When the new “mini” budget is handed down on March 24, I hope without the theatrical table-thumping arrogance from the government side, it will be four months ahead of the amended financial year that ends on July 31.
The Government has permitted itself, by a fast-tracked law, to table another budget eight months after the last one.
Surely with the history and experience of national budgeting as its core business in the Economy Ministry, the bureaucrats there should have the best tools possible on-hand to project future fiscal trends and risks, or have the wherewithal to make prudent buffers available, within the law?
The budget consequential law change, made during last year’s budget, added a section 13B(1) of the Financial Management Act.
This says: “The annual budget may be amended during a financial year through a supplementary budget approved by Parliament.”
There is no such thing, according to their own law, that provides for a “mini budget” or “revised budget”. This is why words matter.
What’s the reason?
When tabling the supplementary budget, section 13(B)(2) of the Financial Management Act lays out the requirements for the Minister for Economy.
The Minister needs to table in Parliament a supplementary budget “when changing the total expenditure, borrowing or revenue of an annual budget as a result of a deviation from the fiscal strategy” this budget must be accompanied by a Bill for an Appropriation Act, the budget estimates, and the reason for the supplementary budget.
The first thing to note is that the Financial Management Act clearly states that the Economy Ministry must not deviate from its fiscal strategy unless an economic shock occurs, or the effects of the economic shock cannot be met through the annual budget, and finally if the deviation is approved by Cabinet.
Upon meeting that criteria, “the Minister must, as soon as practicable, inform Parliament of the deviation and the reason for the deviation.”
Nobody has heard any justification for this supplementary budget.
The first inkling that anybody got that a supplementary budget was in the works was in the Fiji Sun on February 17, under a “must read” boxed news piece.
Only the Fiji Sun (of course) picked up on the Minister for Economy’s side-bar remark about a “mini budget”, while he was handing out award letters to medical students.
“If there is a need we might do one and hopefully we are able to deliver one in March,” he said.
“We are doing an assessment, but the news is there is likely to be a mini budget.”
That admission alone was quite telling. Did the Government really have a reason, or not?
The most compelling reason could be the dry state of the national coffers, where major shortfalls have been lifted by two separate tranches of direct budget support from Australia, New Zealand and other donors – even after the last budget was passed in July 2021.
During a press conference in February this year, the public was then told that this supplementary budget was scheduled for 17 March to cover a period of 5 months.
A scheduled March parliamentary sitting, with all the paperwork for questions and motions duly filed by the Opposition, was then shoved aside for this supplementary budget.
The Economy Minister told us that “Fiji’s economic and financial landscape has changed”.
´This he said, needed to be “reflected in the mini-budget.”
So did the change to our economic and financial landscape go from “Dinau” to “Very, very Dinau”? Or are things looking rosy as heralded by the Governor of the Reserve Bank in The Fiji Times of February 25?
A five-month budget?
Judging by the Economy Minister’s frantic “consultations” around the country, it’s hard to see how his sweeping, openended sessions are supposed to help them develop a targetted five-month budget.
The consultation sessions begin with colourful Powerpoint graphs, but what people want to discuss is COVID-19 financial assistance policies, the high cost of living, social welfare pensions, landslides, market stall fees, FNPF balances, and so on.
Our people just want to be heard. They have every right to insist on a ‘performance management assessment’ of those whose salaries they pay for.
What our people will have little appetite for however, is jhoot and lasulasu on overdrive.
Is it realistic to expect this five-month long budget to deal with all these pressing issues? Or is this supplementary budget going to ultimately carry the Government right through to elections?
Time and money (or lack thereof), will tell.
What of the carbon budget?
Before COP26 last December, Government passed the Climate Change Act. Our leaders oversold that in Glasgow, including in “that” iPad interview.
So how is the Government proposing to begin scaling back its carbon emissions through the new-fangled “carbon budget” process?
The National Federation Party asked about this earlier. This seemed simply to be some tokenistic fl ash to show off at future COPs.
Certainty and readiness is necessary if Fiji is to ease into its first carbon budget to span from 1 January 2026 to 31 December 2030. But the preparatory work should begin now.
Scientists of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) recently released a report stressing that “maladaptation”, such as the use of seawalls to protect against sea level rise and storm surges, could be counterproductive.
Instead the report suggests that green buffers like mangroves are perhaps preferable, while noting they are not suitable for every location.
This IPCC report has very real budget implications (even for only a five-month long budget) because cyclone season ends next month. However extreme weather events, as we observe from the distressing floods in Australia, are no longer tied to seasons and meteorological assessments.
Green and blue
The Economy Minister is also doing the “hard sell” for green carbon trading especially among customary landowners who are custodians of native forest areas.
Similarly, blue carbon ventures are being explored with global groups even while the law, as we had earlier cautioned, is vague, particularly the registration process for blue carbon sequestration property rights.
There are advantages to blue and green carbon trading, but the fullest free, prior and informed consent is needed under the principles set out in the climate law.
The granting of this consent must move away from old paradigms where freehold and customary landowners are mere minnows in the resource rent equation.
They should become owners of the companies trading these carbon stocks on an equal footing globally, after they have been guided and helped to carry out the institutional investments, while ensuring robust due diligence safeguards.
These are the preparatory feasibility tasks that a five-month long budget should begin to look at. Not just the salesman’s pitch of $20,000 to keep five acres of forests intact, without mentioning the adjustments that must be made by tribal clans, if they lease their land for carbon trading for 10 or more years.
The equity factor of returns on their investment will only be clear if there is transparency in the numbers, when weighed up against the going purchase and sale prices of carbon credits on the global market.
More rocking or more rolling?
What is one to expect on March 24?
Can we expect the roll-back of the public health emergency for COVID-19, given the tapering off of infections – especially when elections are to be held anytime between July this year, to January next year?
Can we expect clear laws for political parties about who will receive and “approve” party manifesto’s needing a financial commitment, and by when?
Can we expect the Minister for Economy’s eyebrow-raising proposal for Fiji to explore industrial hemp farming to be given legs?
Can we expect that Ministry or Health to give us statistics on numbers of deaths caused by myocarditis or stroke from April 2021 to February 2022, by age, ethnicity, gender, divisional location and vaccination status?
Can we expect Tourism Fiji and FICAC to table some overdue annual reports?
Whatever we eventually hear on March 24, it will only then become clear whether the Government is really rocking, or simply rolling towards the exit lane.
- SENI NABOU is the general secretary of the National Federation Party. The views expressed are the author’s and do not necessarily reflect the views of this newspaper.
