OPPOSITION MP Premila Kumar has questioned whether the Fiji National Provident Fund is still “fit for purpose” as a national retirement institution, despite reporting one of its strongest financial performances in decades.
Speaking during debate on the 2025 FNPF Annual Report in Parliament, Ms Kumar acknowledged the fund’s strong financial position, including revenue exceeding $1.1 billion, total assets of more than $10 billion and the 8.75 per cent interest rate paid to members, the highest in more than 30 years. She attributed the performance to reforms undertaken in 2011.
However, she argued that strong institutional performance did not necessarily translate into positive retirement outcomes for ordinary members.
“Strong fund performance is not the same as strong member outcomes,” she said.
“Is FNPF still fit for purpose as a national retirement institution for ordinary Fijians? On that question, there are serious issues that this House must confront honestly.”
Ms Kumar revealed that 72 per cent of FNPF members had less than $20,000 in their accounts, while nearly 45 per cent had balances below $5000.
She said the situation was even more concerning for members approaching retirement age, with some over 55 holding little or no savings.
“How does FNPF, generating over $1 billion in income and managing $10.6 billion in total assets, leave nearly half of its members financially unprepared for retirement?”
She said the issue pointed to deeper structural problems caused by years of premature withdrawals and inadequate retirement planning. Unless those root causes were addressed, she warned, the fund could remain financially strong while members themselves remained vulnerable.
Ms Kumar also criticised the lack of transparency surrounding pension take-up rates, saying Parliament and contributors deserved clearer reporting on whether retirees were choosing pension schemes or withdrawing lump sums that could quickly be exhausted.
“FNPF must restore full reporting on pension take-up rates and clear public disclosure on retirement adequacy trends in all future annual reports.”
Another major concern raised by Ms Kumar was employer non-compliance. She noted that unpaid employer contributions had risen from $12.5 million to $14.6 million within a year despite FNPF offering a second amnesty program.
“We must ask, did the first amnesty improve compliance, or did it simply encourage employers to delay payments in the hope that another amnesty would come?”
Ms Kumar questioned whether repeat offenders should continue receiving leniency while compliant employers received no reward. She described workers’ FNPF deductions as “deferred wages” and argued that employers who failed to remit contributions were effectively using workers’ retirement savings as free business capital.
She called for stronger penalties under the review of the FNPF Act, including possible personal liability for company directors and public naming of chronic defaulters.
Ms Kumar also expressed concern over the fund’s growing offshore investment portfolio, which increased by $1.1 billion during the financial year. While supporting diversification, she warned that FNPF members should not have their retirement future overly dependent on Fiji’s domestic economy, particularly tourism-related investments.
“FNPF members should not have their retirement future overly dependent on one sector after what we experienced during COVID-19 and severe cyclones,” she said.
She urged Government and the Reserve Bank of Fiji to develop a transparent framework that balanced offshore investment opportunities with macroeconomic stability.
The Opposition MP further questioned the performance of FNPF’s commercial lending portfolio, which grew by 13.1 per cent to $1.4 billion while income increased only marginally from $65.3 million to $67.3 million. She said the figures suggested declining returns on larger investments and called for greater clarity from the Fund’s board.
Ms Kumar also highlighted the increase in migration withdrawals, which exceeded $82 million in 2025, warning that the trend not only reduced savings within the fund, but also represented the loss of future contributors to the retirement system.
She concluded by calling for reforms including an independent actuarial review of retirement adequacy, stronger compliance enforcement, greater offshore diversification and improved transparency on retirement outcomes.
“The true measure of FNPF’s success is not only how much income it earns, but whether ordinary workers can retire with dignity after decades of contribution.”
