HALLELUJAH, ITS RAINING MONEY MAN FROM THE CANADIAN CHAP
"The primary responsibility must clearly rest with Prime Minister Sitiveni Rabuka who appointed the Special Emoluments Committee drawn from Parliament itself with NFP strangely not a member. Secondary responsibility must rest with the members of this Special Committee comprising Chairperson Linda [Lynda} Tabuya, Ro Filipe Tuisawau, Aseri Radrodro, Alvick Maharaj and Mosese Bulitavu, all of whom have tarnished their reputations. Thirdly, this debacle has been unprofessionally facilitated by a supposedly “independent” UNDP consultant (Ken Deveaux). But his Report was firstly not independent of the Tabuya Committee and secondly, his tables of statistics and analysis were professionally “shoddy”. This is a bad reflection on UNDP, his employer, who should have been concerned that good governance practices were undermined by their consultant’s Report, paid for using UNDP funds."
All of Fiji, including responsible senior social leaders, have been up in arms over the fast-tracked decision of the Fiji Parliament on the 24th May 2024, in a specially extended sitting, to exorbitantly increase the emoluments of Ministers, Opposition Leader, MPs, the President and Speaker. Cunningly quiet has been the Employers’ Federation.
The critics include The Fiji Council of Social Servies Executive Director (Vani Catanisiga), Dialogue Fiji (Nilesh Lal), the NGO Coalition on Human Rights, the FPSA General Secretary (Judith Kotobalavu), Unity Fiji leader and former Governor of the Reserve Bank (Savenaca Narube), FLP Leader (Mahendra Chaudhry), WCC head Shamima Ali and Jioji Kotobalavu (former senior civil servant). Dozens of very sensible Letters to the Editor in Fiji Times also continue to attack the Parliamentary decision.
This entire debacle reflects very badly on Prime Minister Sitiveni Rabuka for approving the appointment of the Tabuya Committee in the first place, his brazen defence of the Report recommendations, the fast-tracking of the Parliamentary approval, then his ill-considered public threat to discipline his Coalition partner, the National Federation Party whose principled position has been internationally reported and respected throughout Fiji.
Rabuka has now back-tracked considerably (FT 30/5/2024 “PM to listen to the people: Have your say”) but he is still deliberately fuzzy about how his Government will save its reputation. The public cannot forget his quiet opportunistic use of Bainimarama’s exorbitant per diems ($3,000 plus per day) with overseas jaunts for a whole year after becoming Prime Minister in 2022.
Then just yesterday (31/5/2024) came the bombshell that the increase has already been gazetted and PM Rabuka is now saying that the changes will have to be implemented from 1 August 2024 but that he wont accept any rise personally.
Hullo? This is not about you, Prime Minister. This is about the proper process and everyone’s remunerations in Parliament. AND there are two months remaining till 1 August 2024.
This article focuses briefly on the process of decision-making by the Tabuya Committee but more the shoddy analysis and Report by the UNDP consultant (Deveaux) who connived to facilitate the Tabuya Committee Report.
Nine years ago I had written a prophetic article (Fiji Times, 7 Feb, 2015) “The People’s Parliament: Letters to the Editor” and published also in Pacific Scoop (AUT):
https://pacific.scoop.co.nz/2015/02/fiji-democracy-letters-to-the-editor-and-battling-censorship/
Today, it is abundantly clear that in this major test for the Rabuka Government, it is Fiji Times that is holding it to account, not the Fiji Parliament and certainly not the Opposition FFP which disgracefully collaborated with Rabuka’s People’s Alliance Party and Gavoka’s SODELPA for their own mutual selfish interests.
But first, readers should watch this video clip of a former Prime Minister, the late Mr Laisenia Qarase very humbly answering questions about his own salary as Prime Minister (a mere $106 thousand), just before he was treasonously deposed by Voreqe Bainimarama in 2006, supported by other senior RFMF officers, some in the Fiji Parliament today as FFP MPs.
https://www.facebook.com/FijianChiefs/videos/what-was-your-salary-mr-qarase-when-you-were-the-pm-and-what-is-the-salary-of-th/1773903689563594/
Public Popular Uproar and Parliamentary fast tracking
First, why was the parliamentary decision fast-tracked and voting done through an extended Friday afternoon session?
