The main problem in for Fiji retirement is that there is no law to protect the Fiji National Provident Fund, claims a leading trade unionist.

Fiji Trades Union Congress national executive board member and National Union of Hospitality Catering and Tourism Industries Employees general secretary Daniel Urai has told the FNPF 2011 Act review committee in Lautoka that a law needed to be put in place to ensure that the FNPF and its members are protected.

“Whenever something happens, a new government comes in — they will tell FNPF to remove all their investments abroad,” Urai said at the hearing on Friday.

“And that has an effect on the FNPF investment. So, I hope you will find a way to put in a law that no one just comes and directs FNPF to remove all its investments, and that has happened in the past.

“And I hope you can look at ways to ensure that it does not happen.

“Because every time that happens, FNPF loses, and the returns are not what is expected.”

Fiji Trades Union Congress national secretary and FNPF 2011 Act review committee member Felix Anthony claimed the government had interfered with FNPF’s overseas investments in 2007.

Withdrew investments abroad
“Soon after the coup, the government, actually through the Reserve Bank of Fiji (RBF), suggested that FNPF withdraw all its investments abroad,” Anthony said.

“Just so that they keep the Fijian dollar afloat, and that actually affected FNPF income and had some financial ratification on the FNPF bottom line.

“There was some consideration given whether the RBF itself should compensate FNPF for that directive, and nothing eventuated, of course, because the government had a stronghold at that time.”

The Fiji National Provident Fund is conducting a comprehensive review of the FNPF Act 2011 to ensure the law is modern, effective, and continues to meet the retirement needs of Fijians.

The public consultation continued at the Labasa Civic Centre today and will be in Suva tomorrow.

Republished from The Fiji Times with permission.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Living in the Papua New Guinea capital of Port Moresby without a house or a source of income is a death sentence, says Raymond Green.

He highlights the struggles of sleeping in the streets, begging for his daily bread and wandering around aimlessly — living a life of quiet desperation.

His advice: Don’t ever borrow money from someone if you don’t have the means to repay them.

According to Raymond Green, he learnt this lesson the hard way when he had to sell off everything under his name to repay his debt.

“I have absolutely nothing. No house, no wife, no money, no valuables and certainly no food in my stomach as we speak,” he told the PNG Post-Courier.

“My struggles cannot be explained by words.

“Every day I have to keep on moving to survive, begging for scraps of food here and there.

Harassment and bullying
“I enjoy the cold nights, but I just wish it could be more peaceful, as there are always people out there who find happiness in harassing and bullying me,” he says.

“I live in pain, agony and desperation. My past haunts me, and my regrets fill me with sorrow.

“Sometimes I wish life could give me a fresh start, but it sadly does not work that way.”

Green doesn’t mince his words when he expresses his daily struggles of being “homeless” and “poor”.

Something he explains that he could have avoided if he had taken the right path when he was younger.

“My daily living is a constant struggle for survival, and I sometimes feel like I am dead inside,” he says.

‘Ultimately have nothing’
“It’s true, being homeless is practically like being dead because you ultimately have nothing.

“All I own can be seen inside my small bag. Everything I had has been either stolen, lost or destroyed somewhere or somehow.”

He says he is waiting for a one off-payment from a certain office, by which he can then use the money for his retirement.

He says there is a high chance he may never receive this payment.

Raymond Green is one of the many who live under extreme poverty conditions, while continuously fighting to survive in Port Moresby.

Theophiles Singh is a PNG Post-Courier journalist. Republished with permission.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

New research shows that more than half of New Zealanders are struggling financially.

The annual survey by the Retirement Commission found the number of people in financial difficulty increased by 17 percent since their first survey in 2021.

A total of 55 percent reported being in a financially difficult position – including many Pacific Islanders.

Of those surveyed, 51 percent reported they were “starting to sink” or “treading water”, while a further 3.5 percent reported they were “sinking badly”.

Personal Finance lead Tom Hartmann said women, Māori and Pacific Peoples were being hit the hardest.

The survey found 61 percent of women were financially struggling in contrast to 48 percent of men.

Sixty percent of Māori and 58 percent of Pacific Peoples also reported feeling financially stressed. Those aged 18-34 were also more likely to experience financial stress.

Hartmann said it was concerning that so many New Zealanders were feeling the pressures of cost increases.

Long-term consequences
“We have now tipped into more than half the population feeling squeezed financially. This significantly reduces people’s ability to grow their money for tomorrow, which has long-term consequences for their future financial well-being,” he said.

The survey found that more people were borrowing money, but also that more people were budgeting and saving.

It also reported that the gap was widening for women compared to men in terms of optimism, financial sentiment, personal savings and savings for retirement.

The main source of data for the information came from the Retirement Commission’s online population survey of New Zealanders aged over 18 which is run by market research agency TRA. The commission said the sample was nationally representative of New Zealand based on age, gender and region.

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

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Sixty-year-old Funki Uin continues his struggle in vain in Papua New Guinea as he tries to follow up over his late brother, Jhuke Uin’s, savings parked in a major national retirement fund since he died in 2019.

He has been repeatedly visiting the branch of Nambawan Super Limited (NSL) and the Public Curator’s office for the last two years since brother did not name any next of kin to inherit his life savings when he died.

The worrying fact in this story is that Funki’s plight could be experienced by the families of more than 161,500 other members who do not have a single listed beneficiary for their superannuation savings at both major funds of Nambawan Super (65,000 members) and Nasfund (96,532).

The PNG Post-Courier followed up with the Mt Hagen Public Curators office which responded stating that the superfunds must make the process easy for relatives of their members to have access to their savings.

This is not easy due to the current legal regime governing both the funds and the release of such unclaimed money in the country.

Continuous attempts to get comments from the Public Curator in Port Moresby were unsuccessful.

Uin claims he has followed proper procedures to apply for he funds of his late brother, who was a career public servant with the Southern Highlands provincial government, with no favourable response.

Governed by law
Both Nasfund and NSL stated in their responses to the Post-Courier that they were governed under the Superannuation Act 2022.

Nasfund chief executive officer Rajeev Sharma said: “Our policies and procedures are derived from the Superannuation Act which governs all superfunds (trustees), fund administrators, investment managers and stakeholders.

“As a trustee, our requirements and processes are aligned to both the Superannuation Act and the Prudential Standards to safeguard the entitlements of all members and their beneficiaries.

“As standard procedure, registered beneficiary(s) of the deceased member whose information were provided by the member whilst being an active contributor will have access to information and service.

“A beneficiary of a deceased member must ensure to provide key requirements such as the Medical Certificate of Death, Warrant to Bury, and a confirmation of employment from the most recent employer of the deceased member as verification.

“Beneficiaries are also required to provide identification (ie. valid ID or verification documents) to prove their validity.”

NSL chief executive officer Paul Sayer said: “One of the major challenges we face is that many of our members have not provided a list of their nominated beneficiaries.

Outdated information
“Or if they have, it is outdated, incomplete or has family members left out which often leads to a longer withdrawal process for beneficiaries.

“When a member without any listed beneficiaries passes away, the fund is tasked with identifying the correct people to whom the late member’s entitlements should go.

“The withdrawal process in these instances is extended to include additional verification requirements for each individual that presents themselves.

“They must provide proof of identification and proof of relation to the late member.

“The unlisted beneficiaries are also required to provide additional documents for this verification process which are then reviewed and processed by NSL before releasing the entitlements.”

Both Nasfund and NSL have encouraged their members to update their details with their respective funds.

Dale Luma and Pearson Kolo are PNG Post-Courier journalists. Republished with permission.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

The retirement age in Fiji is now 60 but people can withdraw their superannuation savings when they turn 55, says Prime Minister Sitiveni Rabuka.

He said this in response to queries from the media in Suva.

People who were leaning towards retiring at 55 posted concerns on social media platforms after the government recently announced it had extended the retirement age to 60.

The Prime Minister said the decision to withdraw Fiji National Provident Fund (FNPF) savings at 55 or 60 was entirely up to each individual.

“Fifty-five is the FNPF age,” Rabuka said.

“They can receive some of it or they can take it out at 55 — or if they want to leave it in until 60, they can do that.”

