[Photo: FILE]
A sharp escalation in the Westin resort redevelopment has triggered calls in Parliament for a full inquiry into the Fiji National Provident Fund.
MPs questioned how the project cost reportedly rose from about $90 million to around $230 million.
Opposition MP Faiyaz Koya said the increase, estimated at more than $150 million, required clear answers.
He raised concerns over approvals, governance, and accountability. He also pointed to delays, contract changes, and possible conflicts in decision-making.
He warned that poor management of major investments affects members’ retirement savings.
Opposition MP Premila Kumar said strong financial returns are not translating into strong retirement security. She noted that many members still hold low balances. She questioned whether the system is delivering adequate long-term protection. She called for better disclosure on retirement outcomes and stronger action on employer non-compliance.
Government MP Professor Biman Prasad said the Westin project must be viewed in context. He said Westin was bought by FNPF in 2017 under the FijiFirst Government.
He added that several issues are linked to the project. He indicated that further details would emerge on its origins and financial impact.
The debate took place during Parliament’s review of the 2025 Annual Report of the Fiji National Provident Fund, which manages more than $12 billion in assets for over 436,000 members.
MPs also examined the Fund’s overall performance. Revenue stood at about $1.1 billion. The 8.75 percent interest crediting rate was noted as one of the strongest in decades.
Attention also turned to investment policy. MPs raised concern over limits on offshore diversification.
The role of the Reserve Bank of Fiji was highlighted. Some MPs said approval caps may restrict better portfolio balance in a cyclone-prone economy.
Government MPs defended the Fund’s performance. They pointed to strong returns and diversified investments. These include tourism, telecommunications, banking, and offshore assets. They said regulation was needed to balance returns and stability.
Other issues raised included suspense account balances, employer compliance gaps, and migration withdrawals. MPs also questioned whether retirement savings are sufficient for long-term security.
Despite differing views, MPs agreed on the need for stronger transparency and better governance.
They also called for faster reform of the FNPF Act.