Remember FTUC General Secretary (Felix Anthony) came out with “tongue in cheek” support demanding that the outrageous increases must be extended to all the workers of Fiji who were fighting for a decent Minimum Wage and Wages Councils Orders?
Given that Government is currently considering (and taking its time) the setting of Minimum Wages and the Wages Councils Orders, the threat of escalation of general wage and salary demands must mean fuelling a wage-price spiral which would hurt those in the informal sector and the poorest the most.
But as important, any comparable increases to the public service salaries, must also scupper any attempt by the Minister of Finance to control public expenditure which is the only hope for reducing Fiji’s massive Public Debt curse left by the Bainimarama Government (see Graph 4 below).
It is no wonder that the Minister of Finance said on Friday morning “it is still a Report and if we need to shelve it, we can”.
But lo and behold, that very afternoon the Chairperson of the Emoluments Committee (Linda Tabuya) called for a special extension of the parliamentary sitting and zipped the Bill through with most FFP MPs also supporting Government, a unique moment of co-operation- in their own selfish interests.
Responsibility for this debacle?
There have been no positive comments on this debacle, other than by the Prime Minister Sitiveni Rabuka and the Leader of the Opposition (Inia Seruiratu), both of whom stand to gain massively in comparison to the salaries and remuneration what prevailed under the Government of the late Laisenia Qarase (before the Bainimarama/Khaiyum Government escalated their own benefits. See my graphs 1, 2 and 3 below).
The primary responsibility must clearly rest with Prime Minister Sitiveni Rabuka who appointed the Special Emoluments Committee drawn from Parliament itself with NFP strangely not a member.
Secondary responsibility must rest with the members of this Special Committee comprising Chairperson Linda Tabuya, Ro Filipe Tuisawau, Aseri Radrodro, Alvick Maharaj and Mosese Bulitavu, all of whom have tarnished their reputations.
Thirdly, this debacle has been unprofessionally facilitated by a supposedly “independent” UNDP consultant (Ken Deveaux). But his Report was firstly not independent of the Tabuya Committee and secondly, his tables of statistics and analysis were professionally “shoddy”.
This is a bad reflection on UNDP, his employer, who should have been concerned that good governance practices were undermined by their consultant’s Report, paid for using UNDP funds.
First go back to the 2014 precedent, facilitated by the same consultant.
The disgraceful 2014 precedent
In 2014, the Fiji Parliamentary Remunerations Decree 2014 (No. 29) set out the fine principles supposed to be followed (also quoted by Deveaux in his Report):
* be transparent in the use of public money, with no hidden perks (OK);
* be competitive with both the private and public sectors so as to attract persons of the right calibre to lead the country (HA HA HA);
* be fair to the person or incumbent for the work they do (HA HA HA);
* be fair to taxpayers and take account of prevailing economic conditions (HA HA HA);
* reflect the ethos of political service which entails making sacrifices (HA HA HA);
* maintain the confidence in and integrity of Parliament (HA HA HA);
* and set the remuneration at a rate lower if necessary (HA HA HA).
BUT were these principles put in practice by either the Bainimarama Government in 2014 or the Rabuka Government in 2024? HA HA HA.
For a start, contrary to good governance practice, this Decree astonishing stated (paragraph 3) that Parliament itself, would set the remuneration for members of parliament. The 2014 Decree published a Schedule of salaries and was "signed into law" by the illegally appointed President of Fiji then, former RFMF Commander Ratu Epeli Nailatikau.
What happened in 2014 has happened again in 2024 under PM Rabuka, except that a supposedly “independent” foreign consultant (Deveaux) was used to do the dirty work (no doubt for a fat consultancy fee).
Can you imagine what Fiji (and the Fiji Employers Association) would say if FPSA and FTUC were to announce that from hence forth their wages and salaries would be set by a committee appointed by themselves? It is no wonder the Employers Federation is deathly quiet.
Deveaux very selectively chose “comparator” countries out of thin air with no rhyme or reason, including NZ and Australia- both developed high income countries, whose higher incomes he did not adjust for at all.
Deveaux also very strategically chose not to ask: what process do NZ and Australia follow in setting the remuneration of their MPs? I just give NZ’s excellent example (which any decent Fiji Parliament should follow).
