During their term on the opposition benches, members of the current administration worked tirelessly to hold the FijiFirst government accountable.
They kept the ruling politicians of the yesteryears on their toes, on matters of finance.
And they did a satisfactory job, if not splendid.
In 2017, Assistant Minister for Housing and Local Government, Lenora Qereqeretabua, created a huge public following when she called on Fijians, through the media, to lobby government to cancel the planned $35,000 celebration organised to welcome the Fiji delegation that oversaw the successful presidency of COP 23.
Ms Qereqeretabua described that planned revelry or sorts as “obscene” given the sorry state of some schools that were still struggling, two years after the Severe Tropical Cyclone Winston heaped havoc on Fiji.
In 2020, when the FijiFirst government allocated $7 million in the 2020-2021 budget for the construction of the Prime Minister’s office building project, they joined those who blatantly condemned the plan.
The complex was to be 4600m2 in size, with five levels incorporating administration and office space, Cabinet chambers and associated support spaces.
Works were also to include demolition, piling, sub-ground car-parking structure, heritage facade preservation and restoration and minor buildings and services structures.
The Opposition then argued that spending $7 million for the construction of the new office complex was not justified, especially when thousands of Fijians were without jobs and were struggling to feed their families.
One year later, during the debate on the 2021-2022 Appropriation Bill in Parliament, Minister for Finance Professor Biman Prasad, who was a backbencher then, said in over six years $3 billion had been lost through “wastage, pilferage, inflated projects costs and mismanagement in government spending”.
“That is, if someday, somebody does a proper analysis – imagine if we did not waste that $3b, we would have the fiscal space today,” Prof Prasad said.
The $3b could have been used to look after our people and the economy during the pandemic, he said.
Before the 2018 election, the Opposition would persistently hound government for allowing the national debt to snowball to a whopping $10b.
But recently, some of those firebrand opposition members of the last two Parliaments, who have now assumed control of the public coffers, seem to have gone back on their words and forgotten they were once untiring advocates of prudent spending.
I guess times have changed, and values too.
In a complete turnaround, Prof Prasad announced in Parliament recently that $360,000 has been set aside to host this month’s much-talked-about National Economic Summit.
That disclosure triggered a series of public outbursts, in and outside the mainstream media, blaming government for being wasteful and absurdly flashy.
Opposition Leader Inia Seruiratu labelled government’s summit spending plan “extravagant” and “irresponsible”.
Fiji Labour Party leader Mahendra Chaudhry, a former PM himself, said budgeting $15,000 on a cocktail and $18,700 on kalavata for 500 people at the expense of taxpayers was “hardly justified in the current financial circumstances”.
Former Reserve Bank of Fiji governor Savenaca Narube joined in questioning “the extravaganza when the country is sinking in debt and many families are struggling to survive”.
With only five minutes given to each speaker, Mr Narube was worried the planned summit might end up being just a talkfest.
The public’s ridicule of the summit has not only made news in political circles, it has also been the bone of contention in the Letters to the Editor pages of this newspaper.
Paras Naidu, a letter writer from Lautoka this week questioned the allocation before saying it might be put to better use if diverted to fixing some of the recurring problems faced by Fijians such as water shortages and poor road conditions.
Nausori writer, V. Diroiroi asked: “$18,000? For kalavata? At an economic summit? Perhaps not so economical given the country’s precarious economic situation”.
Some writers have questioned whether it would be necessary to invite 500 people to participate in the summit.
Others agreed that the summit budget needed reviewing and some of the costs had to be slashed.
Come to think of it, there is no real need for a showy kalavata or a cocktail.
Or maybe we should have a kalavata only and not a cocktail or vice versa.
It would be a huge irony to fork out $360k for a two-day summit where we will be mapping our way out of the abysmal financial state we are in, much of which will rely on cutting back on wastage and overspending.
The reason we are in a money mess today is because past leaders had not wisely spent public funds entrusted to them over the years.
Are we telling taxpayers of this country that we are to fix our wastage by being wasteful?
But then again, the summit will bring together some of the best brains in town, and perhaps, from abroad.
We need their vast experience, knowledge and skills to come up with a viable strategy that will move us forward.
Maybe giving them the best work atmosphere, comfort and the best food for two days could be our way of thanking them for the enormous task we are about to place on their shoulders and the high expectation we’d expect from them.
Prime Minister Sitiveni Rabuka said he was not in favour of the summit allocation and had conveyed his views to the organisers for a possible review.
While the statements of Mr Rabuka and Prof Prasad may seem to be contradictory in nature, they indicate there’s space in politics for agreeing to disagree, meeting others at the middle ground, and respecting diverse opinions and voices.
As a government that professes to listen to the people, we hope it will value the plethora of critiques and opinions that have been aired, and would consider them before making a final decision.
Let’s all hope common sense prevails and the end decision will be a win-win for everyone.
Until we meet on this same page same time next week, stay blessed, stay healthy and stay safe!
