which they had little claim in the first instance to white settlers, planters, and missionaries.

The Governor Sir Arthur Gordon had come up with a land policy in the 19th Century to ensure that Fiji survived under his governorship.

According to one of his successors, Im Thurn, ‘It is too true that all Sir Arthur Gordon’s successors as Governors of Fiji have unquestionably followed him into the pit which he first dug. We-for I am a culprit too-followed his lead in thinking that the Fijians had good claims to the surplus land’.

It should not come as any surprise that in 1907 Gordon, by now Lord Stanmore, supported his land policy in the British House of Lords, for the chiefs had also given away two islands to him as a gift from the Fijian people.
​
Which Fijian people? And who owned those two lands to which Gordon had become the turaga taukei – a land owning chief in the country? Sadly the Fiji of 1876 is very different from the Fiji of 2006. The current stand-off between the Prime Minister and the Commodore on the Qoliqoli Bill is a testimony to that fact.

Inflation in Fiji could be as high as 13% - ANZ economist

The rate of inflation could be a lot higher than 6 percent that has been projected by the Reserve Bank of Fiji by the end of the year as ANZ Bank economist says it could be as high as 13 percent.

ANZ Bank Economist Doctor Kishti Sen (left) says what the average consumer is feeling is way more than what the Fiji Bureau of Statistics is telling us.

He says the current Consumer Price Index or the basket of goods and services that the Bureau of Statistics measures month to month was created using the Household Income Expenditure Survey done in 2008.

He says consumer spending has changed.
​
Dr. Sen says there is an urgent need to update the components of the Consumer Price Index, and the weights that are assigned has to be reflective of the current average consumer and, until and unless we get that, we will not really know what true inflation is in the economy. Source: Fijivillage News.

Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance Professor Biman Prasad says the report by the ANZ Bank that the inflation will be 13 percent this year is wrong.

While responding to FijiFirst MP Jone Usamate about the mitigation on the ANZ report prediction, Professor Prasad says ANZ should be very careful while making such wild projections because the methodology they used is based on the gross value added of the retail sector.

He says for their mitigation, the government allocated $50 million and paid $200 each to 227,000 students for back to school, they did not raise VAT on 22 food items and added basic medicine, they increased social welfare allowance, sugarcane farmers got higher prices, the government did not touch the income tax threshold and they also wrote off the burden of paying the TELS debt by students as soon as the government was formed.

Professor Prasad says this is a government that is concerned and aware, and has put in the appropriate mitigation measures. Source: Fijivillage News

​Finance Minister Biman Prasad's Budget 2023/24 is the root cause of the unprecedented rise in the cost of living, says Labour Leader Mahendra Chaudhry.

“His 15% VAT has snatched food away from the mouths of the poor, driving thousands more to the poverty queue,” Mr Chaudhry said.

He promised to bring down the cost of living in return for the votes he got but has betrayed the very people who voted for him.

The Budget he boasts of has effectively taken from the poor to give to the rich:

- He reduced the top personal tax rate for the rich

- he scrapped the social responsibility tax

- he granted 7 year tax holiday to a foreign-owned company earning millions in profit

- He has not moved to tax dividends in the hands of the rich.

Biman's path to economic recovery is dictated by the international financial institutions. He doesn't have a plan of his own.

Mr Chaudhry said the National Economic Summit and the Fiscal Review Committee did not carry the voice of the working poor. It was dominated by businesses and the elite in society.

“Biman seems to have forgotten his previous promises to give priority to raise the National Minimum Wage and grant pay increases to teachers and other civil servants who have not had one since 2017.
​
"Unfortunately, he has spoken too many lies. His preoccupation now is to look after his own survival in a shaky Coalition of parties, each grabbing for themselves and their cronies whatever they can while the people and the nation take the back seat,” Mr Chaudhry said.

The Chair of the NGO Coalition on Human Rights in Fiji, Shamima Ali is asking if Fiji is a democratic country as the NGO Coalition was denied a permit to march.

Ali says they will continue to call for a ceasefire and to stop the genocide in Gaza.

She says Police informed them that their permit had been refused due to the fear of retaliation and inciting violence.

However she raised concerns that Police were harassing them and asking questions about why they were gathering and receiving threatening calls that same afternoon.
​
Ali says it is very unjust and is a violation of human rights and freedom of assembly, freedom of association and expression which are people's rights, and it is not acceptable that permits will not be given for any march and events for Gaza.

She says it is not fair as they fought for this in the last 16 years while Christian Zionists are openly allowed to gather outside Parliament, waving the Israeli flag without a permit.

Fiji Women’s Rights Movement Director, Nalini Singh says she is upset about the government's actions as to how can peaceful marches not be allowed in the country which is moving towards improving the the fragility of our democracy.

Questions have been sent to Police and Minister of Home Affairs, Pio Tikoduadua. Source: Fijivillage News

The Arya Pratinidhi Sabha of Fiji and The University of Fiji are mourning the loss of Professor Rajesh Chandra.

Professor Chandra, who served as the Foundation Vice-Chancellor of UniFiji, passed away on Thursday night after a period of ill-health.
​
The Sabha and UniFiji hold the late Professor in high regard, recognizing his crucial role as he assumed the Vice-Chancellor position during a critical period in the university’s history.

He played a key role in establishing a solid foundation for Fiji’s first people’s university, founded in 2005.

After three years as the VC at UniFiji, Professor Chandra experienced a turning point in his professional life when he was appointed Vice-Chancellor of The University of the South Pacific.

Professor Chandra leaves a lasting professional legacy in local, regional, and international academia.
​
The Sabha and UniFiji express that Professor Chandra will be remembered with high esteem by his kin and kith.
Both organizations extend their heartfelt condolences to Dr. Dharma Chandra and the grieving family.