“It’s
the economy, stupid” is the aphorism that is commonly
used during elections the world over.
The most important
issues for the average voter are his job (or
unemployment) and his real income (i.e. how his family
is coping with the cost of living).
Governments and competing
political party manifestoes are judged first and foremost by these
two criteria.
But we must also add the
issue of Public Debt, which is the burden deliberately passed
on to future generations by the current generations, usually through
their elected governments.
Jobs,
Incomes and Gross Domestic Product (GDP)
Both the growth of
numbers of jobs and incomes depend on how well the Gross Domestic
Product (or total income produced in the country) is doing.
Unfortunately for Fiji,
following the December 2006 coup, the GDP growth rate was negative
for two (or three) years out of the first five years.
Table 1 gives the
sectoral behaviour of real GDP (using FBS data in 2005 prices).
Table 1
Gross Domestic Product by components Index Numbers (2006=100)
|
|
% Ch.
|
|
2006
|
2007
|
2008
|
2009
|
2010
|
2011
|
|
06-11
|
Agriculture,
Forestry & Fishing
|
100
|
95
|
100
|
87
|
83
|
93
|
|
-7
|
Manufacturing
|
100
|
94
|
92
|
90
|
93
|
94
|
|
-6
|
Electricity
and Water
|
100
|
179
|
104
|
156
|
192
|
205
|
|
105
|
Construction
|
100
|
90
|
94
|
82
|
88
|
88
|
|
-12
|
WholeS.,Ret.,Vehicles,Pers.Goods
|
100
|
105
|
99
|
93
|
94
|
91
|
|
-9
|
Hotel &
Restaurants
|
100
|
115
|
139
|
142
|
159
|
167
|
|
67
|
Transport &
Communication
|
100
|
99
|
94
|
103
|
101
|
101
|
|
1
|
Financial
Services
|
100
|
136
|
154
|
137
|
139
|
139
|
|
39
|
Real Estate
Business
|
100
|
99
|
97
|
97
|
97
|
100
|
|
0
|
Public
Sector, Education Health
|
100
|
94
|
93
|
103
|
96
|
92
|
|
-8
|
Other
Services
|
100
|
62
|
67
|
60
|
60
|
60
|
|
-40
|
TOTAL GDP
|
100
|
99
|
100
|
99
|
99
|
100.9
|
|
1
|
Source:
Based on GDP data of Fiji Bureau of Statistics (2005 constant
prices)
|
2006
|
2007
|
2008
|
2009
|
2010
|
2011
|
2012
|
2013
|
2014
|
1.9
|
-0.9
|
1.0
|
-1.4
|
3.0
|
2.7
|
1.7
|
3.6
|
3.0
|
Table 3: Public Debt
|
2006
|
2014
|
2014*
|
Public Debt ($million)
|
2863
|
3,999
|
4449
|
Number of Households (000)
|
170
|
192
|
192
|
Debt per household ($)
|
16839
|
20869
|
23218
|
Table 4: Debt:GDP ratio
|
2006
|
2014
|
2014*
|
Public Debt ($million)
|
2863
|
3999
|
4449
|
GDP ($millions)
|
5371
|
8283
|
8283
|
Debt:GDP ratio
|
53.3
|
48.3
|
53.7
|
100 is the 2006 base. An
index number below 100 (in pink in the table) indicates that the GDP
in that sector in that year was below that in 2006 (i.e. had gone
backwards).
Note the many pink
squares.
The numerous pink cells
indicate how badly the Fiji economy did in these five years. The last
column of Table shows that in 2011, the real productive sectors
were worse off than in 2006.
Agriculture,
for. and fishing down by -7% (sugar in serious decline)
Manufacturing
down by -6%
Construction
down by -12%
Wholesale,
Retail etc down by -9%
Public
Sector down by -8%
Other
services down by -40%.
The only sectors doing
well were Hotels and Restaurants (up by 67%).
And, for the wrong
reasons (largely because of monopolistic pricing and profits)
Electricity
and Water increased by a massive 105%
And
Financial Services (banks, insurance companies) increased by 39%
overall, total GDP in
Fiji in 2011, was a mere 1% more than that in 2006 - after five years,
or the normal parliamentary life-time of a normal elected government.
One of the reasons why
the sugar industry did not recover was that the EU withheld $300
million of assistance to the sugar industry when the Bainimarama
Government failed to hold the elections in 2009. ($300 million is
currently twice the annual earnings from sugar exports).
It is almost certain that
should elections not be held in 2009, then the EU will re-impose all
the sanctions they have been relaxing because of the promise of
elections in September 2014.
Overall, it is no
surprise that the 2010-11 Employment and Unemployment Survey (Report
not published yet) reveals that wage
employment between 2005 and 2011 declined by -3%.
Second, real income (i.e.
adjusted for inflation) declined
by an unprecedented 30%. (the
exceptions were for the military, police and prisons).
The incidence of poverty
during this period may have increased to
above 45%.
Poverty
would have been even higher, had it not been for large foreign
remittances of around $300 millions (which is twice that of the sugar
industry).
Table 2 gives the most
recent estimates of growth rates of Fiji’s GDP since the 2006 coup
(the figures for 2010 to 2014 have been recently revised by the FBS
using 2008 prices).
Table 2 Estimated GDP
Growth rates (2006 to 2014) (2008 prices)
There has been reasonable
economic growth since 2010, but not enough.
Even taking the
optimistic estimates from 2010 to 2014, the average growth rate
between 2006 and 2014 under the Bainimarama Regime will be a mere
1.1% per year (see graph).
This is the worst record
of any government since independence in 1970.
Under
Ratu Mara it was 3.5% per annum (over 17 years)
Under
Rabuka it was 2.0% per annum (over 11 years);
Under
Chaudhry it was 8.8% (over 1 year)
Under
Qarase it was 2.3% per annum (over 5 years).
Over the last 8 years,
Fiji’s record is also the worst amongst the Melanesian countries.
This poor performance is
hidden from the public view and mind because of the daily propaganda
praising the Bainimarama Government in newspapers, radio, and
television.
Excessive
expenditure on infrastructure over just two years
It is clear that the
economic growth of the last three years has been underpinned by a
massive increase in public expenditure, and especially on
infrastructure: an increase of one billion dollars spent over 2013
and 2014.
The Reserve Bank of Fiji
in its latest report recognizes this by projecting that growth rate
for 2015 and 2016 will be a lower 2.4% when the effects of the
infrastructure investment wears off.
Note also that such a
massive expenditure of $1 billion over a two year period is likely to
lead to significant wastages by both FRA and the sub-contractors as
they rush to spend the large allocations (one of the contractors in
Vanua Levu has already declared packed up with tax-payers apparently
bearing part of the cost).
Questions have been asked
through the media who is auditing the FRA (and if FRA has been paying
its top executives massive salaries in excess of $800 thousands).
There have no been answers from the PS Finance.
Remember that PWD used to
have a maximum annual investment of around $80 million and its top
executives barely earned $100 thousands, for doing similar work?
Lack of
private sector confidence
Fiji’s overall lack of
growth has been due to the lack of private sector investment.
Total investment (both
private and public) as a percentage of FDP should be around 25%.
Unfortunately it has been
around 15% only, and most of that has been due to public sector
investment by government and statutory corporations.
Why has Fiji’s growth
record been so poor between 2007 and 2011?
Put simply, private
sector confidence and investment have been undermined by the numerous
decrees which stipulate that grievances cannot be taken to court.
Of course, there has also
been the lack of political stability, the absence of an elected
parliament, and too many ad hoc economic decisions being made by a
few people in power.
We have seen this with
respect to the pensioners’ legal case (which was already being
heard by the courts), foreign investments at Momi appropriate, and
the leases at Nadi Airport which were dissolved by decree (probably
giving competing corporate interests more leased space).
It is accepted that there
must be one law for the rich and the poor, and punishments have to
act as deterrents so that criminals do not re-offend and potential
criminals get the message. But, it cannot give private investors
any confidence to invest in Fiji when one of the largest
private investors and tax-payers in Fiji (and an elderly person
moreover) is given a jail sentence, instead of a large fine which
would have been more useful for the state coffers, and also served as
a very effective deterrent to businessmen who feel hits to their
pocket far more than free accommodation and food at Naboro.
Policy
Issue 1:
Voters
must ask all political parties whether they will guarantee to remove
all decrees which stipulate that grievances may not be taken to
court.
Policy
Issue 2
Voters
must ask all political parties what their policy will be on public
investment on infrastructure
Public
Sector Incomes
The Bainimarama
Government for several years after 2006, refused to give any
significant upward adjustment to public sector incomes.
Only in this last budget,
and just 9 months before the elections, they granted an extremely
large 20% increase to public servants.
They also granted,
supposedly on the recommendations of an accounting company,
outrageous large increases to $221 thousands per year, for select
Permanent Secretaries.
Ministers’ salaries
have not been declared since 2007, with some believed to be paid
through a private accounting company.
Most outrageously, the
Public Accounts Committee has been sacked “to prepare for the next
parliament”.
Was the PAC beginning to
query the payment of ministers’ salaries through a private
accounting company?
Policy
Issue 3
Voters
must ask all political parties what their policy will be on public
sector salaries, including that of Ministers, Permanent Secretaries,
and ordinary civil servants.
Policy
Issue 4
Voters
must ask all political parties what their policy will be on the
independence of the Public Accounts Committee, and the need for
Auditor General Reports to be compulsorily and annually made public.
Wages
Councils undermined for the poorest workers
The poorest workers are
those not represented by unions, and who are mostly paid wages well
below the Basic Needs Poverty Line and who are supposed to be
protected by the ten Wages Councils.
These were formerly under
the Chairmanship of Father Kevin Barr, trying to adjust minimum
wages sector by sector, depending on how well each sector was doing.
But Father Barr’s Wages
Regulation Orders, different for the different sector, were postponed
year after year by the Minister, because of unethical pressures by
employers and the Employers’ Federation, with not a single employer
showing their audited accounts to the Wages Council Chairman (Barr)
or the Labour Minister (as required).
Eventually only partial
adjustments were allowed, which did not keep pace with the large
increases in the cost of living. Most of these workers fell further
into poverty, because Government essentially capitulated to
employers.
Finally Father Barr
accused the Bainimarama Government of practicing “crony
capitalism”. Over a minor irrelevant remark, he was later abused on
the phone and threatened with non-renewal of work permit and
eventually sacked as Chairman of Wages Council.
For five years, the
employers’ interests were far more important to Government than
these poorest workers in the country, who number around 50 thousand,
potentially yet another large voting block in the next election.
Policy
Issue 5
Voters
must ask all political parties what their policy will be the
independence of Wages Councils, and the implementation of their Wages
Regulation Orders.
National
Minimum Wages
In 2013, with much
fanfare, the Chairman of the Commerce Commission of Fiji (Dr Mahendra
Reddy), issued a National Minimum Wage of $2.32 an hour, supposedly
after an objective and scientific study
He rejected alternative
arguments coming from me (at a debate at FNU attended by the Minister
and PS of Labour) that some employers and industries might not be
able to pay even that minimum wage (and enforcing a high minimum wage
would mean that workers would simply lose their jobs), while others
who could afford to pay more, would refuse to do so by pointing to
the lower National Minimum Wage.
In any case, in the last
month, the Minister of Labour (apparently again under pressure from
the Employers’ Federation, unilaterally reduced he National Minimum
Wage to an even lower $2 per hour (with no comment from Dr Mahendra
Reddy to enlighten the hordes of FNU students who had gathered at FNU
to vote for him after the debate).
Policy
Issue 6
Voters
must ask all political parties what their policy will be the National
Minimum Wage.
Regressive
taxation measures
Since the Bainimarama
Regime took control at the end of 2006, they have changed the
taxation system heavily in favour of the rich and wealthy.
