• About
  • Be Informed
  • Burness Case: Up-dates-scroll down
  • No Going Back
  • PETITION
  • The Destructiveness of Vanity

Fiji Pensioners

~ GREY POWER

Fiji Pensioners

Monthly Archives: October 2026

Why is the Fiji Ministry of Environment and Climate Change still supporting Dome/Magna?

31 Saturday Oct 2026

Posted by fijipensioners in Articles & Reports

≈ Leave a comment

DOME/MAGNA HAVE BEEN SUSPENDED BY ASX quotation since October first, twenty twenty-six, under Listing Rule seventeen point five for failing to lodge its annual report on time. The underlying reason is that Dome can’t currently finish its audit for the year ended June thirtieth. Dome/Magma were asked repeatedly by Government officials to release a digital copy of the EIA, But they refused. Which explains why you can see from the Facebook posts less than 40 people actually read the document under the archaic rules that apply.

As of its October thirtieth quarterly report, the suspension was still in place, with the AGM pushed to November twenty-sixth. Magma itself isn’t a separate ASX-listed company anymore — Dome acquired Magma Mines, which held the Sigatoka project, back in twenty twenty-one. So there’s no Magma code to suspend; it’s all folded into DME. One thing worth watching: ASX’s long-term suspension rules give Dome a one-year deadline from the missed report due date and a two-year window to get trading resumed before it risks being removed from the official list entirely.

Here’s what reinstatement actually takes. Under Listing Rule seventeen point eight, once Dome lodges the outstanding annual report and pays any fees, ASX will normally reinstate before the next trading day opens. The catch is the note attached to that rule — ASX can refuse if there’s another reason to suspend, and Dome’s nil cash and going-concern flag are exactly that kind of reason. Bougainville Copper just went through this: lodged late, then had to show ASX it had rebuilt its reporting systems before reinstatement was granted. On the clock, Dome’s annual report was due September thirtieth, twenty twenty-six. The one-year lodgement deadline is September thirtieth, twenty twenty-seven. The two-year suspension deadline is October first, twenty twenty-eight. Whichever hits first triggers removal from the official list. ASX can also delist earlier under Rule seventeen point twelve if it decides Dome no longer has adequate financial condition — and with zero cash at June thirtieth, that argument is already live. Now the Fiji side. The EIA public review closed yesterday, October thirtieth. Public meetings are November sixth and seventh in Sigatoka. After that, Fiji’s Department of Environment analyses everything and decides next steps — but there’s no published statutory timeline for that analysis phase. The feasibility study was expected later this year, and a mining lease application follows feasibility. No mining lease exists yet, only the prospecting licence, and Fiji’s lands minister has publicly stressed that submitting an EIA is not approval. So the sequencing problem is stark. Dome’s audit needs a valuation of Sigatoka, the valuation needs permitting momentum, and the permitting momentum is stuck in an open-ended Fijian review while Dome’s cash is essentially gone and it’s drip-feeding twelve percent convertible notes. If the DOE drags into mid-twenty twenty-seven, Dome is staring down the one-year lodgement deadline with an unfinished audit. The one escape hatch is that ASX may grant a short extension if Dome can show it’s in the final stages of a signed, financed transaction that restores trading — but final stages is a high bar when your main asset’s approval is still in public consultation. One angle worth a closer look: Dome’s June twenty twenty-five accounts already carried a material going-concern uncertainty with about half a million in cash. The convertible notes are building an interest and conversion overhang on a twenty-one million dollar company.

The Pensioners would like to know who exactly in the Rabuka government is supporting Dome/Magna, who is prepared to sacrifice our Nations National Parks to get their Thirty Pieces of Silver

Which Political Party Should The People of Fiji Vote For?

16 Friday Oct 2026

Posted by fijipensioners in Articles & Reports

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

economy, finance, history, news, politics

We all, each and every one of us, should be aware that since 1987, we have been governed by an assortment of the Almost Good, the Very Bad and the Disgustingly Ugly, plus corrupt, incompetent, greedy, and idiotic.

The time has come when we must for the future of the children and our Nation ensure that we vote and that we vote for a party that we truly believe is capable of working in the best interest of Fiji, its aged, its young, its poor, its future generations, which frankly rules out most government members we have had for the past 40 years.

This is a pragmatic assessment grounded in Fiji’s structural realities as a small, open, climate-vulnerable Pacific island economy with a history of political instability, ethnic diversity, high public debt, tourism dependence, and exposure to external shocks. These considerations could guide ANY FUTURE PARTY seeking durable national outcomes rather than short-term electoral advantage.

Political foundations

Long-term viability depends more on institutional quality than on any particular ideology:

  • Prioritise political stability and the rule of law. Fiji’s repeated coups and periods of tension have raised the cost of capital, deterred investment, and fragmented policy continuity. Strengthening independent institutions (judiciary, electoral bodies, anti-corruption mechanisms) and predictable constitutional rules reduces the risk of abrupt reversals that destroy credibility.
  • Build inclusive, multi-ethnic governance. Policies that systematically advantage or disadvantage one community over another recreate the zero-sum dynamics that have repeatedly destabilised the country. Broad-based legitimacy is more resilient than majoritarian or identity-based mobilisation.
  • Focus on competence and continuity over personality or patronage. High debt levels, climate risks, and the need for sustained investment reward parties that can maintain coherent multi-year strategies in infrastructure, education, and fiscal management rather than cyclical spending spikes before elections.
  • Maintain civilian supremacy and clear civil-military boundaries. Recurring military involvement in politics has been a source of uncertainty; durable democracy requires both professional security forces and civilian accountability.

These are enabling conditions. Without them, even well-designed economic policies tend to under-deliver.

Trade and economic orientation

Fiji’s size, remoteness, and vulnerability to cyclones and global commodity swings favour openness combined with deliberate capacity-building:

  • Deepen and diversify trade rather than retreat into protectionism. Tourism remains the dominant foreign-exchange earner, but concentration creates fragility. Expanding higher-value agriculture (including branded products), fisheries, niche manufacturing, and services while improving logistics, biosecurity, and quality standards increases resilience. Preferential access to Australia, New Zealand, and other markets is valuable only if domestic producers can meet standards and compete.
  • Engage regional and bilateral arrangements selectively and with clear safeguards. Agreements such as PACER Plus or others with major partners should be judged by whether they expand realistic market access, support infant-industry development where feasible, and avoid locking in rules that permanently constrain policy space. Fiji has historically approached some of these deals cautiously for exactly these reasons.
  • Balance major partners without exclusive alignment. Australia and New Zealand remain critical for tourism, labour mobility, and security; China, India, the United States, and others offer investment, infrastructure, and market opportunities. A non-aligned, interest-based approach that maximises options while preserving sovereignty is more sustainable than ideological dependence on any single external power.
  • Integrate climate resilience into trade and investment policy. Physical risks (cyclones, sea-level rise, droughts) already impose large costs. Policies that encourage climate-smart agriculture, resilient infrastructure, and insurance mechanisms protect both export capacity and fiscal sustainability. International climate finance can complement, but not replace, domestic reform.
  • Improve the investment climate through governance rather than solely through incentives. Rule of law, contract enforcement, transparent regulation, and reduced bureaucratic friction matter more for sustained foreign direct investment than temporary tax holidays. High public debt constrains fiscal giveaways; credibility is the scarcer resource.

Trade-offs and realism

Openness can expose domestic producers to competition and widen trade deficits if competitiveness does not improve. Protection can shelter jobs short-term but often raises costs for consumers and input-using industries. Fiscal expansion may be politically attractive yet risks debt sustainability given already elevated ratios. Climate adaptation requires upfront spending that competes with other priorities.

A future party’s most constructive contribution would be to treat these trade-offs explicitly, ground policy in evidence about what actually raises productivity and resilience in a small island setting, and build cross-community coalitions around shared material interests (jobs, security from disasters, rising living standards) rather than identity cleavage. Success will be measured less by ideological purity than by whether living standards, institutional trust, and shock-absorbing capacity rise over successive electoral cycles.

Wise words from Pramesh Sharma

12 Monday Oct 2026

Posted by fijipensioners in Articles & Reports

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

finance, history, investing, news, politics

The latest report that the FNPF pension dispute could potentially cost $700 million raises fundamental questions about justice, accountability, constitutional constraints and the responsibility of those entrusted with managing our national retirement savings.

First, the pensioners have been hard done by the previous Fiji First Government and the FNPF Board and Senior Management responsible for the 2012 pension reforms. These pensioners made their retirement decisions based on the terms and expectations that existed at the time.

For many, their pensions were not simply another financial product; they were the foundation of their retirement security, dignity and peace of mind. To reduce their pensions after they had committed their working lives and savings to the Fund has caused lasting hardship. Behind every financial estimate are elderly citizens, families and individuals who have lived with the consequences for years. The fact that a decision may have been defended on actuarial or financial grounds does not, by itself, settle the wider questions of fairness, legitimate expectations and accountability.

Second, the entrenchment of these provisions in the 2013 Constitution has created a serious obstacle to finding a just resolution. The present FNPF Board and Management must operate within the law as it stands. Even where there may be a genuine desire to address historical grievances, constitutional restrictions can severely limit their options. This is precisely why constitutional provisions affecting the pension dispute deserve careful scrutiny. A Constitution should uphold the rule of law, protect rights and provide access to justice. It should not become an unquestionable shield against examining whether past decisions were fair, lawful or consistent with the rights of those affected.

The current Board and Management should not be expected to act outside the law. Equally, they should not be left without a lawful avenue to address a longstanding injustice if a proper review establishes that redress is warranted.

Third, the application of Section 51 of the Constitution, whether rightly or wrongly interpreted in relation to this dispute, should be tested through appropriate judicial proceedings. No institution, Government or interested party should simply assume that its interpretation is beyond challenge.

