SOME have gone as far as to say it took the Vuda waste-to-energy debate for many Fijians to finally look seriously at the rubbish crisis that had been staring at them in the face for years.
For too long, rubbish has been dumped on roadsides, left outside towns, thrown out of moving vehicles, piled on vacant land and treated as if public spaces were nobody’s responsibility.
The law existed, yes. But if you have been following this newspaper’s series on Fiji’s rubbish crisis over the past few years, the reality has been clear, it appeared too weak, too outdated and too poorly enforced to make any real difference to the way people behaved.
For the most part, the response has been repeated calls for people to change their mentality, backed by awareness campaigns that, while important, have not been enough to stop rubbish from piling up across the country.
That may now begin to change.
Earlier this week, Minister for Environment and Climate Change Lynda Tabuya tabled the Litter (Amendment) Bill 2026 in Parliament, proposing tougher laws, stronger enforcement powers and increased penalties for those who litter.
Fiji’s litter laws have been given sharper teeth and hopefully it sends a clearer message that ordinary citizens can no longer treat rubbish as someone else’s problem.
Perhaps most notably, the amendment also places new responsibility on parents and guardians, who may be penalised if they fail to take reasonable steps to prevent their children (minors) from littering.
It is a welcome shift. Because if Fiji is serious about cleaning up its towns, roads, rivers and communities, accountability cannot stop at just the councils and Government.
It must also begin with the person who drops the rubbish and, in some cases, at home.
“Our litter laws have not kept pace with the realities we face today,” Ms Tabuya told Parliament.
“The scale of illegal dumping has increased, waste streams have changed, and the law must now catch up. This is what this Bill seeks to do.
“The current Litter Act of 2008 is outdated. It does not properly account for current and major new sources of waste.”
She said the disposal of electronics, solar panels, car batteries, diapers, construction waste, industrial waste and other modern waste streams had changed the scope of Fiji’s waste management needs.
In simple terms, the Bill is Government’s attempt to update an old law for a new waste problem.
Stronger powers for litter officers
The Bill would strengthen the powers of litter prevention officers, including allowing them to require valid Government-issued photo identification from people suspected of littering.
It would also make it an offence to place rubbish on streets, footpaths or public places outside designated collection times.
“These are practical measures to deal with the everyday waste management challenges faced within our municipalities and communities, and to improve order and compliance,” she said.
The Bill also recognises photographic evidence taken by litter prevention officers as prima facie evidence in court. In practice, this means photos taken by authorised officers could be used as initial evidence to support a littering case.
Enforcement has long been one of the main weaknesses of the Act. While the law allows litter prevention officers to issue fixed penalties, Fiji has continued to struggle with limited enforcement capacity, low penalties, difficulty identifying offenders, and inconsistent monitoring across the board.
Opposition MP Premila Kumar welcomed the use of photographic evidence, saying it could help authorities do their work.
“I really like the idea of encouraging people to take photos of anyone who is littering, and they can send it to the Department of Environment or rural local authorities or municipal councils, where that photo can act as evidence in court,” Ms Kumar said.
“This is a very good move because it will encourage many more people, not only the Litter Officers but others, to take photos and to help the Ministry of Environment and other agencies to do their job.”
Councils to keep 80 per cent of fine revenue
The Bill also introduces what Ms Tabuya described as a sustainable “80-20” revenue-sharing model.
Under this model, 80 per cent of fine revenue will be retained by municipal councils to support litter prevention and awareness programmes.
The remaining 20 per cent will go to the Environmental Trust Fund to support wider environmental management.
“This creates a sustainable system where enforcement directly supports prevention,” Ms Tabuya said.
The idea is that councils, which are often on the front line of dealing with rubbish in towns and cities, will have a direct source of funding from fines to support awareness, prevention and enforcement.
But Ms Kumar warned that fines alone would not solve the problem.
She said Government had increased the fixed penalty fivefold, from $40 to $200, in the hope that it would deter people from littering.
“On the other side, if you look at the number of Litter Officers you have, you do not have enough litter officers to really go out and monitor and fine these people,” Ms Kumar said.
“What is more important is ensuring that we have enough infrastructure around the places such as having bins where people can drop their rubbish.”
She also questioned the progress of the container deposit scheme, saying such a system could encourage people not to throw away bottles because they would have monetary value.
Parents and guardians penalty
One of the more debated parts of the Bill is the duty of parents and guardians.
Under the amendment, parents and guardians may be penalised if they fail to take reasonable steps to prevent minors from committing a litter offence.
Ms Tabuya said the amendment recognised that environmental responsibility begins at home and within communities.
“The Bill also introduces a new duty for parents and guardians to take reasonable steps to prevent minors from littering, recognising environmental responsibility begins at home and within our communities,” Ms Tabuya said.
She said the Bill also increases the fixed penalty for littering from $40 to $200.
“This is important because it is clear that the current penalty level is outdated and no longer acts as an effective deterrent.”
Deputy Prime Minister and Tourism Minister Viliame Gavoka supported the move to hold parents responsible in certain circumstances.
“I think this is very important,” he said.
“Of course, you may need to relook at the age group and the actual circumstances.
“However, I am always of the view, that a lot of our problems in Fiji are because of the neglect by the parents.”
He said children loitering after school or being unsupervised at night reflected wider issues of parental responsibility.
“I believe parents should be made responsible in this manner, in the manner that is being stipulated here,” Mr Gavoka said.
“The ways outlined in this Bill. It starts from home. Do not throw your rubbish outside!”
However, Ms Kumar raised concerns about how the clause would work in practice.
She said a minor could include someone up to the age of 18, including high school students, and questioned whether it was fair to hold parents responsible when they were not present.
“So, if that is the case, then that person is big enough, is in high school, and their parents cannot be there all the time to ensure they do not litter.
“How can you hold the parents responsible?”
She said it would be different if the littering happened in front of the parent or guardian.
“If it happens in front of them, that is another matter. But if they are not there, then this is not the solution.”
She urged the minister to reconsider that clause and said education in schools would be a better way to address the issue.
She later clarified that the parental responsibility clause would not create automatic liability. She said there would still be a legal threshold to prove whether reasonable steps had been taken. She said similar duties existed in other legislation and other areas of law.
“So, if we are talking about values at home and the need to protect the environment just like we protect human beings, animals and all living things, then we regard the environment as sacred, then this duty would capture that,” Ms Tabuya said.
Outcome
After the debate, the Bill was put to a vote, the motion was agreed to, and the Bill was therefore passed by Parliament as a law to amend the Litter Act 2008.
The new Bill also includes:
-Litter definition expanded to include solar panels, car batteries, diapers, electronic waste, construction waste, industrial waste and commercial waste given its own clear definition.
-Vacant properties included under public-space coverage and Private land included where illegal dumping occurs.
-Higher court penalties for serious littering offences and for repeat offenders, including corporate offenders.
-Commercial waste offences can attract corporate penalties of up to $20,000 for repeat offending.
-Dangerous littering by corporate offenders can attract penalties of up to $100,000.
This is a simplified explanation of the Bill and does not fully capture the full scope, detailed definitions, specific references and wider coverage contained in the legislation adopted by Parliament.
