25/07/2026
People, A Response to the Leader of the Opposition – Part 1
The Leader of the Opposition's statement reads more like an election campaign speech than an honest assessment of Fiji's economy. It is easy to point fingers after leaving office, but it is much harder to explain why many of the same problems he now complains about were left unresolved during the sixteen years his own government was in power.
He begins by saying there is a difference between teaching economics and running an economy. That is true.
But there is also a huge difference between criticizing from the Opposition benches and accepting responsibility for sixteen years of decisions that shaped the very economic conditions Fiji faces today.
The Coalition Government has been in office for just over three and a half years. His government had sixteen years.
If debt reduction, fiscal discipline, public sector reform, lowering the cost of living, and strengthening retirement savings were truly priorities, why weren't they achieved during those sixteen years? It is difficult to lecture others on financial management when your own record left a mountain of challenges behind.
He criticizes public debt, yet conveniently ignores that Fiji's debt did not suddenly appear after December 2022.
A significant portion of today's debt was accumulated while his government was in office.
Any fair discussion must acknowledge that reality.
You cannot spend sixteen years building the house and then blame the new owner because the roof needs repairing.
He speaks about rising food prices and fuel costs as though Fiji alone is experiencing them.
The truth is that inflation, higher fuel prices, and increased shipping costs have affected countries across the world. These are global challenges, not problems unique to Fiji. No responsible leader should ignore the international economic realities simply to score political points.
His comments on the sugar industry are perhaps the most surprising. The decline of Fiji's sugar industry did not begin under the Coalition Government.
It has been deteriorating for years, with falling production, fewer farmers, ageing mills, and long-standing structural problems. His government had sixteen years to turn the industry around but failed to do so.
It is therefore difficult to blame a government that inherited an industry already in decline.
The criticism of taxation also deserves perspective.
Every government must balance revenue with expenditure. Essential services such as hospitals, schools, roads, policing, and social assistance cannot be funded without adequate revenue. It is easy to promise lower taxes while in Opposition, but much harder to explain how those same services would be paid for.
On FNPF contributions, he highlights workers' retirement savings but ignores the broader objective of supporting businesses, protecting jobs, and encouraging economic activity during challenging economic conditions.
Governments often have to make difficult decisions that involve balancing competing priorities. Presenting only one side of the story is misleading.
Most importantly, where are the solutions?
Throughout his statement, there is plenty of criticism but very little vision. Fijians deserve more than recycled complaints.
They deserve practical policies that will create jobs, strengthen agriculture, grow exports, attract investment, improve public services, and reduce the cost of living.
As the election draws closer, we should expect more statements like this—designed to create headlines rather than offer solutions. Fijians should ask one simple question:
if these problems are so obvious today, why were they not fixed during the sixteen years the Opposition had the authority, the resources, and the mandate to do so?
The Coalition Government should continue to be held accountable for its decisions. That is how democracy works.
But accountability must apply equally to those who governed for sixteen years. Political memory should not begin in December 2022.
Fiji needs mature leadership, honest debate, and practical solutions—not selective memory or attempts to rewrite history for political gain.
The people deserve facts, accountability from all sides, and leaders who are focused on building the nation's future rather than exploiting its challenges for electoral advantage.
Leader of Opposition: The State of Our Nation – Part 1
1. The Difference Between Teaching Economics and Running an Economy
There is an old saying: “there is a world of difference between theory and practice”. The past three years have reminded us of that reality. Managing a nation's finances is not an academic exercise. It is about making difficult decisions, setting priorities, living within our means and ensuring that every dollar borrowed today does not become an unnecessary burden on future generations.
When the Coalition Government took office, Fijians were promised prudent fiscal management. We were told that sound economic credentials would restore discipline to the nation's finances, reduce debt and put Fiji on a more sustainable fiscal path. To support that objective, Government established the Fiscal Review Committee, which undertook a comprehensive review of Fiji's public finances.
The Committee's recommendations reflected a poor policy framework that prioritised increasing Government revenue through higher taxation. It proposed increasing corporate tax from 20 percent to 25 percent, raising VAT to between 12.5 percent and 15 percent, broadening the revenue base and introducing other measures expected to generate approximately $500 million in additional annual revenue. The underlying premise was that the additional revenue would be accompanied by disciplined expenditure, improved public sector efficiency, better value for money and a clear strategy to reduce Fiji's debt burden over time. Fijians were expected to bear higher tax costs in anticipation of stronger fiscal outcomes.
Despite collecting significantly more revenue from taxpayers, Government expenditure has continued to rise each year. Rather than using increased revenue to slow borrowing and restore fiscal space, public debt has continued its upward trajectory. According to the Government's own Budget documents, total public debt is projected to increase from $11.54 billion at the end of the 2025–2026 financial year to $12.58 billion in 2026–2027.
Today, Fijian families are paying more for many of the basic items they rely on every week. The price of chicken has increased, lamb products have become more expensive, Sugar, once regarded as a staple that Fiji proudly produced, has at times become difficult to find on supermarket shelves.
When fuel prices rise, every family feels the impact. The cost of travelling to work increases. Parents pay more to take their children to school. Families spend more visiting loved ones, attending church, mosque or mandir. Businesses pass higher transport costs onto consumers, pushing up the prices of everyday essentials. Yet despite these pressures, the Government has failed to create sufficient fiscal room to provide meaningful relief.
Today, the Government finds itself boxed in by its own fiscal choices. It cannot realistically return VAT to 9 percent. Why? Because after three years in office, the fiscal space simply does not exist. Despite imposing higher taxes on Fijians and businesses, Government expenditure has continued to grow, debt has continued to rise, and the economy has not generated the level of sustained growth needed to support these commitments. The hard truth is that without stronger economic growth and genuine fiscal discipline, promises of lower taxes and enhanced benefits become increasingly difficult to deliver.
At a time when the cost of living remains high, the Government decided to reduce the employer contribution to the Fiji National Provident Fund by two percent. For thousands of workers, this means less money being invested in their retirement each payday.
The Fund's own Annual Report paints a sobering picture. Of Fiji's 436,860 FNPF members, 194,627 members, almost 45 per cent have retirement savings of $5,000 or less. A further 120,283 members have balances between $5,000 and $20,000. In other words, more than 314,000 members, representing around 72 per cent of all FNPF members, have accumulated savings of less than $20,000. These figures demonstrate that a significant majority of workers are already approaching retirement with little savings. Reducing employer contributions does little to strengthen their long-term financial security.
Government argues that reducing the contribution will lower business costs. But for many workers, the question is simple, if the cost of living remains high today and retirement savings are reduced tomorrow, where is the economic relief? After three years of increased taxation and rising public debt, working families are not better off.
The lesson here is a simple one. Balancing a nation's books requires more than economic theory. It requires the discipline to make difficult spending decisions, the courage to reform inefficient government programmes and the leadership to ensure that today's borrowing creates tomorrow's prosperity rather than tomorrow's burden.
This is the difference between making promises and delivering results. After almost four years in office, Fijians should be seeing a higher standard of living, greater financial security and renewed confidence in the future. Instead, too many families remain worried about whether they can afford today's groceries or retire with dignity.
