http://dlvr.it/S4n2jf
Saturday, July 31, 2021
Friday, July 30, 2021
Report Finds COVID-19 Impacts Unrelenting On Fijian Private Sector - Fiji Sun Online
http://dlvr.it/S4jtB7
Thursday, July 29, 2021
X-Post: Fiji’s Othe Crisis: Away from the COVID emergency, Political Dissent Can Still Get you Arrested.
Dominic O'Sullivan, Charles Sturt University.
July 29, 2021 12.30pm AEST.
The arrest of nine Fijian opposition politicians, including party leaders and two former prime ministers, once again exposes Fijian democracy’s fragility.
The intimidation doesn’t bode well for the parliamentary elections due next year (or early 2023).
The political crisis has been overshadowed by Fiji’s COVID-19 crisis, which has seen more than 25,000 infections and over 100 deaths since April.
Prime Minister Frank Bainimarama even used a COVID analogy when he called those arrested “super-spreaders of lies”.
While no charges have been laid, the nine are accused of inciting unrest by opposing a government bill to change the management of iTaukei (indigenous) land rights.
The original iTaukei Land Trust Act 1940 allows for long-term land leases to private interests. The idea is to maximise the economic return on land, while protecting it against permanent alienation.
The act aims to protect indigenous interests by prohibiting the sub-lease or raising of mortgages on leased land without the consent of the iTaukei Land Trust Board.
The proposed amendment would remove the requirement to obtain the board’s consent, and prevent land owners going to court to dispute land use.
Arresting the opposition
Bainimarama, who also chairs the board, says the bill’s purpose is to remove bureaucratic obstacles to minor activities such as arranging electricity or water supply. He says the board takes too long to provide consent and this is a constraint on economic development.
But critics of the bill, including some of those arrested, argue it will weaken iTaukei land rights. Opposition MP Lynda Tabuya was accused of a “malicious act” after she posted a “Say no to iTaukei Land Trust Bill” cover picture on Facebook last week.
In a separate post, demonstrating the low threshold for “malice” in modern Fiji, she asked:
What protection is left for landowners? This is absolutely illegal and a breach of human rights of landowners. This is not a race issue, this is a human rights issue and breaches Section 29 of the Fijian Constitution.
Tabuya is not alone. The National Federation Party has said the government has not properly consulted on the bill, and party leader Biman Prasad was among those arrested, along with former prime ministers Mahendra Chaudhry and Sitivini Rabuka.
Limited media scrutiny
Media coverage, too, has felt the effects of the arrests. For example, the Fiji Sun’s one story on the issue in its July 28 edition cited only supporters of the bill and offered no insight into why it was controversial.
This isn’t surprising, given Fijian journalism operates under a constitutional provision limiting its rights and freedoms “in the interests of national security, public safety, public order, public morality, public health or the orderly conduct of elections”.
The Fiji Times took a risk last week by publishing an opinion column arguing poor drafting and failure to consult meant the bill goes further than its purported aims of administrative simplicity and efficiency.
Beyond the legal complexities of the land bill, however, the real problem is political.
As the article asks, “What’s the issue?”.
As I discuss in my book Indigeneity: a politics of potential — Australia, Fiji and New Zealand, the issue is that Fiji is a fragile, reluctant and conditional democracy.
Military Interference
Coups in 1987 and 2006, and a putsch in 2000, happened because democracy failed to provide the perpetrators with the “right” answers to complex political questions at the intersection of class, military power and personal interest.
The rights of indigenous Fijians were always a side issue, as the present conflict shows.
The 2013 constitution established that “it shall be the overall responsibility of the Republic of Fiji Military Forces to ensure at all times the security, defence and well-being of Fiji and all Fijians”.
Military oversight of the workings of government is intentional and explicit. When Bainimarama (then head of the military forces) led the 2006 coup, he was dismissive of accusations of political interference.
If the military didn’t act against the government, he said, “this country is going to go to the dogs”.
He also claimed then-prime minister Laisenia Qarase was trying to weaken the army by attempting to remove him: “If he succeeds there will be no one to monitor them, and imagine how corrupt it is going to be.”
No room to move
Intimidation is political strategy in Fiji. The proposed amendments to the iTaukei Land Trust Act are not what is at stake — a functioning parliamentary process could identify and resolve any substantive disagreements.
