Papua New Guinea’s 2026 National Budget has drawn immediate opposition criticism from East Sepik Governor Allan Bird, who says the government continues to overspend, overestimate revenue, and deliver few tangible results for ordinary citizens.

The K$30.9 billion (about NZ$12.8 billion) spending plan, unveiled earlier this week, has been characterised by analysts as highly political and aligned with next year’s election cycle.

Critics argue the Marape government has again prioritised high-visibility projects over long-term structural programs that would strengthen essential services.

Bird said this year’s budget followed a familiar pattern — record allocations on paper, but limited real-world improvements.

He pointed to ongoing shortages in medicines, persistent law and order challenges, and what he viewed as a widening gap between spending announcements and service delivery outcomes.

He has also raised concerns about revenue assumptions, noting that last year’s budget was short by K$2.5 billion and required significant mid-year corrections.

Bird believes similar risks exist in the 2026 plan, warning that overly optimistic revenue forecasts could again lead to financial strain.

Flawed fiscal discipline
Another key criticism centres on fiscal discipline. According to Bird, spending outside the formal budget framework remains common, with additional expenditures later reconciled in the Final Budget Outcome.

He said this practice undermines transparency and highlights deeper issues in the government’s financial management.

While the government insists the budget focuses on infrastructure, job creation, and community development, public reaction online has been overwhelmingly sceptical.

Many Papua New Guineans are questioning why record-high spending has not translated into better healthcare, education, or security.

For Bird and many critics, the central measure of any budget is whether it improves the everyday lives of citizens. Based on recent years, they believe the benefits have been limited — and they see little in the 2026 budget to suggest that trend will change.

This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

So 40 Fiji members of Parliament voted in favour of the Special Committee on Emoluments Report on the review of MPs’ salaries, allowances and benefits in Parliament on Friday.

Now that’s not going down well with the masses, with many venting their frustrations on social media. From the outset, it appears there are many people frustrated by the turn of events in the august house.

Many also sent in letters to the editor expressing their disappointment. There was the odd one out though, reflecting on the need for a pay rise for parliamentarians. So in effect, we have both ends of the spectrum covered.

That’s democracy for you. People will have differing opinions on what constitutes the right action to take at this moment in our history.

Seven voted against the motion and five abstained.

There are differing opinions as well in the House.

The National Federation Party voted against the motion, pointing out their position was in accordance with the directive of the party.

Opposition leader Inia Seruiratu insisted government must be seen as an equal opportunity provider and an employer of choice.

In saying that, we reflect on a number of factors. They are intertwined with this change in financial status of our MPs.

There will be the line taken about the importance of the work and salary comparisons initially, the duration of their stint in Parliament, status and expectations from voters, and the argument about attracting and retaining professionals, against the impact this will have on our coffers, pinning down taxpayer dollars.

We have a scenario that isn’t a pleasant one at all. We have a competitive salary against timing, and expectations of a nation that isn’t well off at all.

We have a delicate situation. Sceptics will wonder about what is fair compensation against the financial strain this places on taxpayers.

Let’s face it. There are economic challenges, and this increase will no doubt be seen as an insensitive one.

For what it is worth, what we have now is a situation that raises the importance of transparency and public trust in government decisions.

There will be issues raised about the independence of the process, and references will no doubt be made back to earlier emolument committees, and the processes they followed.

There will be questions asked about the need for people independent of Parliament.

In saying that, we are reminded about the taxpayer having every right to hold our MPs up to scrutiny!

We again raise that delicate balance between effective governance and the concerns of the people!

Fred Wesley is editor-in-chief of The Fiji Times. Republished with permission.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz