Response to 2003 Budget by Hon Mahendra Chaudhry, Labour Parliamentary
Leader on 27th November, 2002 (posted 29 November 2002,
9.15am)
Mr Speaker, this Budget has been variously described by
different interest groups. The government has called it a visionary budget
which will usher in peace and prosperity.
The farmers have labelled it a budget that will deal a
death blow to the sugar industry, referring to the massive increase in the
Sugar export tax and other impositions on them under the proposed sugar
industry restructure plan.
A few businessmen, more particularly those whose
companies do not pay VAT and who continue to rely on concessions and
handouts from the state, have praised the budget as forward looking - a
pain for gain budget.
The poor and the disadvantaged in our society - who
constitute over 50% of our population - have called it a brutal blow to
their stomachs, a budget that snatches food away from their mouths; a
budget that will push them further down the abyss of poverty and add
thousands more to their ranks.
Mr Speaker, let's examine government's claim of ushering
in peace and prosperity through the strategies adopted in this budget. I
will first deal with the peace and prosperity theme given to it by the Hon
Minister for Finance.
The question to ask is whether we have seen any evidence
of peace and prosperity around us since the SDL took over the governance
of this country unconstitutionally? The answer sadly is No. If anything,
the opposite is the truth. Let me elaborate.
What dominates news these days? The answer: Anything but
peace and prosperity!
We hear of threats to the lives of the Army commander
and the Prime Minister. Is this peace?
We hear of disputes over chiefly titles. We read about
the discontent brewing among the landowners who are claiming the mahogany
forests. We have heard expressions of anger from the returned peacekeepers
who have taken the government to court accusing it of cheating them out of
their allowances.
Almost everyday, we read of horrific crimes committed
against families both in rural and in urban areas. Their homes are broken
into and ransacked, their children terrorised and sometimes their helpless
women raped. Is this the peace the honourable minister is talking about?
We know of countless parents who are shattered by the
knowledge that their young children have turned to drugs and prostitution.
The number of street kids in Suva and elsewhere is on the rise.
The rural- urban drift is gaining fresh momentum as
rural dwellers desert their impoverished villages and settlements in
search of a better life in cities and towns, adding to the problems of the
urban dweller.
More and more people join the unemployed queue as
businesses close or retrench because of a contracting economy. Mr Speaker,
during this year alone, some 2500 people have lost their jobs as a result
of closures of a number of garment factories and other enterprises in the
manufacturing industry.
Is this the prosperity the Honourable Finance minister
is talking about?
A much bigger problem looms before us in the shape of a
rapidly declining sugar industry, gasping for its last breath. It will be
gone unless it receives a kiss of life to revive it and restore its
health. I mean a genuine kiss of life, Mr Speaker, not the kind of kiss
administered by Count Dracula as he prepares to sink his fangs into the
victim's neck to draw blood and render her among the living dead, the kind
of kiss that the sugar industry officials propose to plant on the cane
farmers under the guise of restructuring the industry.
Mr Speaker, I could give many more examples of the type
of disintegration that our country and our people are facing but for the
time being, having made the point, I will proceed to deal with the issues
that, in my view, stand in the way of achieving peace and prosperity for
our people.
But before then, let us remind ourselves that peace and
prosperity are never, never possible on a foundation of injustice,
discrimination and persecution of a people. Nor is it to be ever achieved
through the rantings of thugs and terrorists posing as nationalist
leaders.
Iniquitous budgetary measures, such as taxing the poor
until his back breaks, neglecting the needy, and remaining insensitive to
the plight of the disadvantaged will also not bring peace or prosperity to
the nation.
Peace and prosperity, Mr Speaker, will not be possible
unless and until we build a just society - until we treat everyone
equally, irrespective of his or her ethnic origin, language, culture and
religion.
Peace and prosperity require a foundation of justice,
truth, trust and confidence. To prosper in today's highly competitive
world means embracing the universal values of honesty, hard work and a
determination to succeed in life through one's own efforts and
initiatives. It is about discarding archaic customs and practices that are
incompatible with today's world and stand in the way of progress. Customs,
practices and lifestyles that keep one backward are not worth preserving
no matter what their sentimental value.
In a multi-cultural society peace is about being
appreciative of other people's culture, customs, language and religion and
absorbing their positive aspects.
But what do we find here in Fiji? We see sheer disaster
wrapped in a package of deceit and sold as peace and prosperity to our
people. We see leaders and institutions hanging on to anachronisms,
repulsing well-intentioned advice and suggestions for beneficial reforms.
They prefer instead, to perpetuate a system that serves their entrenched
interests at the expense of the people they profess to serve.
The result: No peace or prosperity for these poor
people.
Bringing peace and prosperity to people of a developing
nation with limited resources is a difficult task which cannot be achieved
by merely adopting slogans such as 50/50 by 2020 from other countries
which are much better endowed.
Development of a community to enable its full
participation in the socio-economic life of a nation requires much more
than slogans and blueprints. It requires reforms in areas which have
inhibited the community's progress. People must be freed from a culture
that suppresses them.
They must be encouraged to express themselves freely and
develop as individuals. They must be taught the values of hard work and
weaned away from the evils of a hand-out mentality. They must be
encouraged to own private property and businesses as individuals and not
as members of institutions which give them virtually nothing.
When that happens, peace and prosperity will come to
them.
Let me now deal with what I see as impediments in the
way of achieving peace and prosperity for our people.
CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES
Sir, the questions relating to the constitutionality of
the SDL government have not been finally settled. The present position is
that the Fiji Court of Appeal has declared the government unconstitutional
and has ordered the Prime Minister to include Fiji Labour Party members in
his cabinet. The Prime Minister has also been ordered to so advice the
President.
The Prime Minister has appealed the decision to the
Supreme Court but this court remains unconstituted. The recent utterances
of the Chief Justice indicate that the court is unlikely to be convened
this year.
Now, let us look at the implications that arise from the
unconstitutional status of this government. But first I will speak on what
to us seems a deliberate delay in constituting the Supreme Court - a
scheme which seems to have been worked out between the Chief Justice and
the Government.
I say this because we all know that the Supreme Court
was constituted and met twice this year to hear cases of less
constitutional importance than the pending multi-party cabinet case. I
refer to the cases relating to appointments to the Senate under section 64
of the Constitution and the appeal of Mr Prem Singh's from a decision of
the Court of Disputed Returns.
Now, the ruling declaring the SDL government
unconstitutional was delivered in March with the necessary orders made by
the High Court in May this year. The Prem Singh case was heard by the
Supreme Court in July and the same court could have been asked to deal
with the multi-party cabinet case. But that was not done because the
former CJ constituted the Supreme Court at different times on an ad hoc
basis to hear specifically designated cases only, deliberately, it seems,
leaving out the most important constitutional case.
The incumbent Chief Justice is following in the same
footsteps and seems unwilling to constitute the Supreme Court. He has made
untenable excuses for not doing so. His behaviour in this matter is
questionable and is seen by many noted jurists and members of the legal
fraternity as a clear case of politicisation of the judiciary and a slur
on its integrity.
Mr Speaker, Chief Justice Fatiaki was appointed by my
government in 1999 as chairperson of a commission to conduct an inquiry
into corruption in Fiji and advice on the measures government should
consider to curb this evil in our society.
To this day he has not submitted a report on his
assignment despite having drawn his allowances of several thousand dollars
in advance. He has caused serious embarrassment to two other well
respected people who were appointed as his co-commissioners. Mr Speaker,
it is most unprofessional and unethical conduct on the part of someone who
now heads our judiciary.
Let me now revert to the issue of unconstitutionality of
the SDL government. The longer this remains unsettled the more harm it
will continue to do to our nation. As it is, we have been excluded from
benefiting under the development cooperation assistance programme of the
European Union which has made it clear that it will await the decision of
the Supreme Court on the issue and its implementation before releasing aid
funds to Fiji under the COTONOU agreement.
Similarly, many investors both local and foreign have
put their projects on hold because of the uncertainty surrounding the
legality of the present government.
The delay in settling this matter is costing the
national economy millions of dollars. Countless job opportunities are
being lost in the meantime. At least 20 large businesses have either
relocated or taken a decision to relocate to other countries - some moving
to locations as far as South Africa. All this is happening at the expense
of our people and our development. Yet the SDL government thinks that by
delaying the matter, it will somehow escape the sceptre of
unconstitutionality that hangs over its vulnerable neck like the sword of
Damocles.
No, Mr Speaker, that will not happen. This issue must be
settled first before Fiji can claim to be a politically stable nation. It
is different this time compared to 1987. The international community is by
far more demanding on issues of democracy, human rights, rule of law and
good governance. My advice to the Prime Minister is to get the Chief
Justice to stop playing games and have the Supreme Court constituted
without any further delay. Let us get this issue over with so that we can
move forward.
Those who say that the government is constitutional
until the Supreme Court decides otherwise are only deluding themselves.
They seem to overlook that there is a judicial pronouncement by the Fiji
Court of Appeal in the matter and that is the position until and unless it
is overturned.
Let me sound a warning to those who are lending money to
this government that they are doing so at their own risk because no
instrument of guarantee executed by this unconstitutional government as
the authorised agent of the state is legally valid.
EMPLOYMENT/POVERTY ALLEVIATION
The biggest and most difficult challenge facing us today
is to eradicate poverty through new employment opportunities - be it wage
employment or self-employment.
Unemployment and underemployment is the biggest scourge
facing our young people - many of whom are now turning in desperation to a
life of crime. It is difficult to put exact numbers to those who face this
predicament because our statisticians have failed to provide successive
governments with reliable figures on unemployment.
Be that as it may, Sir, the high rate of youth
unemployment is very visible from the number of young people roaming
around our streets. It is visible in the high crime rate and the number of
youths who occupy our jails.
Unemployment can also be gleaned from the rising number
of our youths turning to drugs and prostitution. Unemployment and
underemployment in the rural areas is quite glaring from the large tracts
of once productive land reverting to bush. The young Fijians who are
supposed to be working this land have fled to towns and cities in search
of non-existent wage employment or simply to while away their time at the
expense of their urban relatives. But they cannot be blamed because our
rural areas are in a state of neglect, offering little incentive to the
youth of today.
Despite the magnitude of the problem and its serious
implications on our future, the Budget fails to specifically address this
issue and provide any specific measures to generate new employment.
Mr Speaker, unofficial surveys put our unemployment rate
at around 30% but if the underemployment factor is added, then the figure
rises to 45%. This means that 45% of our people between 21 and 55 remain
without full-time employment - be it in the urban or rural areas.
Sir, the problem is beyond the reach and the depth of
the Ministry of Youth and Employment Opportunities and more particularly
its flamboyant minister. To come to grips with it needs a far more serious
approach than that exhibited by the SDL government so far.
I am not talking about a small number of our people.
Latest demographic statistics show that there are approximately 400,000
(398675 to be precise) people in this age group. 45% of that figure comes
to 180,000 people. 30% or the percentage of people altogether unemployed
would come to 120,000 - again a large section of our population. So, you
can see the immensity of the problem we face.
Whatever hope there was Mr Speaker, of generating new
employment has been killed through this budget's
cost-escalation/inflationary measures. The bottom line of businesses has
been hit hard by this budget and it is only logical that they will move to
cut costs to maintain their profits. The casualty here will be the
workers, with a number of them having to go to keep the bottom line
margins intact. Another reason for redundancy or lay offs will be dampened
consumer demand.
Mr Speaker, price increases are followed by consumer
resistance unless there is a corresponding or greater increase in
disposable incomes of people. We can discount any increase in disposable
incomes on account of increased taxation, duty hikes and job losses
resulting from this Budget.
So, the future for the thousands of our young men and
women looks quite bleak, Sir.
SOCIAL EQUITY/ALTERNATIVE TO VAT INCREASE
Many on the other side of the House have tried to
justify the increases in VAT, customs duty and sugar export tax as a
necessary evil. A number of businessmen with dubious background have
supported it as a pain that must be endured now for gain that will come
later. What a laugh, Mr Speaker!
What they really mean is the poor must bear the pain now
and forever, if necessary, so that the rich may gain now and forever!
Let me ask of those who, because of their ignorance,
glorify the vicious increase in VAT and sugar export tax: Why can
additional revenue not be obtained by imposing a tax of 5.0% on all
garment exports? Why can't a similar rate of export tax apply to exports
of other commodities such as fisheries products, natural water and so on.
It is time the books were balanced, Mr Speaker. Those
who have not contributed to the development of Fiji by remaining tax-free
enterprises, repatriating money made here to countries they export their
products to, must be made to pay their fair share to the public purse.
We are told that these tax-free enterprises contribute
many millions to our exports. But has anyone in government ever undertaken
an exercise to establish whether these millions have in fact passed
through the nation's capital account. No, that has not been done for as
long as the tax-free factory regime has existed. We attempted it in
1999/2000 and found huge discrepancies which were being investigated when
the May 19, 2000 coup put an end to it.
My advice to Finance ministry is to extract the
additional revenue from the coffers of the rich who can afford it and not
from the already impoverished sections of our community.
Our tax-free export industries have the ability to pay
tax without hurting their competitiveness and should be made to pay for
the sake of equity in our society.
Exports of garments, textiles, footwear, fish/seafood
and mineral water were valued at around $500 million in 2001. A tax on
these exports at the rate of 10% would have returned $50 million in
revenue to government. If such a tax were put in place from 2003 in place
of increasing VAT and sugar export tax, it would be more than sufficient
to take care of government's additional revenue needs. That is alternative
that should be pursued.
It is time the tax burden was shifted from the poor to
the rich, Mr Speaker. SDL's election promise of narrowing the widening
income disparities between the rich and the poor is hollow. It is just
talk. In reality, SDL is further widening this gap by attacking the poor.
The SDL has been making a huge song and dance about its
expenditure for poverty alleviation and rural development. It has been
claiming in its media propaganda that the increased revenue from the
regressive tax increases will be spent on rural development and poverty
alleviation. Let us look at the facts:
· The government claims that it has budgeted $129
million in 2003 for rural development and poverty alleviation. In 2002, it
had $125 million for the same. The additional revenue from the increase in
VAT is over $50 million, yet, only $5 million additional is being proposed
to be used in rural development and poverty alleviation. The question is:
Where does the balance go? ….consumption, corruption, etc.
I will tell you shortly where it will go.
· The other important point in this regard which seems
to have been lost to the media is that these allocations are nothing new
and have been provided by successive governments ever since impendence.
· Another fact, Sir, is that in 2000, the Peoples
Coalition Government budgeted a total of $133m for rural development and
poverty alleviation. Sir, this was much higher than the SDL's budget for
the same areas of development, and very importantly, this was despite the
fact that the Peoples Coalition Government reduced the prices of goods and
services, and took away VAT from essential goods and services.
I had asked earlier: Where will the balance of the
additional revenue go?
I will tell you, where it is going to go, Sir.
It is going to be used to pay off our huge debt. The
amount budgeted for debt repayments in 2003 is $260 million which is $52
million more than the provision for 2000 and $46 million more than 2002.
What is more alarming, Sir, is the fact that a massive $298 million is
forecast for 2004 and $343million in 2005.
So the message is clear, the chickens are coming home to
roost. The huge borrowings since 2000 has brought this upon us.
Taxpayers should brace themselves for further tax
increases very soon.
GOODS MARKET REFORM
Government's announced intention to move towards a
policy of dismantling price surveillance and controls on essential items
is an anti-social measure. It will act against the consumer who will be
made to pay more for the basic essentials that are now under price
control.
Contrary to what the Finance minister wants us to
believe, market mechanisms will not reduce or stabilise prices of
essential everyday items. These goods are largely imported by wholesale
merchants and distributors who add huge margins when disposing of to
retailers. In most cases the product lines are anchored to a few companies
and they exercise absolute control over prices - there is no question of
fair competition.
In our days in government, we found that consumers were
paying between 150% - 300% more for many every day items. We then moved to
bring 19 more commodities under price control, resulting in the prices of
those commodities falling sharply. This, though a welcome relief to the
consumer was disliked by unscrupulous traders.
Market mechanisms do not work to protect consumer
interests in a small economy like ours. Our choice of product lines is
limited and the size of our domestic market is too small to benefit from
economies of scale.
Consumers will be greatly disadvantaged by the removal
of price controls on essential items. Coupled with the increase in VAT, it
will be like a double blow to their stomachs.
Consumer cheating seems quite prevalent with certain
product lines in Fiji. This is usually done by selling inferior quality
goods or by selling goods that are short packed or adulterated.
We had a recent case where a gas company namely BLUE GAS
of PUNJA's was exposed for cheating its customers by selling under packed
or under filled cooking gas cylinders. When caught, the company very
cleverly diverted attention from its own criminal activity to trap an
allegedly corrupt employee of the Fair Trading department.
Well, if the employee had demanded a bribe to overlook
this very serious crime of conspiracy to defraud the consumers, then he
should be prosecuted. But more importantly, the Company should not be
spared after it admitted that its cylinders were under-filled but claimed
that they were within the permitted legal limit of cheating.
Mr Speaker, strong consumer protection legislation is
the only safest and surest way of protecting the public from dishonest
businessmen. It is also common knowledge that many good intentioned
officials have fallen prey to corrupt and dishonest dealings of these
unscrupulous businessmen.
We remain opposed to any moves to weaken consumer
protection legislation or the dismantling of organisations that keep a
watch over consumer interests.
CORRUPTION
Corruption in government and in some sections of the
private sector is so rampant Mr speaker that it is stifling those who
believe in conducting their businesses honestly under the ethnical rules
of the game.
Only this morning one of the daily newspaper has
highlighted what is believed by one of the biggest building contractors in
the country to be a case of corruption in deciding on a multi-million
dollar contract for the refurbishing of our international airport.
This contractor has demanded an independent inquiry into
the alleged scam but we all know his call will go unheeded by a government
which continues to ignore all calls for transparency and accountability in
such matters.
Mr Speaker, Sir, it is believed that some 40% of all
government spending on capital works and purchase of goods and services is
lost to corruption and other forms of underhand dealings.
One must ask in the face of such massive corruption in
this country as to why government is not moving to legislate against
corruption? Why has it failed to bring a code of conduct bill before this
House which would check the conduct of politicians and holders of public
office, despite it being a requirement of the constitution?
The answer should be quite obvious - should it not?
This government is a part of the corruption problem not
a solution to it.
SUGAR INDUSTRY
Sir, a restructure of the sugar industry has been much
in the news lately. We have here consultants from the Asian Development
Bank studying proposals for structural reforms. There is a proposal or a
plan which was prepared and finalised by the FSC management in July of
this year. This plan is supported, regrettably, by some industry
officials, including the Chief Executive of the Growers Council.
Following the release of this plan, the Minister for
Agriculture who was MD of FSC for many years before his entry into
politics, appointed a committee to review it and tender advice on its
viability or otherwise to the minister.
It is needless to say that the minister considered a
review of the FSC plan necessary because of its total rejection by the
farmers and the FSC workers' unions. But more significantly, the minister
himself was and remains sceptical to this day about the viability of the
proposals in the FSC prepared plan.
The review committee, as expected, rejected all the main
proposals of the FSC plan and suggested alternative measures. It was at
this stage that the Minister for Agriculture was relieved of the
responsibility of overseeing the so-called restructure, the Prime Minister
having himself assumed this role.
It is a well known fact that the FSC restructure plan
proposed by the industry officials has no support among the farmers or the
mill workers. It was prepared without consulting them. As for the farmers,
the Chief Executive of the SCGC has committed them to the plan without due
consultation or authority. There is no official resolution of the SCGC
approving the plan. The Chief executive stands alone in this matter and
the farmers will have no part of it.
The restructure plan is a ruse to rescue the almost
bankrupt FSC at the expense of the farmers and mill employees. What
actually is needed is a complete overhaul of the company, a change of its
Board of Directors and senior management who are responsible for its near
demise. FSC had once been a successful company, making millions in profits
under an enlightened and competent Board and management.
That is not the case anymore - as we can see. FSC's
troubles began in 1997 but were brought under control in 1999. However,
serious problems resurfaced in 2000 and have continued since with the
result that the company is now declared technically insolvent and unable
to operate on its own. It has been functioning in the last two years
through financial guarantees and loans from government.
Let me acquaint the House with FSC's operating results
since its inception in 1974. In the 28 years of its operations the company
made pre-tax profits totalling $258 million. It operated profitability for
22 of those years. Its losses over the remaining 6 years totalled $50
million of which $40 million relate to the years 1997, 1998, 2000 and
2001. Two other years of losses were 1984 and 1986.
So, it can be seen that the rot had actually set-in in
1997, with a reported loss of $2 million which escalated to $11 million in
1998. In 1999 FSC made a profit of $3 million and this was when the
Peoples Coalition Government was in power. We turned the company around
from a loss of $11 million into a profit of $3 million because of the
specific measures we took to curb mismanagement in the mills and address
milling inefficiency problems.
But the following year saw the Corporation plunge into a
loss of $5.3 million which ballooned to $21 million in 2001. The budgeted
loss for year 2002 is reported at a massive $25 million.
The picture is complete, Sir. Three years of interim
administration/SDL rule has bankrupted a profitable enterprise. Now, the
government wants the farmers to pay for rescuing it. In the process
government wants them to accept a guaranteed price of $32 per tonne of
cane when production costs are $34 per tonne. The farmer is being told
that anything above this will depend on the operating results of the new
milling companies to be established under the restructure plan. If the
mills make a profit the farmer, as a shareholder, will share in that along
with the other shareholders.
He currently gets between $55 - $60 per tonne, depending
on world market prices and is not convinced that the substantial
difference of between $23 - $28 per tonne will be made up by the profits
the milling company would generate. Indeed, he is extremely sceptical that
the company would make a profit, seeing that it will be saddled with heavy
debt repayments which will be a first charge on its profits.
The farmer is also not comfortable with the prospect of
being a tenant of the company under the head lease concept of the
restructure plan. Moreover, he is not prepared to give up regulatory
controls exercised over the industry by the sugar industry institutions
established under the Sugar Industry Act. These controls or checks and
balances have served him well as essential ingredients of a relationship
between the grower and the miller because of the beneficial interest he
has in the manufactured sugar until it is disposed of and proceeds or
income therefrom shared between the two.
The restructure proposals intend to abolish all
regulatory aspects embodied in the Sugar Industry Act and the Master
Award. In fact its sum total is to revert to the dark days of CSR Co Ltd.
Let us remind ourselves that it took the farmers almost
seventy (70) years to free themselves from the clutches of CSR when Lord
Denning awarded them a just contract following arbitration in 1969.
The farmer has no wish to return to those dark days. He
is not worried if the industry does not survive. He will not return to the
semi-slavery conditions of the CSR days.
FSC's bankrupt state is of its own doing and its
shareholders should fix the problem. When farmers lose money as a result
of droughts, floods or fire they are not rescued by FSC. They are expected
to bear their own losses - the same principle must apply in FSC's case.
Government would do well to abandon its present course
of restructuring the sugar industry - it will not succeed. If the industry
is to survive and brought back on track, then those responsible should
have dialogue with the real representatives of the stakeholders, not the
counterfeits who do not have support of the grassroots.
LAND
Mr Speaker, much has been said by many about the urgent
need to resolve the land issue. For many years, representatives of the
Indian community called on the Rabuka government for an acceptable
resolution of the problem of expiring land leases.
I myself moved a motion to that effect on the floor of
this House in February 1995, seeking the appointment of a Joint
Parliamentary Select Committee to examine the claims of the landowners and
the tenant community and make suitable recommendations for a successor
arrangement for lease renewals to be incorporated in ALTA.
We tried very hard to reach an amicable solution on
agricultural leases of native land. But the NLTB and some Fijian leaders
had different views. They were adamant that 80% of the leases would not be
renewed because the landowners wanted their land back. They did not want
to tie it up for another 30 years under ALTA - they wanted to farm it
themselves, we were told.
NLTB put in an additional demand for all native land to
be excluded from the provisions of ALTA. Leases on native land, it
claimed, should be governed by the Native Lands Act. The tenant community
could not agree to this demand.
Then came 1997 when the provision in ALTA for automatic
20 year lease extensions lapsed. NLTB was now free to do what it wanted
with native lands. It was no longer obliged to grant 20 years lease
extensions.
NLTB moved with unremitting vengeance as it served
notices of termination of leases indiscriminately. Between 1997 and 2000
hardly any agricultural leases were renewed. Rural residential leases were
offered at high premiums and other associated charges which took it beyond
the means of many tenants.
Farmers began vacating their farms by the hundreds. In
many cases landowners had moved in even before the leases or grace periods
had expired. It was simply a question of forcing the issue. Police took no
action against such illegal occupation and unlawful eviction of tenants.
They conveniently side-stepped their lawful duty - and continue to do it
even today - by maintaining that such acts of violent, unlawful occupation
are of a civil nature and the farmer must petition the High Court for
redress. What travesty of justice!
It is a well known fact that the cowardly terrorist
attacks on Indian farmers by groups of thugs following the illegal seizure
of government on May 19 2000, were orchestrated by certain officials of
NLTB. Their aim was to drive fear into the hearts of Indian farmers, and
to create a situation where Indian leaders would be forced to agree to
NLTB's demands.
To win support of the landowners their minds were
poisoned through relentless propaganda that Indian farmers were paying
them very little rent and becoming prosperous at their expense. Nothing
could be further from the truth. Rent assessments by NLTB in the past 20
years or so have been well over the 6% UCV maximum limit stipulated in
ALTA.