The bigger issue is that autocratic leadership, and the national constitution itself, leave little room for Fijian citizens to work out for themselves the kind of society they want.
This also leaves little room for Fijians to demand more effective policy responses to their country’s COVID-19 crisis.
Dominic O'Sullivan
Adjunct Professor, Faculty of Health and Environmental Sciences, Auckland University of Technology and Professor of Political Science, Charles Sturt University.
Dominic O'Sullivan does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
Charles Sturt University provides funding as a member of The Conversation AU.
Wednesday, July 28, 2021
Fiji beats New Zealand to clinch back-to-back Olympic titles - The Washington Post
http://dlvr.it/S4ZdKF
Tuesday, July 27, 2021
ATTORNEY-GENERAL Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum has issued a very long, 30-paragraph defence of the iTaukei Land Trust (Amendment) Bill.
But I am not sure he has really got to the point.
The aim of the law change, he says, is to speed up the backlog of mortgage consent applications at the iTaukei Land Trust Board. Once this is done (he seems to suggest) investment will flow, and the value of iTaukei land leases will increase; and this will be great for landowners.
This is fantasy. Whoever has drafted the amendment Bill does not seem ever to have worked in the real world of dealing with iTaukei leases. For the past 25 years, I have worked for commercial tenants of iTaukei land. So let me try to enlighten him.
To cover every argument would take a lot more words. But let’s try to hit the key points. I am not talking here about the need to consult. Should the Government consult landowners? Of course it should. It is very important. That is just obvious.
What is the problem? The Government thinks this is a commercial problem. So let’s talk about commercial and tourism leases from TLTB.
TLTB usually approves mortgage consents in less than a week. No commercial lawyer I have talked to says differently.
If a request is more urgent, in my experience, TLTB will try to help.
TLTB’s fees for commercial lease consents are expensive – up to $1,000 plus VAT. So we should expect good service.
Most applications run smoothly. Occasionally they do not.
If TLTB thinks there is a problem with the mortgage or the lease, there may be delays. But that is normal, as in any process.
So — that’s TLTB leases. Now, what about leasing from the Government — State leases? State leases are a problem. To get a mortgage consent for a State lease can take weeks, or even months. The Government also wants a legal fix for the State Lands Act and Government leases. That is in Bill No 16.
One of the Government’s mistakes is to treat these two different types of land with exactly the same fix. The laws are One of the Government’s mistakes is to treat these two different types of land with exactly the same fix.
The laws are different. different.
“Cut, paste, vote”
In one sense each of the State Lands Act and the TLTB Act are the same.
They each say “you must not deal with my leased land without my consent”.
But they each say it in a different way.
The TLTB Act says a lessee can’t “alienate or deal with” a TLTB lease without consent. It also says that it is “in the absolute discretion” of TLTB whether it consents or not. That is all the TLTB Act says about it.
Is a mortgage a “dealing”? We all accept that it is – so end of story. We ask for consent. The State Lands Act says it differently. A lessee must get permission before it “alienates or deals with” State land (same as TLTB Act).
But a State land lessee must also get permission before it “mortgages, charges or pledges” the lease, or goes to court about the lease. And anyone who wants to lodge a caveat against a State lease must also get Government permission.
The TLTB Act does not have these additional restrictions. The law is different.
Has the Attorney-General’s Office realised this? Because it has simply put the same words into both of the Bills.
A good law firm frowns on “cut, paste print” lawyering. These Bills seem to be “cut, paste, vote” legislating. That is not a good way to change the law. If Bill No 17 had been circulated for consultation, we could point out these things.
So both laws are to be changed saying that consent is not needed for mortgages, charges, pledges, caveats and so on – but in a very long-winded way.
But there’s more If that was the only issue, we might just say “more badly-written laws, – Richard Naidu – what’s new?”
But that’s not all there is. In both Bills – 16 and 17 – there is another new subclause.
More cutting and pasting. And this is the change that bothers me, and which nobody seems to be focused on.
Each Act will also be changed to say this: “For the purposes of this section, any such consent shall only be refused where there is a breach of any lease condition or where such application to deal with the land is not in accordance with any law”.