Process followed by NZ?
NZ has a permanent Remuneration Authority (NZRA) which regularly determines the salaries and allowances of all Members of Parliament, including the Prime Minister, Leader of Opposition and Speaker. Fiji Times readers can visit this website:
https://www.legislation.govt.nz/regulation/public/2020/0327/latest/LMS438252.html
The three members of the NZRA are highly competent in their own rights, at or above the levels of the persons whose salaries they are setting. Three years ago, the Chair (Hon Dame Fran Wilde) was a former Minister in the NZ Government, former Mayor of Wellington, CEO of the NZ Trade Development Board, and experienced company director in both the private and public sectors.
The second member was the owner, director and Principal Consultant for a company that specialised in advising private and public sector companies in setting salaries and remuneration for their top executives.
The third member had been the National Statistician of UK and NZ itself, and a past President of NZ's Institute of Public Administration.
In contrast, the public can ask: what exactly are the credentials of the Fiji’s Tabuya Committee?
Credentials of the Tabuya Committee?
Why did the Rabuka Government not select a professional external committee from the private sector (perhaps corporate leaders), accounting and auditing firms, public enterprises, important NGOs, and past senior civil servants?
If you are going to unwisely draw from your MPs, why would you ignore the Minister of Minister of Finance, Planning and Statistics responsible for the Fiji budget that pays the remuneration of parliament, and who is moreover a Professor of Economics?
But then, NFP had opposed this Committee from the beginning and its submission was conveniently ignored by the Tabuya Committee, PM Rabuka, Opposition Leader (Inia Seruiratu) and the consultant Deveaux.
Chair Linda (Lynda) Tabuya’s suitability for her role can be seen in her disingenuous arguments since the Report was released. She first argued that her Ministry’s Budget was bigger than that of the Minister of Finance and so her salary should be the same as his.
How can Tabuya not understand that the Minister of Finance is responsible not only for setting the budgets for all the Ministries (including hers) but also setting the economic environment for the entire country? How can Tabuya not understand that there are other much larger Ministries (like Education and Health) whose Minister should be paid more because the workload is more.
Linda (Lynda) Tabuya also complained that her own salary was lower than that of her Permanent Secretary. But as has been pointed out by the public, this is the case in most developed countries, simply because of the rigorous criteria that have to be satisfied before a person was appointed to the highest civil service position in a ministry. I suspect that some Ministers can be sent home on full pay for the full term of parliament, and their Ministries would continue operating quite efficiently under the Permanent Secretaries; or do even better in some without the interfering perpetually grandstanding Ministers in salusalus (you fill in the names).
The flawed Committee-Consultant Process
While even the 2014 Legislation states that the Tabuya Committee could have obtained independent advice, it chose not to, but it allegedly “requested the assistance of an independent consultant to conduct an analysis of the current remuneration for all of the offices noted above and to report to the Committee with specific findings and recommendations”.
The consultant (Deveaux) just ever so conveniently happened to be one who had already been used by the Bainimarama Government to escalate their salaries. HA HA HA.
It is clear from Deveaux’s Report that it was NOT at arms length. Deveaux himself states that he prepared a Preliminary Report and: “Once the consultant received feedback from the Committee on the preliminary findings provided, the consultant conducted an analysis of the data and evidence collected and produced a draft of the report with recommendations. The draft report was presented to the Committee at the start of November. Based on the feedback provided by the Committee (YIPPEE?), the consultant finalised this report.”
It is abundantly clear that the Tabuya Committee had a continuous strong input into the Draft Report AND the Final Report.
Deveaux’s flawed selection of countries
Deveaux reports he chose the following jurisdictions for the comparative analysis of salaries and remuneration: New South Wales State, South Australia State, Victoria State, New Zealand Papua New Guinea and Trinidad & Tobago.
He argued “All of these jurisdiction have a similar parliamentary system as, with Fiji, they are members of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association and their systems have evolved from the Westminster model of parliamentary democracy. For the first five noted above, they are jurisdictions in the Pacific region. Papua New Guinea is a developing country. For Trinidad & Tobago, there are remarkable similarities to Fiji, with regard to demographics, culture, population, historic colonial impact, and development status (middle income).”
But why would you select the developed countries or states from the Pacific with massively different GDP per capita and different fiscal situations compared to Fiji? Why choose to list developing countries for which you did not even have data?
Deveaux compares the parliamentary salaries with that of “Average Incomes” of some countries (not all) for which he gives no authoritative sources. His estimate for Fiji ($22,097) is way above my estimate for Fiji from FBS data ($14,562).
He claims that he had no data for Papua New Guinea or Trinidad and Tobago, so compared their parliamentary salaries with that of “Teachers". How utterly ridiculous.
Then when he has some salaries in the table for Fiji and the developed countries, he makes no further analysis allowing for their different average incomes, just implying that the Fiji emoluments should be higher, towards that of NZ or Australia.
Then in another Table where he lists all the salaries of the Presidents, Prime Ministers, Speakers, and MPs, again, he draws no comparison with the Average Incomes.
Finally, the consultant boldly claims “However, it is possible to see from Victoria State, New South Wales State, and New Zealand, where full data sets were available, the ability to compare to Fiji office holders.” WOW.
How pathetic is it that this UNDP Consultant compares Fiji parliamentary emoluments with those of developed countries like Australia and NZ, simply because there was data available for the developed countries but not the developing countries (which he previously selected out of the blue then ignored thereafter). Even a USP junior economist would not make these methodological mistakes which the Tabuya Committee clearly had no inkling of.
My crude analysis: comparing NZ with Fiji
Any economist worth his/her salt would know that to compare parliamentary salaries of NZ and Fiji, one must take into account the capacity of those countries’ taxpayers to pay those salaries. Good economists would usually public sector salaries compare with GDP per capita (as even Rick Rickman, an elderly FNPF pensioner pointed out on social media).
Graph 1 compares the salaries of the Prime Minister in NZ, with that of the late Qarase, then of PM Bainimarama which PM Rabuka is also on. The GDP per capita data in Constant Local Dollars (not perfect but will do roughly) is derived from World Bank’s development database.
* The NZ Prime Minister had 8 times the NZ GDP per capita.
* Prime Minister Qarase had 12 times the Fiji GDP per capita.
* But Bainimarama increased his PM salary to 30 times that of Fiji’s GDP per capita. Under the Tabuya Committee recommendation will be ever so slightly reduced to 29 times the GDP per capita still massively higher than the Qarase relativity.
| Graph 2 shows the ratio of the salary of the Leader of Opposition and Ministers to the GDP per capita. For NZ is was 5 times, increased in the Qarase years to 9 times, increased again to 11 in the Bainimarama period. But the Tabuya Committee has increased it massively to 18 times. No wonder we saw unanimity in the Tabuya Committee between the PAP, the SODELPA and Fiji First MPs, and also Inia Seruiratu’s unprincipled support of the Tabuya Committee Report and the parliamentary fast tracking decision. Graph 3 shows that ordinary MP’s salaries in NZ was 2.7 times GDP per capita, 3.5 under Qarase, rose to 4.6 under Bainimarama, but is now recommended to 8.7 times GDP by the Tabuya Committee. It is no wonder that many Government and Opposition MPs joyfully combined to vote YES for the increase. I have done similar analysis as Deveaux did, comparing the parliamentary salaries with “Average Incomes” which in the case of Fiji is the average for “Wages and Salaries” as accurately estimated by the FBS Employment and Unemployment Surveys (adjusted to 2023 by the Consumer Prices Index). The patterns in the graphs are almost exactly the same as above by comparing with GDP per capita. Consultant’s Shoddy Analysis of Post Requirements Deveaux states that in addition to skills in public consultations, media relations, general management skills, leadership skills, and be sources of funding, that the Fiji MPs needed to be proficient in * Legal Analysis – the need to analyse legislation and bills, including the identification of potential amendments to both and to extrapolate the impact of such changes to legislation. * Policy Analysis – to analyse public policy, which may or may not flow from legislative mandates. * Budget Analysis – to be capable in reading budgets and public accounts. |     |
The Fiji public can also ask themselves by reading Hansard or the daily newspapers of the TV and radio transcripts, how many times and how many of Fiji MPs have ever displayed their superior skills in “legal analysis” or “policy analysis” or budget analysis” other then when reading prepared speeches? I suggest that there is more sensible analysis done by the many writers of Letters to the Editor of Fiji Times.
Deveau astonishingly claimed that that the closest set of skills in the private sector to that required of MPs in the Fiji Parliament was that of a barrister or solicitor, earning in excess of $100,000 a year.
WOW. How many of Fiji’s MPs have ever been employed at these salary levels, with the exception of a few like Professor Biman Prasad.
Employment Prospects of Military Prime Ministers?
There is little doubt about the market value of the former Prime Minister the late Lasenia Qarase, who left a high paying job as Head of the Fiji Development Bank to become Prime Minister. He is probably the most honest and hard-working PM Fiji has ever had (except that the late Dr Bavadra and Mr Mahendra Chaudhry were never allowed to complete their term).
But before setting the remuneration of Prime Ministers, Fiji should ask itself: what is the “market value” to Fiji taxpayers of military prime ministers like Voreqe Bainimarama and Sitiveni Rabuka? Or Leaders of the Opposition Inia Seruiratu or the Speaker of the House Lalabalavu?
Think of the billions of dollars damage done by RMF Commanders and officers to the economy and national income of Fiji, starting with the precedence set by the Rabuka coup in 1987.
What of Rabuka’s NBF disaster which cost Fiji more than $200 million dollars in 1997 prices (in excess of $500 million in today’s prices).
What of the 2000 coup which Bainimarama refused to stop even though he was told about the planning six months before, and the actual CRW coup a week before (but conveniently left the country)?
What of former Commander Epeli Nailatikau as President signing Bainimarama's decrees before the 2014 Elections including that robbing FNPF pensioners and stopping the case from being heard in court?
Remember when Bainimarama did the coup in 2006, he promised that no military officer would benefit from the coup and that no military officer would ever stand for elections? Really?
We can even ask: what jobs can these former military officers get in the private sector and at what salaries, were they not to be in Parliament?
Consultant’s Shoddy Reasoning about Current Economic Circumstances
Deveaux claimed “The current economic circumstances in Fiji are significantly improving since the catastrophic downturn due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Indeed, it can now be said that Fiji has recovered from the pandemic-induced recession of 2020-21 and with a 20.0% increase in GDP in 2022. In 2023 it is forecasted to grow by another 8.3% and in 2024 another 3.7%”.
He completely missed the point that the large increase in 2022 was precisely because the growth was from the low base in 2020 and 2021 due to COVID. Deveaux even notes that the growth rate was predicted to go down to 8.3% in 2023 and 3.7% for 2024.
The consultant then lists the rates of inflation for the last three years (4.3%, 3.0% and 3.0%) and then leaps to the grand conclusion “Therefore, it is concluded, for purposes of this report, that the economic conditions in Fiji in 2024 do not warrant a limitation on the salaries and allowances of the office holders”.
What pathetic reasoning.
* What about the massive Public Debt that the current Fiji Minister of Finance is struggling to bring down: from 89% in 2022 to 80% in mid-2023 and unlike to reduce in 2024 or 2025? (look at Graph 4); or read here: https://narseyonfiji.wordpress.com/2022/11/19/voters-the-ffps-public-debt-and-the-poisoned-chalice-for-the-next-minister-of-finance-ft-19-11-2022/
* What about the massive rates of poverty, especially among the indigenous Fijians?
* What about the crumbling public infrastructure in water, sewage, roads?
* What about the crumbling health services and public hospitals and health centres?
It is utterly disgraceful that the UNDP, a UN organization focused on good governance and a wide range of development indicators (by which Fiji is failing and even regressing), should be associated with a mediocre consultancy Report like that of Deveaux, which undermines Fiji’s parliamentary good governance at the core.
Consultant’s Saving Grace: what he should have done
The Consultant’s reputation is saved only slightly in that he recommends at the end of his Report that the Parliamentary Remuneration Act (2014) should be amended to require an Independent Review of Office Holders’ Salaries and Allowances to ensure that elected officials have no influence over the determination of their salaries and allowances. He points out that it can be done easily done by amending the Higher Salaries Commission Act or appointing an ad hoc Commission.
