Nilesh Lal, the executive director of Dialogue Fiji, has expressed concerns regarding the government’s plan to change the national fiscal year back to a January-December cycle. This proposal, announced by Prime Minister Sitiveni Rabuka in his New Year’s address, raises questions about its intent and practicality, as Lal believes it may stem more from political considerations than sound governance.
Lal emphasized that many efficient systems deliberately avoid ending their financial year in December due to the month being heavily influenced by holidays, which often leads to decreased productivity and slower decision-making processes within institutions. He articulated that returning to a January-December fiscal year could represent a shift lacking a clear rationale, as December is typically characterized by reduced institutional activities.
To bolster his arguments, Lal pointed to international standards, referencing the fiscal years used by Australia and New Zealand, which run from July to June, and the United States federal government’s fiscal year, which lasts from October to September. These models are based on a consistent rationale: to prevent year-end closures from coinciding with holiday periods, thereby enhancing planning, execution, and accountability.
Lal further questioned the advantages that Fiji would gain from this shift, cautioning against policymaking that focuses more on nostalgia than on efficiency. He remarked that the desire to return to a governance style reminiscent of the 1990s neglects the fact that public finance management has progressed significantly since then. Governments today are expected to learn, adapt, and improve rather than revert to outdated practices.
He concluded by asserting that any reform should be driven by the prospect of measurable enhancements to fiscal management. Change, he argued, should signify progress and efficiency rather than a detrimental return to past practices.