What does this mean? For TLTB, it changes the rules. It means any lessee of TLTB land can sublease to anyone else — or sell a TLTB lease to anyone else — and TLTB must agree.
There are only two exceptions to this new rule; • if the lessee has breached the lease (for example, the lessee has not paid its rent); or • if the sale or sub-lease would breach a law (for example, a foreign investor is not allowed to do business on the land).
The explanatory notes to the Bill do not talk about this change. Nor do they say why this change is needed.
The TLTB Act says TLTB is supposed to have “absolute discretion” on any “alienation or dealing” with a TLTB lease. So why is this discretion being altered? Imagine you own a house and you rent it to someone. Your tenant says to you: “By the way, as long as I pay my rent, I can put another tenant in the house. Or maybe I will let someone else stay there and charge them a higher rent. And you can’t stop me. Would you agree to that? If you would not, why should TLTB be made to do that? Why is the government doing this? Most people know I am not a big fan of our current government. Do I think they are trying to take away landowners’ control of their land? No. I don’t think they mean to. But they don’t seem to know what they’re doing. And they never ask anyone for advice first. So they don’t seem to understand “the reality of the matter”.
These law changes do things that maybe they haven’t thought about. They need to be properly discussed. This Government is constantly rushing into Parliament to change any law it wants to, any time it wants to, without thinking clearly about it.
Many of our laws — including the TLTB Act — are decades old. They were well-designed, by expert legal drafters.
These people consulted properly and put thought and care into their words.
Now I see a lot of bad legal drafting being just “glued on” to good laws to satisfy some poorly thought out political whim.
It’s a bit like putting a Kia bumper onto the front of a Rolls-Royce.
If you have a problem in Government, look for the right ways to fix it. If there are delays at the Department of Lands, find out why and fix them. Don’t just reach for your pen to change the law.
Laws should be treated with more respect than that.
More value? And finally — what will be the effect of this law on iTaukei land? Will it make it more marketable? Will it make it more valuable? It will not change its value one bit. In 25 years of practice, I have never heard a developer, a banker, a lessee — or even a landowner say “gosh, if only there was no mortgage consent — iTaukei land would be so much more valuable”.
Political sloganeering is very different from the serious business of law. The two should not be mixed up. It’s great to say in the Budget speech “we will fix all the problems”. But there has to be a real problem first. This is just “a solution looking for a problem”. In the process it is creating a much bigger one.
• RICHARD NAIDU is a Suva-based lawyer. The views expressed in this article are not necessarily the views of The Fiji Times
But I am not sure he has really got to the point.
The aim of the law change, he says, is to speed up the backlog of mortgage consent applications at the iTaukei Land Trust Board. Once this is done (he seems to suggest) investment will flow, and the value of iTaukei land leases will increase; and this will be great for landowners.
This is fantasy. Whoever has drafted the amendment Bill does not seem ever to have worked in the real world of dealing with iTaukei leases. For the past 25 years, I have worked for commercial tenants of iTaukei land. So let me try to enlighten him.
To cover every argument would take a lot more words. But let’s try to hit the key points. I am not talking here about the need to consult. Should the Government consult landowners? Of course it should. It is very important. That is just obvious.
What is the problem? The Government thinks this is a commercial problem. So let’s talk about commercial and tourism leases from TLTB.
TLTB usually approves mortgage consents in less than a week. No commercial lawyer I have talked to says differently.
If a request is more urgent, in my experience, TLTB will try to help.
TLTB’s fees for commercial lease consents are expensive – up to $1,000 plus VAT. So we should expect good service.
Most applications run smoothly. Occasionally they do not.
If TLTB thinks there is a problem with the mortgage or the lease, there may be delays. But that is normal, as in any process.
So — that’s TLTB leases. Now, what about leasing from the Government — State leases? State leases are a problem. To get a mortgage consent for a State lease can take weeks, or even months. The Government also wants a legal fix for the State Lands Act and Government leases. That is in Bill No 16.
One of the Government’s mistakes is to treat these two different types of land with exactly the same fix. The laws are One of the Government’s mistakes is to treat these two different types of land with exactly the same fix.
The laws are different. different.
“Cut, paste, vote”
In one sense each of the State Lands Act and the TLTB Act are the same.