So WHY, WHY, WHY did he still go ahead and make his own recommendations, with his shoddy analysis, with an equally shoddy input from the Tabuya Committee itself?
Even if the recommendations are going to be implemented only between 1 August and 31 December 2024, why would Deveaux make his salary and allowance determinations, given that it must set some kind of precedence?
Was this in fact the “Game Plan” of some smart cookie in the Tabuya Committee, having seen the Submission by the National Federation Party. It is no wonder that the Tabuya Report was rushed through Parliament in a special sitting on the Friday afternoon.
NFP Submission
It is to the credit of the National Federation Party that they gave a principled submission which was clearly ignored by the Tubuya Committee and by the Consultant Deveaux. NFP stated clearly
“The Committee must not make any determination whatsoever. It cannot also make recommendations. Otherwise it will be seen as another body which compromised the independence of this crucial process…. Elected legislators must treat any review of salaries and allowances at arms length, because of the self-serving inferences that may be drawn.”.
NFP recommended that subject to independent analysis by experts that there be (a) reduction in salaries by 30% of the Prime Minister and Ministers and (b) reduction in overseas travel allowances for the PM, Cabinet Ministers and Members of Parliament (c) reductions to loadings for per diems based on UN DSAs
These were all ignored by the Emoluments Committee although Deveaux supported the reduction of per diems correctly noted as incentivising overseas travel.
Fiji not out of the woods yet
It is clear that PM Rabuka is now thoroughly rattled but he is still fuzzy.
He first stated (FT 30/5/2024) that the a Bill to amend the Parliamentary Remunerations Act 2014 will be prepared by the Solicitor General’s Office, and be available for public consultations and independent review before it is considered by Cabinet and Parliament. Rabuka stated that factors to be considered before the Bill is presented to Parliament will be availability of funds and options to minimize impact on the national budget. An annoyed public must of course ask, “why did you not do this in the first place?”
But yesterday it came out that the salary changes have been already gazetted and Rabuka now claims they have to be now followed.
Hullo? There are two months before the gazette comes into effect and as Mahendra Chaudary demands (FT 31/5/2024), Parliament should suspend that gazette.
PM Rabuka can still save his reputation by calling for a special Bill from the Solicitor General’s Office that suspends the previous decision AND establishes a genuinely independent “Parliamentary Salaries Remuneration Authority” (like NZ’s) based on specific nominations by social leaders (unions, NGO Coalition on Human Rights, Employers’ Federation), which will make its specific determinations taking into account all the principles discussed earlier?
This parliamentary remunerations exercise will not require any input by the Rabuka Government or Opposition or Parliament or any foreign consultant or party hacks. It can also be implemented from 1 January 2025.
Most importantly, if the remunerations are recommended to go back to the relativities of the Qarase years (as I think they should given my analysis above in Graphs 1, 2 and 3 above), the total overall cost to the taxpayers and the Government Budget will be LESS than currently, and the next Budget will have some savings0 to devote to poverty alleviation with most going to the iTaukei poor.
BUT the sixty four thousand dollar question: will the Rabuka Government “fast-track” this Bill the way they did the Tabuya Committee recommendations? HA HA HA.
Post-script (1 June 2024): My apologies.
Before the 2022 Elections I went to considerable lengths through Fiji Times articles and appearances on the influential Sashi Singh’s Talking Points, to support the election of the Rabuka/Prasad Coalition Government, who scraped in by just one vote in Parliament. Since then, although the primary objective of seeing the last of the Bainimarama Government was achieved, like many members of the public I have been steadily disappointed by the Rabuka Government’s poor performance. Source: The Fiji Times
Deveau astonishingly claimed that that the closest set of skills in the private sector to that required of MPs in the Fiji Parliament was that of a barrister or solicitor, earning in excess of $100,000 a year.
WOW. How many of Fiji’s MPs have ever been employed at these salary levels, with the exception of a few like Professor Biman Prasad.
Employment Prospects of Military Prime Ministers?
There is little doubt about the market value of the former Prime Minister the late Lasenia Qarase, who left a high paying job as Head of the Fiji Development Bank to become Prime Minister. He is probably the most honest and hard-working PM Fiji has ever had (except that the late Dr Bavadra and Mr Mahendra Chaudhry were never allowed to complete their term).
But before setting the remuneration of Prime Ministers, Fiji should ask itself: what is the “market value” to Fiji taxpayers of military prime ministers like Voreqe Bainimarama and Sitiveni Rabuka? Or Leaders of the Opposition Inia Seruiratu or the Speaker of the House Lalabalavu?
Think of the billions of dollars damage done by RMF Commanders and officers to the economy and national income of Fiji, starting with the precedence set by the Rabuka coup in 1987.
What of Rabuka’s NBF disaster which cost Fiji more than $200 million dollars in 1997 prices (in excess of $500 million in today’s prices).
What of the 2000 coup which Bainimarama refused to stop even though he was told about the planning six months before, and the actual CRW coup a week before (but conveniently left the country)?
What of former Commander Epeli Nailatikau as President signing Bainimarama's decrees before the 2014 Elections including that robbing FNPF pensioners and stopping the case from being heard in court?
Remember when Bainimarama did the coup in 2006, he promised that no military officer would benefit from the coup and that no military officer would ever stand for elections? Really?
We can even ask: what jobs can these former military officers get in the private sector and at what salaries, were they not to be in Parliament?
Consultant’s Shoddy Reasoning about Current Economic Circumstances
Deveaux claimed “The current economic circumstances in Fiji are significantly improving since the catastrophic downturn due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Indeed, it can now be said that Fiji has recovered from the pandemic-induced recession of 2020-21 and with a 20.0% increase in GDP in 2022. In 2023 it is forecasted to grow by another 8.3% and in 2024 another 3.7%”.
He completely missed the point that the large increase in 2022 was precisely because the growth was from the low base in 2020 and 2021 due to COVID. Deveaux even notes that the growth rate was predicted to go down to 8.3% in 2023 and 3.7% for 2024.
The consultant then lists the rates of inflation for the last three years (4.3%, 3.0% and 3.0%) and then leaps to the grand conclusion “Therefore, it is concluded, for purposes of this report, that the economic conditions in Fiji in 2024 do not warrant a limitation on the salaries and allowances of the office holders”.
What pathetic reasoning.
* What about the massive Public Debt that the current Fiji Minister of Finance is struggling to bring down: from 89% in 2022 to 80% in mid-2023 and unlike to reduce in 2024 or 2025? (look at Graph 4); or read here: https://narseyonfiji.wordpress.com/2022/11/19/voters-the-ffps-public-debt-and-the-poisoned-chalice-for-the-next-minister-of-finance-ft-19-11-2022/
* What about the massive rates of poverty, especially among the indigenous Fijians?
* What about the crumbling public infrastructure in water, sewage, roads?
* What about the crumbling health services and public hospitals and health centres?
It is utterly disgraceful that the UNDP, a UN organization focused on good governance and a wide range of development indicators (by which Fiji is failing and even regressing), should be associated with a mediocre consultancy Report like that of Deveaux, which undermines Fiji’s parliamentary good governance at the core.
Consultant’s Saving Grace: what he should have done
The Consultant’s reputation is saved only slightly in that he recommends at the end of his Report that the Parliamentary Remuneration Act (2014) should be amended to require an Independent Review of Office Holders’ Salaries and Allowances to ensure that elected officials have no influence over the determination of their salaries and allowances. He points out that it can be done easily done by amending the Higher Salaries Commission Act or appointing an ad hoc Commission.
So WHY, WHY, WHY did he still go ahead and make his own recommendations, with his shoddy analysis, with an equally shoddy input from the Tabuya Committee itself?
Even if the recommendations are going to be implemented only between 1 August and 31 December 2024, why would Deveaux make his salary and allowance determinations, given that it must set some kind of precedence?
Was this in fact the “Game Plan” of some smart cookie in the Tabuya Committee, having seen the Submission by the National Federation Party. It is no wonder that the Tabuya Report was rushed through Parliament in a special sitting on the Friday afternoon.
NFP Submission
It is to the credit of the National Federation Party that they gave a principled submission which was clearly ignored by the Tubuya Committee and by the Consultant Deveaux. NFP stated clearly
“The Committee must not make any determination whatsoever. It cannot also make recommendations. Otherwise it will be seen as another body which compromised the independence of this crucial process…. Elected legislators must treat any review of salaries and allowances at arms length, because of the self-serving inferences that may be drawn.”.
NFP recommended that subject to independent analysis by experts that there be (a) reduction in salaries by 30% of the Prime Minister and Ministers and (b) reduction in overseas travel allowances for the PM, Cabinet Ministers and Members of Parliament (c) reductions to loadings for per diems based on UN DSAs
These were all ignored by the Emoluments Committee although Deveaux supported the reduction of per diems correctly noted as incentivising overseas travel.
Fiji not out of the woods yet
It is clear that PM Rabuka is now thoroughly rattled but he is still fuzzy.
He first stated (FT 30/5/2024) that the a Bill to amend the Parliamentary Remunerations Act 2014 will be prepared by the Solicitor General’s Office, and be available for public consultations and independent review before it is considered by Cabinet and Parliament. Rabuka stated that factors to be considered before the Bill is presented to Parliament will be availability of funds and options to minimize impact on the national budget. An annoyed public must of course ask, “why did you not do this in the first place?”
But yesterday it came out that the salary changes have been already gazetted and Rabuka now claims they have to be now followed.
Hullo? There are two months before the gazette comes into effect and as Mahendra Chaudary demands (FT 31/5/2024), Parliament should suspend that gazette.
PM Rabuka can still save his reputation by calling for a special Bill from the Solicitor General’s Office that suspends the previous decision AND establishes a genuinely independent “Parliamentary Salaries Remuneration Authority” (like NZ’s) based on specific nominations by social leaders (unions, NGO Coalition on Human Rights, Employers’ Federation), which will make its specific determinations taking into account all the principles discussed earlier?
This parliamentary remunerations exercise will not require any input by the Rabuka Government or Opposition or Parliament or any foreign consultant or party hacks. It can also be implemented from 1 January 2025.
Most importantly, if the remunerations are recommended to go back to the relativities of the Qarase years (as I think they should given my analysis above in Graphs 1, 2 and 3 above), the total overall cost to the taxpayers and the Government Budget will be LESS than currently, and the next Budget will have some savings0 to devote to poverty alleviation with most going to the iTaukei poor.
BUT the sixty four thousand dollar question: will the Rabuka Government “fast-track” this Bill the way they did the Tabuya Committee recommendations? HA HA HA.
Post-script (1 June 2024): My apologies.
Before the 2022 Elections I went to considerable lengths through Fiji Times articles and appearances on the influential Sashi Singh’s Talking Points, to support the election of the Rabuka/Prasad Coalition Government, who scraped in by just one vote in Parliament. Since then, although the primary objective of seeing the last of the Bainimarama Government was achieved, like many members of the public I have been steadily disappointed by the Rabuka Government’s poor performance. Source: The Fiji Times
Rabuka: "How dare Biman Prasad VOTE against whopping pay rise, house, allowances for the SPEAKER, Tui Cakau, 'my paramount chief'."
 |  |
 |  *As Immigration Minister you should have ordered a criminal investigation to establish whether she abused the 'diplomatic bag' to carry 'weed' out of Fiji or whether she linked up with drug dealers in Melbourne to buy 'weed' off them. |
Fijileaks: It has emerged from the Parliamentary Emoluments Committee Report that the NFP had 'objected' to the pay rise in its letter dated 11 August 2023. Eleven days later, Pio Tikoduadua, the NFP Whip accompanied Tabuya to the conference in Melbourne where she had brutal sex with Aseri Radrodro in Room 233 on 23 August 2023.
*A year later, when Fijileaks exposed the text messages, Tikoduadua leapt to Tabuya's defence saying the 'text messages were obtained illegally".
*Naturally, for his own leader is facing a legal challenge in the Fiji High Court for sending those lurid text messages to the wife of one of his former provisional election candidate Hiroshi Taniguchi.
*The NFP at no stage objected to Tabuya chairing the Parliamentary Emoluments Committee after her sexual antics in Room 233 were laid bare.
*To be sure, we were not even aware that NFP had written a letter expressing reservations regarding the pay and allowance increases or that it had not nominated any NFP MP to sit on Tabuya's Committee.