While they keep claiming
(quite falsely) that the poor now do not pay any tax because the
income tax threshold had been raised to $15 thousand dollars per
year, the reality has been that all pay tax through VAT on many of
their essential expenditures.
(a) VAT, which affects
the poor people far more seriously than the rich, has been increased
from 12% to 15%.
(b) Income tax at the
highest income levels has been reduced totally unnecessarily
from 30% marginal tax to 20%, lower even than all our neighboring
countries.
(c) Corporate tax has
also been reduced totally unnecessarily from 30% to 20% (and for
companies listed on the Stock Exchange even lower to 17%) lower than
all our neighboring countries.
All these taxation
changes have helped the rich, while hurting the poor.
The Bainimarama Regime
has significantly worsened income distribution.
On the positive side,
the Bainimarama Regime has in the last budget, brought in
comprehensive subsidies in education, which mean that primary, and
secondary education will not be a financial burden on poor families.
Moreover, all students who get accepted at tertiary institutions will
be able to access either full scholarships or loans. IN the last few
days, pre-school has also been supposedly made free.
These education policies
by the Bainimarama Government counter, to some extent, the changes in
taxation policy, for those families with children at school, but not
for others.
The building of rural
roads should also be of great assistance to the rural poor,
facilitating the marketing of their produce and better access to
essential urban services.
For those being access to
better roads, these progressive expenditures of taxpayers’ money
also counters the income distribution effects of negative changes in
taxation.
However, good transparent
public policy requires that income redistribution measures (such as
through progressive taxation) must be followed independently
of good measures in public expenditure, simply because the
beneficiaries of the two are not the same groups.
Policy Issues 7: Voters must ask all
political parties what their policies will be on
(a)
VAT
(b)
income tax at the higher levels
(c)
corporate tax
Remittance
incomes
Fiji’s remittance
incomes originate with those working abroad (caregivers, security
guards, army personnel in the British Army and elsewhere), and
emigrants sending money home to their families.
Considerably more
Remittance Money may be generated if trade agreements with Australia,
NZ and other developed countries could be signed so as to include the
mobility of unskilled labour, whether as part of the Seasonal Worker
Scheme or others to be negotiated.
Labour mobility as part
of aid scheme will not have the same security as such benefits may be
withdrawn if, as during election times in those countries, there is
pressure from labour unions there.
This issue will be
discussed more in a later Election Issues Bulletin on regional and
international relations.
Policy
Issue 8:
Voters
must ask all political parties what their policies will be on Trade
Agreements with Australia and NZ, and access to their labour markets
for Fiji’s unskilled labour.
Public
Debt: unfair burdens for the future generations
All governments borrow
money in order to pay for infrastructure, whose cost the future
generations need to share with the current generations.
The real issue is: what
should be the balance between the current generation and the
future generation.
If excessive amounts are
spent today to enable the current generation to enjoy the benefits of
the current increases in recurrent and capital expenditure spending,
then the future generations will be forced to unfairly shoulder a
considerably higher Public Debt per household.
Remember that in every
budget, Debt Repayments (Principal and Interest) is paid a a FIRST
CHARGE out of Government Revenue (and always shown on the first page
of the detailed budget estimate documents).
This
Public Debt MUST be paid by future generations by combination of
higher taxation, reduced public services (like education or health or
social welfare), constraints on public sector salaries, and reduced
recurrent and capital expenditure.
In the worst case
secenario, irresponsible governments who insist on “living beyond
their means” today, try to borrow more and more in the future,
increasing Public Debt until it becomes totally unmanageable for the
future generation. (this is what some of the nations in Europe
were doing until they crashed recently, requiring a massive bailout
from the European Union).
In the absence of Reports
of the Auditor General since 2006, there is no guarantee that the
figures quoted in the Annual Budgets on Public Debt are correct:
Public Debt figures may well be higher than reported.
According to the
unaudited Budget figures, the Bainimarama Government has
increased the Public Debt quite significantly from the $2.8 billion
in 1006 to about $4 billion in 2014.