They each say “you must not deal with my leased land without my consent”.
But they each say it in a different way.
The TLTB Act says a lessee can’t “alienate or deal with” a TLTB lease without consent. It also says that it is “in the absolute discretion” of TLTB whether it consents or not. That is all the TLTB Act says about it.
Is a mortgage a “dealing”? We all accept that it is – so end of story. We ask for consent. The State Lands Act says it differently. A lessee must get permission before it “alienates or deals with” State land (same as TLTB Act).
But a State land lessee must also get permission before it “mortgages, charges or pledges” the lease, or goes to court about the lease. And anyone who wants to lodge a caveat against a State lease must also get Government permission.
The TLTB Act does not have these additional restrictions. The law is different.
Has the Attorney-General’s Office realised this? Because it has simply put the same words into both of the Bills.
A good law firm frowns on “cut, paste print” lawyering. These Bills seem to be “cut, paste, vote” legislating. That is not a good way to change the law. If Bill No 17 had been circulated for consultation, we could point out these things.
So both laws are to be changed saying that consent is not needed for mortgages, charges, pledges, caveats and so on – but in a very long-winded way.
But there’s more If that was the only issue, we might just say “more badly-written laws, – Richard Naidu – what’s new?”
But that’s not all there is. In both Bills – 16 and 17 – there is another new subclause.
More cutting and pasting. And this is the change that bothers me, and which nobody seems to be focused on.
Each Act will also be changed to say this: “For the purposes of this section, any such consent shall only be refused where there is a breach of any lease condition or where such application to deal with the land is not in accordance with any law”.
What does this mean? For TLTB, it changes the rules. It means any lessee of TLTB land can sublease to anyone else — or sell a TLTB lease to anyone else — and TLTB must agree.
There are only two exceptions to this new rule; • if the lessee has breached the lease (for example, the lessee has not paid its rent); or • if the sale or sub-lease would breach a law (for example, a foreign investor is not allowed to do business on the land).
The explanatory notes to the Bill do not talk about this change. Nor do they say why this change is needed.
The TLTB Act says TLTB is supposed to have “absolute discretion” on any “alienation or dealing” with a TLTB lease. So why is this discretion being altered? Imagine you own a house and you rent it to someone. Your tenant says to you: “By the way, as long as I pay my rent, I can put another tenant in the house. Or maybe I will let someone else stay there and charge them a higher rent. And you can’t stop me. Would you agree to that? If you would not, why should TLTB be made to do that? Why is the government doing this? Most people know I am not a big fan of our current government. Do I think they are trying to take away landowners’ control of their land? No. I don’t think they mean to. But they don’t seem to know what they’re doing. And they never ask anyone for advice first. So they don’t seem to understand “the reality of the matter”.
These law changes do things that maybe they haven’t thought about. They need to be properly discussed. This Government is constantly rushing into Parliament to change any law it wants to, any time it wants to, without thinking clearly about it.
Many of our laws — including the TLTB Act — are decades old. They were well-designed, by expert legal drafters.
These people consulted properly and put thought and care into their words.
Now I see a lot of bad legal drafting being just “glued on” to good laws to satisfy some poorly thought out political whim.
It’s a bit like putting a Kia bumper onto the front of a Rolls-Royce.
If you have a problem in Government, look for the right ways to fix it. If there are delays at the Department of Lands, find out why and fix them. Don’t just reach for your pen to change the law.
Laws should be treated with more respect than that.
More value? And finally — what will be the effect of this law on iTaukei land? Will it make it more marketable? Will it make it more valuable? It will not change its value one bit. In 25 years of practice, I have never heard a developer, a banker, a lessee — or even a landowner say “gosh, if only there was no mortgage consent — iTaukei land would be so much more valuable”.
Political sloganeering is very different from the serious business of law. The two should not be mixed up. It’s great to say in the Budget speech “we will fix all the problems”. But there has to be a real problem first. This is just “a solution looking for a problem”. In the process it is creating a much bigger one.
• RICHARD NAIDU is a Suva-based lawyer. The views expressed in this article are not necessarily the views of The Fiji Times
Monday, July 26, 2021
Saturday, July 24, 2021
Saturday, July 17, 2021
X-Post: pn764. The Fiji Budget: Criticisms, Applause, in Summary and in Detail.
