THE recent call for a national living wage has opened an important conversation for Fiji. Any discussion that seeks to improve workers’ living standards, reduce hardship and support decent work should be welcomed.
Workers are central to our economy, our families and our communities.
No responsible employer should dismiss the real pressures faced by workers today. Food, housing, transport, school costs, health expenses and family obligations are real. Many workers carry heavy responsibilities, often supporting more than one household. These issues deserve serious attention.
However, if Fiji is going to use the term “living wage”, we must use it properly.
A living wage is not simply a slogan. It is not a figure that can be announced first and researched later. It is also not the same thing as the national minimum wage.
The Fiji Trades Union Congress has launched a campaign calling for what it describes an $8 per hour national living wage, and this has drawn strong public attention. Reports also indicate that the Prime Minister has described this as an important national conversation, while other ministers have spoken in support of better wages and better living standards. That national conversation is important. The Prime Minister’s call for constructive dialogue is therefore the right tone for Fiji to take. But it must be a careful conversation, not a rushed one.
Minimum wage and living wage serve different purposes
The national minimum wage is Fiji’s legal wage floor. It provides statutory protection against unduly low pay and applies as a minimum legal standard.
A living wage, properly understood, is different. It is an evidence-based estimate of what may be required for workers and their families to maintain a decent standard of living. It must be based on actual costs, household needs, national conditions and economic realities. This distinction matters.
A living wage should not be presented as a direct replacement for the national minimum wage. The minimum wage should remain the statutory floor. A living wage estimate, if properly developed, may sit beside it as a benchmark to guide national dialogue, collective bargaining, sectoral wage-setting, public policy and progressive improvement over time.
It should not be treated as an automatic legal wage order before the required technical work has been completed.
What the ILO actually requires
The International Labour Organization’s approach is clear. Wage-setting must consider the needs of workers and their families, but it must also consider economic factors.
The ILO’s 2025 methodology on estimating the needs of workers and their families states that adequate wages are essential for decent living standards, while also ensuring enterprise sustainability.
It also recognises that determining adequate wage levels is complex and requires an evidence-based approach. That is the balance Fiji must preserve.
The ILO approach is not based on worker needs alone. It is also not based on business capacity alone. It requires both.
This is also reflected in ILO Convention No. 131 on Minimum Wage Fixing. The Convention refers to the needs of workers and their families, including the cost of living, general wage levels, social security benefits and relative living standards.
It also refers to economic factors, including economic development, productivity and the desirability of maintaining a high level of employment.
In simple terms, the ILO framework requires a balanced approach. It recognises that wages must support workers, but it also recognises that employment, productivity and sustainable enterprises matter.
A campaign figure is not the same as a living wage estimate
A campaign figure may start a public debate. It may draw attention to hardship. It may create pressure for reform. But a campaign figure should not be confused with a completed living wage estimate under the ILO approach.
A proper living wage estimate requires evidence, data, methodology and validation. The ILO methodology refers to household income and expenditure surveys, economic data and a multidimensional assessment of the cost of adequate food, housing, healthcare, education and other essential goods and services.
That is not a small exercise.
For Fiji, it is even more complex.
Fiji is not a single-cost economy
Fiji’s geography makes this issue very real. This was also clear during the ILO living wage conference and training workshop in Sri Lanka in September 2025, where regional realities and national differences were important parts of the discussion.
The cost of living in Suva is not the same as the cost of living in rural Vanua Levu, the Western Division, interior communities or maritime islands. Housing, rent, food, transport, freight, electricity, water, school access and health costs vary greatly across the country.
A single national living-cost assumption may therefore be misleading if it is not supported by proper evidence.
A credible Fiji living wage estimate would require serious data collection. At a minimum, Fiji would need reliable information on household income and expenditure, food basket costs, housing and rental costs, transport costs, education and healthcare costs, utilities, communications, family size, the number of earners per household, and urban, rural and maritime cost differences.
It would also require economic analysis. Fiji would need to examine sectoral productivity, wage distribution, MSME ability to pay, employment effects, youth employment, risks of informality, inflation, price pass-through, compliance capacity and the impact on sectors such as tourism, retail, agriculture, manufacturing, construction, security, cleaning, care work and small family businesses.
Without this work, any proposed living wage figure risks being seen as an advocacy figure rather than an evidence-based benchmark.
Living wage must work within proper wage-setting processes
A living wage estimate should not be used to bypass Fiji’s existing wage-setting institutions. Minimum wage law, Wages Councils, collective bargaining and tripartite dialogue each have their own place.
A living wage benchmark, if properly developed, may inform those processes. It should not replace them or override them before the necessary evidence, analysis and consultation have taken place.
The process must involve all social partners
Wage-setting is not something that should be done by one party alone.
Government, workers and employers all have a role. This point was also recognised in the recent remarks by Minister Lynda Tabuya, who said that the task “cannot be done by government alone or by unions alone or by employers alone.”
That is the right starting point.
Employers are not separate from the worker question. Employers create jobs, pay wages, train workers, meet statutory obligations, invest in businesses and keep enterprises operating through difficult conditions. Workers and enterprises depend on each other.
Without sustainable businesses, there can be no sustainable wages.
A wage that cannot be complied with is not protection
Fiji must be ambitious for workers. But ambition must also be credible.
A wage that cannot be complied with is not protection. A wage that results in fewer jobs is not progress. A wage that is not based on evidence will not survive serious scrutiny.
If wage policy moves faster than enterprise capacity, the risk is reduced hours, slower hiring, increased informality, higher prices and pressure on small businesses.
If wages remain too low, workers and families struggle, and the economy also suffers.
Fiji therefore needs balance.
Better wages, productivity, skills development, business growth, lower cost of doing business and stronger social protection must move together.
The right way forward
The living wage debate should not become a contest between workers and employers. Workers need decent wages. Employers need sustainable enterprises. The country needs both.
A serious living wage discussion should help Fiji answer important questions.
What does a decent standard of living mean in Fiji? How do costs differ across regions and household types? How should wages interact with social protection, tax policy and public services? How do we improve productivity and skills so that higher wages are sustainable? How do we protect workers without weakening the businesses that employ them?
These are not simple questions. But they are the right questions.
Fiji should not reject the idea of a living wage. But Fiji should be careful not to misunderstand it.
A properly estimated living wage should not be used as a shortcut around Fiji’s wage-setting system.
It is a technical benchmark that requires evidence, methodology, consultation and economic analysis before it can responsibly inform wage policy.
The goal should not be to announce a number quickly. The goal should be to build a wage-setting approach that is credible, fair, affordable, enforceable and sustainable — one that improves workers’ lives while protecting jobs, strengthening businesses and supporting Fiji’s long-term development.