While addressing the Nadi Chamber of Commerce and Industry recently, Deputy Prime Minister Viliame Gavoka said that increasing the retirement age from 55 to 60 would help stem the “brain drain” of qualified and experienced Fijians for opportunities abroad.

Felix Chaudhary is a Fiji Times reporter. Republished with permission.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

A new $100 million apartment complex is coming to Manukau — Auckland’s heart of Pacific communities.

But you’ll have to be aged at least 55 to get in.

Kāinga Ora is expected to start construction of the 123 apartments in Osterley Way in March. The 16-storey tower will include 94 one-bedroom and 29 two-bedroom apartments.

The government said it was necessary to target targeting specific age groups to match an increasing demand from “older customers”.

“Kāinga Ora recognises our older customers have specific housing needs, which we are addressing through senior housing developments such as the proposed project in Manukau,” regional director for Counties Manukau Angela Pearce said.

Pearce said one in five of the agency’s homes in Counties-Manukau had someone over 65 living in it, while 670 of its homes in the area were occupied by sole tenants in the same age group.

“With an aging population, Kāinga Ora recognises the importance of dedicated senior housing where our older tenants can live well, feel safe and secure, both in their homes and the community.”

Two years on state house list
Maureen O’Meara, 75, spent two years on the state house waiting list and was renting a two-bedroom unit in Pakuranga for $420 a week until earlier this year.

“I had $17 left a week after paying the rent,” O’Meara said. “Being on a pension and paying market rent meant I didn’t have a lot of money left to live on.”

O’Meara managed to find somewhere more affordable in May after she was put in touch with Haumaru Housing, a joint venture between Auckland Council and the Selwyn Foundation.

But O’Meara said the Manukau development reflects an increasing number of people reaching retirement without a home.

“And I think there’s going to be a need for more places like it,” she said.

Age Concern Auckland chief executive Kevin Lamb said it’s important the development was close to public transport and community facilities.

“We think it’s high time older people had accommodation that is new and more appropriate for their needs.”

Big part of pension on housing
Recently-released research by Te Ara Ahunga Ora Retirement Commission showed superannuitants still paying rent were more likely to be spending 40 percent or more of their pension on housing.

While long-term trends suggest more older New Zealanders are likely to still be renting in their retirement.

Te Ara Ahunga Ora director of policy Dr Suzy Morrissey said with declining home ownership rates there was a growing need for public housing and accommodation for those aged 55 and over.

“When NZ Super was introduced, it was with the underlying assumption that those accessing it would be mortgage-free homeowners,” she said.

“Today, the reality is very different. There are declining home ownership rates, more people needing to continue working longer because they still have mortgages to pay, are paying rent, or haven’t been able to save enough to retire.”

• Auckland is currently in the middle of the local body elections with a Pacific candidate, Fa’anānā Efeso Collins, one of the two top contenders for mayor of the super city.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

By Marija Taflaga of the Australian National University in Canberra

The man that has “always believed in miracles” has just delivered one for the Liberal party.

It’s not clear at the time of writing if the government will have minority or a narrow majority. But it is a deafening defeat for Labor.

This election result is an extraordinary achievement by a man that has doggedly presented himself as the ordinary, suburban dad.

READ MORE: The Junction student journalism coverage of the Australian federal election

Morrison — a man we are still just getting to know — was triumphant as he addressed a rapturous crowd.

It was an uncomplicated victory speech. He told us that Australia was a great country, thanked his family and — finally — his party for their roles in running a ruthlessly disciplined campaign and, promised to get back to work for the “quiet Australians”.

This is the most presidential campaign run by a single party in Australian history, pitted against the biggest policy target since John Hewson’s Fightback!. What really made this election singular was the impact of a quarter of voters preferring minor parties as their first preference.

At the beginning of the campaign, the task of defending so many safe seats from an insurgence of would-be liberal independents seemed overwhelmingly difficult. It would leave too many marginal seats under resourced to defend what has been an unpopular government, riven by infighting.

Negative campaign
Voters always say that they hate negative campaigns. But they work. Morrison deftly crafted his negative message around the unpopularity of Bill Shorten and the risk he posed to the “promise of Australia”.

Morrison has a gift for easy simplification. To give just one example, he framed the complex franking credits issue into the “retirement tax” scare.