It would be rare for an opposition party to praise a government budget and it certainly did not happen with Fiji's latest budget. Opposition leader Biman Prasad called it a "bogus budget" aimed to quell increasing anti-government sentiment with elections due next year. (See RNZI linked below.)
He doubts government will be able to collect the revenue required. There are lots of promises of "we will pay for this, and we will pay for that but just like in the past, the reality of the matter is that these schemes never work.
It's a budget based on assumptions that will, like other budgets, result in hopelessness and despair." (Biman would well heed China's President Xi who quoted the Māori proverb: "Face the sun and the shadows will fall behind you." We need something to cheer us up in these difficult times.)
The President of the Suva Retailers Association Jitesh Patel, however, disagrees with Biman. He calls it "a good budget because there is a lot of assistance for people who have been severely affected by the COVID-19 pandemic and unemployment."
He praised the continuation of the free education assistance, the provision of sanitary pads for schoolgirls, and the new assistance for businesses, adding that the $200 million in loans available to businesses to meet their working capital will be re-invested in the economy through spending of the people and in the end build the economy back.
The 2021-2022 National Budget
The budget is aimed at protecting Fijians from the coronavirus, supporting individuals and businesses and 'future proofing Fiji.' Almost 45% of the funds needs will come from loans. Click here for the RNZI news announcement, and here for the full budget.
Finance Minister Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum said there was nothing ordinary about this Budget, the Covid situation, and its effects on the economy. "It has crippled industries built through strong vision and years of steady investment. The arrival of the more virulent variants has sent its devastating toll to painful, new heights."
Funded by government revenue of $US1 billion of which about $US220 million is expected to come from direct taxes. Indirect taxes should bring in another $US530 million, with the deficit of $US770 million met from local and overseas loans.
The Budget, due for review in six months, includes government-funded benefits to those who take the vaccines as well as obligations to those who receive government allowances and scholarships.
Some $500 million in the will go towards upgrading, modernising, and expanding the road network and the provision of clean and safedrinking water and electricity.
$272 million is provided for the Fiji Roads Authority, $195 million to the Water Authority of Fiji and $26.6 million to the Ministry of Infrastructure and Meteorological Services.
This also includes over $11 million for grid extension and house wiring and rehabilitation of diesel schemes for communities that have been relocated to protect them from the rising seas.
The following piegraphs and table show most of the allocations.
My responsibility for any errors.
Total Budget Expenditures
ESTIMATED REVENUE:
Direct Taxes 457,159.1
Indirect Taxes 1,140,459.9
Others 330,329.4
Total Operating Receipts 1,927,948.4
Total Investing Receipts 157,156.5
TOTAL ESTIMATED REVENUE 2,085,104.9
ESTIMATED EXPENDITURE:
Operating 2,423,471.6
Capital 1,221,222.2
Value Added Tax 45,851.8
TOTAL ESTIMATED EXPENDITURE 3,690,545.6
Estimated Net Deficit 1,605,440.7
Debt Repayments 367,801.7
Gross Deficit 1,973,242.4
Posted by Crosbie Walsh on Sunday, July 18, 2021.
Monday, July 05, 2021
Wednesday, June 30, 2021
X-Post: Fiji Institute of Accounts budget submission: an example of the well-off attacking the poor.
Cross-posted from Croz.
[https://crosbiew.blogspot.com/2021/07/pn750-fiji-institute-of.html]
Across-the-board taxes on food and other
FTUC leader Felix Anthony
Rarely have class interests been so blatantly exposed in Fiji as in the Fiji Institute of Accountants' current budget submission in which they call for an increase in VAT (value-added tax) from 10 to 15%, the removal of family care leave and a reduction in the pay of civil servants.
Across-the-board taxes on food and other essential items always affect the poor and those on low incomes more than the well-off because such items comprise a much higher proportion of their income. Their other submissions also impact more heavily on lower-paid workers.
A truly Fiji First government should expose the FIA's submission for what it, and dismiss it without consideration.
Trade Union leader Felix Anthony (read the original article for his views) thinks the submission untimely because the country is suffering the effects of the Covid-19 virus. Any time is untimely for such class-biased submissions. -- ACW
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)