But the Bainimarama
Government’s 2014 budget also stated that they will limit current
borrowing, by raising some $450 million through sales of
government assets.
[This is equivalent to a
farm showing lower deficits today, by selling the farm assets,
including the cash cows, to generate revenues].
If the planned asset
sales of around $450 million are excluded (as they properly should),
Government would have had to borrow $450 million more to
finance their planned expenditure.
The Public Debt would
increase correspondingly to around $4.5 billion (in red, under 2014*
in Table 3).
In practical terms, what
this means is that the Bainimarama Government, without the
permission of taxpayers through an elected parliament, has
increased the Public Debt per household from about
$17
thousand in 2006 to
$21
thousand in 2014 (an increase of 24% per household (official figures)
and to more than
$23
thousands (an increase of 38%) if we exclude the planned asset sales.
Given that most of the
poorer households in Fiji have not seen any significant increase in
money incomes during this period, the 38% higher Public Debt per
household must constitute a considerably higher burden on most
households, compared to that in 2006.
Future pressures on
tax-payers and households will be even more intense if the economy
fails to grow after 2014, for whatever reason (e.g.
elections being cancelled or postponed, or if the Fiji Military
Forces do not abide by the election results).
An alternative way of
looking at Public Debt in in relation to GDP. Table 4 indicates that
the Debt:GDP ratio will not have gone down from 53.3% to 48.3% in
2014 (as officially claimed), but increased slightly to 53.7% (if we
leave out revenues from asset sales).
Policy
Issue 9:
Voters
must ask all political parties what their policies will be on Public
Debt, Annual Government Deficits, and Asset Sales.
No New
Industries of Scale
One of the major failures
of the Bainimarama Government has been their inability to come up
with any ideas whatsoever to generate major new industries.
Three areas which have
gone begging have been:
(a) Retirement homes and
villages in Fiji: tardiness in setting up ancillary medical services
and other input services (possible employment of 20,000 within five
years)
(b) Call-centre and
data-processing industries: inability of Commerce Commission to
reduce call charges (possible employment of 20,000 within five years)
(c) Value adding
industries based on mahogany harvests: massive contracts given out to
preferred corporate clients, for export of essentially unprocessed
timber, while domestic timber processers are denied supplies.
(possible employment of 5,000 within five years)
Policy
Issue 10:
Voters
must ask all political parties to explain their detailed economic
growth and development strategies.
Summary of Recommendations on
Policy Issues in this Bulletin
Policy
Issue 1:
Voters
must ask all political parties whether they will guarantee to remove
all decrees which stipulate that grievances may not be taken to
court.
Policy
Issue 2:
Voters
must ask all political parties what their policy will be on public
investment on infrastructure
Policy
Issue 3:
Voters
must ask all political parties what their policy will be on
(a)
public sector salaries,
(b)
that of Ministers and Permanent Secretaries.
Policy
Issue 4:
Voters
must ask all political parties what their policy will be on
(a)
the independence of the Public Accounts Committee, and
(b)
the need for Auditor General Reports to be compulsorily and annually
made public.
Policy
Issue 5:
Voters
must ask all political parties what their policy will be
(a)
the independence of Wages Councils, and
(b)
the implementation of their Wages Regulation Orders.
Policy
Issue 6:
Voters
must ask all political parties what their policy will be the National
Minimum Wage.
Policy
Issues 7: Voters must ask all political parties what their policies
will be on
(a)
VAT
(b)
income tax at the higher levels
(c)
corporate tax
Policy
Issue 8:
Voters
must ask all political parties what their policies will be on Trade
Agreements with Australia and NZ, and access to their labour markets
for Fiji’s unskilled labour.
Policy
Issue 9: Voters must ask all political parties what their policies
will be on
(a)
Public Debt,
(b)
Annual Government Deficits, and
(c)
Asset Sales.
Policy
Issue 10:
Voters
must ask all political parties to explain their detailed economic
growth and development strategies.