NLTB continued with its policy of terminating leases of
Indian farmers which saw some 3500 of them moving out of the sugar
industry since 1998. This has had a direct effect on sugar cane production
which fell from around 4 million tonnes annually to 2.8 million tonnes
last season. Sugar production plunged from 377,000 tonnes in 1999 to a low
of 293,000 tonnes in 2001.
Most displaced farmers found shelter with friends and
relatives. They pulled down their homes and rebuilt whatever they could
salvage elsewhere, squatting on someone else's land. Many moved to urban
areas - hundreds moved from Vanua Levu to Viti Levu. They have suffered
immense hardship but they are surviving and survive they will as they
rebuild a new and more secure future for themselves.
No state assistance is available to these farmers even
though there is provision for it in the 2002 Budget. Much of the money
allocated to it was vired to cover over expenditure in other allocations
with the consequence that hundreds of farmers both Indian and Fijian await
in vain for a response to their applications for assistance.
Seeing the impending collapse of the sugar industry and
the steep decline in the incomes of landowners as a result of non-renewal
of leases, NLTB has now changed its policy under a new General Manager.
New leases of 50 years duration are now being offered but are conditional
upon ALTA being replaced with NALTA.
Meanwhile, NLTB has begun granting new leases under
ALTA, with a proviso that these leases will revert to NALTA when agreement
is reached on this issue in parliament.
I welcome the positive attitude of the new General
Manager and the new Board and urge them to continue issuing new leases
under ALTA. The tenant community is unlikely to consider NALTA after being
so badly traumatised by the previous NLTB administration. They have
suffered much and are not likely to forget that in a hurry.
After all, NLTB's core argument against ALTA has been
overtaken by events. The automatic 20 year extension regime which was
pinpointed as taking land away from its Fijian owners no longer applies.
Now NLTB and landowners are free to decide whether or not they wish to
grant new leases without any statutory limitation being placed on them in
the exercise of that right.
The tenant community, on the other hand, is not likely
to surrender the security guaranteed under ALTA because of the painful
experience they have been subjected to since 1997.
Mr Speaker, in many ways I consider the land issue as
having been substantially resolved. Landowners now have the absolute
freedom to decide on granting new leases on their land. The tenant
community has the protection of ALTA so both sides should be content that
their main concerns have been addressed.
To insist on NALTA replacing ALTA will be a one-sided
demand not acceptable to the tenant community. It will also militate
against the interests of the landowners in the long term.
Let me say that in the 62 years of its existence, NLTB
has not demonstrated that it is capable of discharging its obligations
responsibly. As the sole trustee of the landowners and as the custodian of
the largest pool of resource crucial to the development of the nation, it
has failed to live upto the expectations of both the landowners and the
nation.
It will be recalled that the Prime Minister, in answer
to a question by this side of the House on 27 September 2002, disclosed
that of 569,353 hectares of land declared as native reserves since 1940
only 24,773 hectares were under productive use. One must ask therefore:
Why this preoccupation or obsession with grabbing land and not using it?
Sadly, Sir, this unproductive pool of land is being further added to by
terminating leases of Indian farmers, much to the detriment of the
landowners and the national economy.
Whenever someone has tried to tender good advice on the
economic use of land, he has been branded an outsider wanting to
dispossess Fijians of their land. Indeed, land was used as a front by
those who had lost elections to stage the coups of 1987 and 2000, bringing
untold disaster and suffering to our people.
Land has for long been used by successive generations of
irresponsible politicians to create friction between our two major races.
The only lasting solution to this perennial and thorny problem is to
neutralise such politicians by making land a non-issue.
In my view we have now nearly reached that scenario and
with a little more patience we will have overcome the problem altogether.
CONCLUSION
Sir, we will achieve neither peace nor prosperity until
we get our fundamentals right. There is so much fundamentally wrong with
Fiji that it will continue to remain a deeply divided society which will
eventually invite destruction upon itself.
That we are degenerating and disintegrating as a nation
is quite visible. The SDL government and its policies are only helping to
hasten the process. It is leading us from one disaster to another - its
latest, in the form of a brutal attack on the poor - is the last straw
that will break the camel's back.
No one, Mr Speaker, no one, in his or her right mind can
support an oppressive budget such as the one before us.
I oppose the Bill, Sir.
Thank you. |