A properly constituted judicial review, pursued by parties with the necessary legal standing, could examine the relevant legal provisions, their application and the extent to which the courts have jurisdiction to consider the issues raised. The courts would need to determine the precise legal questions, including the effect of any constitutional restrictions on their jurisdiction.

This is not about asking the courts to disregard the Constitution. It is about asking the courts to determine what the Constitution means, how its provisions interact and whether the legal barriers being relied upon have been correctly interpreted. The objective should be clarity, accountability and a lawful pathway forward.

Fourth, prudent governance requires the FNPF Board and Management to prepare responsibly for the possibility of future liability. If the Fund faces a credible historical claim, it would be poor governance to ignore that possibility simply because the present legal position appears restrictive. The Board should (or may have done already) commission independent legal advice, obtain an actuarial assessment and ensure that the potential financial exposure is properly evaluated and disclosed. Where appropriate, under the applicable accounting standards, a provision should be recognised if there is a present obligation, a probable outflow of resources and a sufficiently reliable estimate of the amount. If those recognition criteria are not met, the potential exposure should nevertheless be assessed for disclosure as a contingent liability where required.

This is not a call to pay an unproven claim prematurely, nor to use the retirement savings of current contributors indiscriminately to meet a historical obligation. It is a call for responsible financial planning, transparent risk management and a clear distinction between the Fund’s legal obligations and any responsibility that may properly rest with the State. The principle is simple; today’s legal obstacles should not be mistaken for a guarantee that tomorrow’s liability can never arise.

If a future constitutional review changes the relevant legal position or a competent court determines that a claim can lawfully proceed, the question of restitution could return with renewed force. The Fund and Government should not be caught unprepared.

The estimated $700 million figure reported in the Fiji Times must also be treated carefully. Any final assessment must distinguish between the amount claimed, the amount legally recoverable, the cost of any future pension adjustments and the party that may ultimately be responsible for payment. An estimate is not, by itself, proof of liability.

Ultimately, this matter is bigger than money. It concerns trust in our institutions, respect for retirement security and the principle that public decisions affecting people’s livelihoods must be capable of proper scrutiny.

The current Government, the FNPF Board and Management and the relevant legal authorities should work towards a transparent, lawful and financially sustainable resolution. If constitutional reform is necessary to remove an unjust barrier, that debate must be confronted honestly and through the proper constitutional process.

Our elderly pensioners deserve to have their grievances heard, their claims properly examined and their rights determined according to law. They should not be denied the prospect of justice merely because the passage of time has made the matter politically, legally or financially inconvenient.

Justice delayed is justice denied. But justice must also be pursued lawfully, transparently and with due regard for every FNPF member whose retirement savings must be protected.

Subscribe

  • Entries (RSS)
  • Comments (RSS)

Archives

  • November 2026
  • October 2026
  • August 2026
  • June 2026
  • May 2026
  • April 2026
  • March 2026
  • February 2026
  • January 2026
  • December 2025
  • November 2025
  • October 2025
  • September 2025
  • August 2025
  • May 2025
  • January 2025
  • December 2024
  • November 2024
  • August 2024
  • July 2024
  • February 2024
  • December 2023
  • September 2022
  • June 2022
  • February 2021
  • August 2020
  • February 2020
  • October 2018
  • September 2018
  • March 2018
  • January 2018
  • December 2017
  • October 2017
  • June 2017
  • May 2017
  • November 2016
  • July 2016
  • June 2016
  • March 2016
  • February 2016
  • January 2016
  • December 2015
  • November 2015
  • October 2015
  • September 2015
  • August 2015
  • July 2015
  • June 2015
  • May 2015
  • April 2015
  • March 2015
  • February 2015
  • January 2015
  • December 2014
  • November 2014
  • October 2014
  • September 2014
  • August 2014
  • July 2014
  • June 2014
  • May 2014
  • April 2014
  • March 2014
  • February 2014
  • January 2014
  • December 2013
  • November 2013
  • October 2013
  • September 2013
  • August 2013
  • July 2013
  • June 2013
  • May 2013
  • April 2013
  • March 2013
  • February 2013
  • January 2013
  • December 2012
  • November 2012
  • October 2012
  • September 2012
  • August 2012
  • July 2012
  • June 2012
  • May 2012
  • April 2012
  • March 2012
  • February 2012
  • January 2012
  • December 2011
  • November 2011
  • October 2011
  • September 2011
  • August 2011
  • July 2011

Categories

  • Articles & Reports
    • Link Information
  • Daily Humour
  • Health Hints
  • Letters
    • Grey Power Editor
    • Letters to FNPF
    • Unpublished Letters
  • OBITUARIES
  • Polls & Surveys
  • Press Releases
  • Quotations
    • Remembrance
  • Recipes

Meta

  • Create account
  • Log in

Blog at WordPress.com.

Privacy & Cookies: This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this website, you agree to their use.
To find out more, including how to control cookies, see here: Cookie Policy
  • Subscribe Subscribed
    Fiji Pensioners
    Join 35 other subscribers

    Have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.

  • Fiji Pensioners
    View site in Reader
    Manage subscriptionsSign upLog in
    Report this content
    Collapse this bar