PARLIAMENT has passed the Fisheries (Amendment) Bill 2025, allowing it to proceed without committee scrutiny — a move that drew objections from Opposition MPs over the lack of consultation with resource owners.
Tabled by Minister for Fisheries and Forests Alitia Bainivalu, the Bill modernises the Fisheries Act 1941 by introducing new enforcement powers, higher penalties, and a fixed penalty system for inshore fisheries offences. It also allows officers to search fishing vessels and land premises, suspend or cancel licences on broader grounds, and sets out new provisions for appeal.
But what dominated the evening debate on Wednesday was not the content of the Bill itself, but the process and whether the use of Standing Order 51 to fast-track its passage reflected the Government’s earlier promises to allow public consultation on all major laws.
Minister defends urgency
Introducing the Bill, Ms Bainivalu said it was necessary to strengthen enforcement and compliance “to ensure the sustainable management of inshore fisheries resources”.
“Fiji’s marine and freshwater resources are facing increased pressures from exploitation, pollution, and climate change,” she told the House.
“This amendment is urgent to bridge the lack of management and compliance controls in the 1941 Act.”
She said the amendment would allow the ministry to issue inshore fisheries fixed penalty notices as a first-tier deterrence mechanism, making enforcement quicker and less costly than prosecution.
“The Bill strengthens deterrence and efficiency through higher penalties, separating the individual from the body corporate. It introduces clear grounds for the suspension or cancellation of licences and, for the first time, allows appeals to the minister.”
Opposition questions haste
Opposition MP Faiyaz Koya was the first to challenge the decision to fast-track the Bill.
“This is a Bill that has quite a substantial number of amendments,” he said.
“The use of Order 51 to fast-track it is being objected to because it will require some thought.
“There are punishments and new definitions, and these need to be properly examined by a committee.”
Mr Koya said there was no question about the importance of strengthening fisheries laws but questioned the urgency: “It’s not about the content of the Bill; it’s about the process.”
Former minister Jone Usamate also called for more time to review the proposals.
“This all seems rather sudden,” he said. “Some bills may look simple but when committees look closely, they uncover serious issues. Giving us 24 hours to go through this is not enough.
“The ideal way is to put it to a committee so that the people’s representatives can consult the public and stakeholders.”
Mr Usamate said the Opposition’s concern was not opposition for the sake of it, but ensuring proper scrutiny.
“When we dig into small bills, we find things that need correcting. To do this very quickly means things may slip through.”
Concerns for resource owners
Former fisheries minister Semi Koroilavesau warned the changes could unfairly affect rural and maritime island fishers who are also resource owners.
“It’s fine to modernise a law that was established in 1951, but we must look at the level of policing,” he said.
“How will rural fishermen be guided? There are huge gaps, for instance, in the outer islands, there are few fisheries officers.
“We must ensure fairness so that the law applies across the board.”
He said some resource owners might end up being penalised for fishing in their traditional fishing grounds.
“You cannot say that a fisherman from Suva will be bound by these regulations but a resource owner from the island will not.
“The law must be consistent.”
Government argues necessity
Acting Attorney-General Siromi Turaga strongly defended the Government’s use of Standing Order 51.
“Standing Order 51 exists for a specific reason,” he said. “The current Fisheries Act is outdated and inadequate for today’s enforcement and compliance needs.
“The ministry urgently requires a fixed penalty system to address rising non-compliance in inshore fisheries.”
He said the Bill was not a “major policy shift” but a targeted amendment aimed at fixing enforcement gaps.
“People go to Nairai in Gau to fish and come back. The fish wardens cannot prosecute them because the law is weak. That is what we intend to fix.
“This is for the turaga-ni-koro and for resource owners who need stronger protection.”
Mr Turaga also accused the Opposition of politicising the debate.
“What have you done for the iTaukei who own fishing rights?
“You stopped them from collecting money rightfully owed to them. This Government is going to give it back.”
Support from government MPs
Lands and Mineral Resources Minister Filimoni Vosarogo said the changes were modest and necessary.
“There are only eight amendments being made,” he said. “They are minor and fix operational hiccups that the ministry continues to face.
“This is one of those bills where Standing Order 51 is justified.”
Mr Vosarogo said the Opposition had in the past used the same procedure frequently and should not object now.
“With the urgency explained by the minister, it is an opportune time for these amendments.”
Opposition MP Alvick Maharaj said the Government was being hypocritical.
“We should practice what we preach,” he said. “Those now in government had told the public during elections they would not bring any bill under Order 51, yet here we are.
“Thank you for doing exactly what you said you wouldn’t.”
Opposition’s final word
Opposition MP Premila Kumar responded that the issue was not about using Standing Order 51 but about keeping promises.
“Our argument is simple, practise what you preach,” she said. “The argument raised by Mr Koroilavesau is sound.
“We just hope this bill will not negatively affect resource owners.”
Bill passes with majority support
In her right of reply, Ms Bainivalu said the amendment was part of a broader legislative review, and the more comprehensive Inshore Fisheries Management Bill would go to a standing committee next year.
“The ministry must bridge the current lack of management and compliance controls,” she said.
“This amendment allows us to act now while the wider review continues.”
Parliament voted 39 in favour, 12 against, and four not voting – passing the motion that allowed the Fisheries (Amendment) Bill 2025 to proceed under Standing Order 51.
