The Government’s move to introduce a new Tourism Act for Fiji is both timely and necessary.
For too long, our industry has operated under a framework that no longer reflects the reality of tourism today.
The current law, rooted in the Hotel and Guest Houses Act of 1973, was written for a very different era.
Back then, tourism largely meant hotels and guesthouses.
Today, it is a complex ecosystem that includes integrated resorts, village stays, dive operators, wellness retreats, tour platforms and short-term rentals.
The intent behind this draft Tourism Bill is clear.
Government is trying to bring order to what has become a fragmented system.
That intent reflects years of discussion and input from tourism stakeholders who have consistently highlighted the challenges on the ground that includes a long list of compliance requirements that sit under every other ministry other than tourism.
Their lived experiences have shaped the Bill’s design, anchoring reform in both policy ambition and operational reality.
The Bill seeks to modernise regulation, introduce national standards, strengthen environmental protections, and create a more coordinated approach to how tourism is planned and managed.
It rightly recognises community-based tourism, micro enterprises, and indigenous operators, bringing them into a formal structure long overdue.
What the draft Bill does well is broaden the definition of tourism to reflect what is happening on the ground.
It no longer limits itself to traditional accommodation.
It recognises services, experiences, transport, cultural offerings, and digital platforms.
It also introduces a national standards framework which, if done properly, can bring consistency to how businesses are assessed and supported.
Recognising these different forms of tourism and supporting them to access training, meet compliance requirements, and operate more safely ensures Fiji’s brand continues to be seen as safe, inclusive, and welcoming.
The inclusion of destination management is another important step, acknowledging that infrastructure, visitor flows, environmental pressure and community engagement must be managed at a destination level, not just at a property level.
There is also a clear emphasis on sustainability and climate resilience.
Cyclones, flooding, coastal erosion and environmental degradation are not theoretical risks—they are operational realities.
Embedding resilience into tourism development is essential.
But while the direction is sound, execution is where the risks lie.
Much of how this Act will function is left to future regulations—fees, standards, compliance requirements, enforcement mechanisms.
In simple terms, we are being asked to agree to the structure before seeing how the system will operate in practice.
Perhaps that is a strategic perspective from a private sector lens – we need to know how things will work before we buy into the plan.
The devil is always in the details.
Costs are a major concern.
Registration, renewal, audits and other fees are not yet defined.
For large operators, this may be manageable.
For SMEs and community tourism, particularly in outer islands and rural areas, it could be the difference between operating and shutting down.
Any fee structure must be transparent, reasonable and aligned with Fiji’s realities.
Compliance and enforcement must also be fair and proportionate.
A five-star resort, a dive operator, and a homestay operate in very different environments.
Standards must reflect that diversity.
Enforcement should help operators achieve compliance, not push them out of the system.
Clear pathways, guidance and reasonable timeframes are essential.
The Bill makes an important step forward in recognising short-term rentals, including platforms like Airbnb.
Licensed hotels and resorts already comply with regulations, pay taxes and meet standards.
Extending similar obligations to short-term rentals is about fairness and creating a level playing field.
But inclusion alone is not enough—there must be clear rules, proper monitoring and consistent enforcement.
The role of the private sector must also be strengthened.
The proposed National Tourism Council is advisory, with composition largely at the Minister’s discretion.
Industry input into regulations, standards, fees and system changes must be consistent and structured.
Transition is another risk.
A 12-month window for operators to move into the new system assumes supporting platforms, guidelines and staffing will be ready early.
If not, bottlenecks will leave businesses in limbo.
Data collection also needs safeguards—clarity on what is collected, how it is used, the avoidance of duplication, and the protection of commercially sensitive information.
At its core, this Bill is an attempt to bring tourism into a modern regulatory space.
That is something we support.
But modernising legislation is not just about adding new layers.
It is about building a system that works in practice, not just on paper.
This is an opportunity to reset tourism regulation in Fiji.
Years of stakeholder input have shaped the Bill’s intent, and its broadened scope rightly reflects the diversity of tourism today.
But execution must deliver clarity, fairness and inclusivity.
If the framework is designed with industry in mind, it can lift standards, improve coordination, and strengthen Fiji’s reputation as a safe, welcoming destination.
If not, it risks becoming another layer of complexity in an already challenging operating environment.
Reform is not about change for its own sake—it is about getting it right.
An aerial view of Denarau Island. Picture: FILE / SUPPLIED