At the same time, Morrison smoothed out this overwhelmingly negative campaign, and rounded out his previous public image as aggressive and shouty, by showing himself to be just another dad in the suburbs.

This is Morrison’s victory, and he will forever be a Liberal hero.

What do the Liberals want to do with three more years of power? By the campaign’s end, it remained a question without a detailed answer. And it is still the most important question.

By delivering a result most thought improbable, Morrison’s personal authority will be titanic within the Liberal party. It is not clear what the government’s agenda is beyond their tax plan. There remain several pressing policy questions particularly around climate and energy.

The government does not have a mandate to act in these policy domains and these are issues that are difficult internally for the Coalition.

Competing political traditions
Much is made of ideology within the Liberal Party. It is often presented as the factor that explains the party’s internal woes — and for good reason. The fusion of Australia’s Liberal and Conservative forces in 1909 mashed together what were previously two competing political traditions. They’ve had to co-exist ever since.

But ideological conflict within the liberal party is the symptom. The cause is that the party lacks effective institutional mechanisms to safely and semi-publicly debate ideas.

This also applies to how debates are undertaken. What are the formal rules about who, where and when party members can speak? Just as important are the informal norms around what can be said and in what context.

The Liberal party has traditionally relied on strong leaders to embody and articulate what it stands for. Successful leaders in the Liberal Party (like other conservative parties in Westminster systems) are dominant, but also deft enough to allow sufficient breathing room for their factional rivals.

More importantly, being a proven winner counts for a lot. With this victory, Morrison now has the opportunity to transform himself into precisely this kind of leader.

Liberal leaders’ dominance is reinforced by the way the party machine (but less so its members) has contented itself with setting out broad policy principles. This leaves the parliamentary Liberal party plenty of scope to interpret the political landscape and best position the party for electoral victory.

In the past, the Liberal Party’s links with civil society were strong. It had a healthy branch structure and was embedded in the lives of its core constituents. Today, the average age of its members is around 70, and the decline in party membership means that parties are no longer a key democratic link between representatives and voters.

More independent
This ultimately makes leaders more independent of their parties. We’ve seen this trend borne out in Australian parties over many decades, and particularly in Morrison’s campaign.

Finally, the Liberals have famously rejected formally recognised and organised factions. But in doing so, the party has also given up a tool for organising ideological interests and debates.

It’s hard to have both open and robust debate, and a dominant leader. Open debate is very quickly interpreted as dissent or “open revolt” by outside observers. It is even more challenging in government when discipline matters more and dissent is reported by the media as a failure of leadership.

As the party room has declined as a site of robust debate, the Liberal party’s primary mechanism for dealing with difficult ideological debates is leadership change. It is no accident that this party has been unable to resolve its internal debate on climate change, and has had six leaders in 12 years.

Climate change is so potent a debate within the coalition because it is really about changing the relationship between government, economy and citizens. How this ought – whether it ought – to be accomplished calls into question core assumptions about the role of the state and Australia’s sources of prosperity that have traditionally bound together the “broad church” of the Liberal party.

To be clear, the Liberal party has governed successfully under multiple leaders over decades by putting their faith in the leader to listen, but to ultimately set the course. This formula works when leaders’ authority is high. We should also never underestimate that simply keeping Labor out is sufficient reason for government for the conservative side of politics. At its simplest, their politics is one of incremental change, sound finance and fending off the “radicalism” of Labor.

Proven winner
Morrison is a proven winner and now has the chance to exercise his personal authority. He will need to address climate policy, because business wants a price signal for carbon emissions. He may follow in the footsteps of another giant of the Liberal Party, Robert Menzies, and poach some of Labor’s more compelling ideas, refashioning them through a Liberal lens.

While questions of the party’s ideology are important, the truth is, the party has always had to navigate tensions between its Liberal and Conservative traditions. This debate has never been settled and it is foolish to suggest that it ever would be.

The more pressing questions relate to how it will govern and win the next election. Over the long term, the party should really be asking how it will seek to renew itself, both in terms of ideas and candidates.

This win should not be an excuse for ongoing organisational drift and complacency.

Marija Taflaga, Lecturer, School of Political Science and International Relations, Australian National University. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz