Opposition MP Premila Kumar has voiced strong criticism of Prime Minister Sitiveni Rabuka over his proposed review of Fiji’s fiscal year. Kumar deems the initiative as politically motivated and an unwarranted change, referring to it as “fixing what isn’t broken” and labeling it a “costly distraction” from urgent national concerns such as poverty, unemployment, rising crime, drug-related issues, and threats posed by climate change.
In her remarks, Kumar defended the current fiscal year, which runs from August to July, asserting that this structure has adeptly enabled the government to navigate vulnerabilities, especially in the face of natural disasters. Introduced in 2016, this fiscal adjustment coincided strategically with the cyclone season, facilitating better accounting for disaster-related damages and enabling the timely allocation of rebuilding funds ahead of new budget cycles. Kumar emphasized that this wasn’t merely a political maneuver but rather a showcase of effective governance tailored to address the harsh realities of climate impacts.
The opposition MP also raised valid concerns regarding the potential complications that could arise from shifting the fiscal year closer to the November-January period. She highlighted that this timeframe overlaps with school holidays, festive celebrations, and generally slower operational periods for public services, stating, “Those are already our least productive months.” She cautioned that introducing budget launches and implementation during this period could hamper productivity, delay fiscal processes, and undermine overall fiscal discipline.
Moreover, Kumar challenged the government’s assertions regarding improved cash flow and coordination, demanding concrete evidence supporting claims that the proposed changes would result in lower living costs, job creation, or enhanced disaster resilience. “Instead, we risk transition chaos and further bureaucracy,” she cautioned.
Kumar noted that various countries adjust their fiscal cycles according to economic realities rather than sticking strictly to calendar years, asserting that Fiji has previously set an example by aligning its fiscal framework with its specific needs. She described the proposed changes as a “regression,” reiterating that the opposition would remain diligent in holding the government accountable. “Fijians deserve real solutions, not symbolic reversals,” she firmly stated, emphasizing the necessity for true leadership that prioritizes the needs of the populace over political interests.
Kumar’s calls for accountability and prudent governance reflect a commitment to addressing the genuine concerns facing Fiji, reinforcing the idea that effective leadership should focus on solutions that benefit the citizenry fundamentally.