Fiji Hotel and Tourism Association, 04 June 2026 – The passing of Fiji’s Tourism Act 2026 is a significant moment, and one that deserves genuine acknowledgement. After more than five decades of operating under the Hotels and Guest Houses Act 1973, Fiji’s tourism sector finally has a modern legislative framework that recognises how much the industry has changed, expanded and matured. And more significantly – outgrown most of its legislative and regulatory frameworks.
This reform has been long overdue. It represents the culmination of years of dialogue, consultation, and industry feedback — including repeated calls from the Fiji Hotel & Tourism Association (FHTA) to acknowledge this gap. Tourism today extends far beyond hotels and guest houses, and the Ministry of Tourism needed to evolve accordingly. The new Act finally provides the Ministry with the legislative authority and policy direction required to play a proactive, strategic role in guiding and supporting Fiji’s largest industry. An industry that includes resorts, small accommodation providers, community and cultural tourism, transport, marine activities, adventure experiences, digital platforms, supply chains, sustainability standards and many other services that collectively shape the visitor experience, the destination’s international brand and Fiji’s global recognition and reputation.
The Act’s broader intent is positive. It seeks to modernise the way tourism is regulated, introduce national standards, recognise different types of tourism enterprises, support inclusive participation, protect cultural heritage, strengthen data collection, improve coordination between agencies and create a more structured pathway for recognised tourism operators. These are all areas the industry has spoken about for years.
It is also encouraging to see the law acknowledge inclusivity in a modern way through community, indigenous and micro tourism enterprises, as well as recognising cultural protection, climate resilience and environmental responsibility as key elements that tourism impacts or is impacted by. These elements are central to the way we position ourselves as a destination, and to the long-term sustainability of the industry itself.
But now that the acknowledgements have been made, the more difficult work begins.
A law can set the direction following on from the original policy intent, but implementation determines whether it becomes a practical support system or another layer of compliance. That is where the real test lies. From the perspective of a tourism operator, especially one already dealing with multiple licences, renewals, inspections, approvals, reporting requirements and rising operating costs, the concern is not whether standards are needed. They are. The concern is whether the new system will make it easier to operate responsibly or harder to stay compliant.
Tourism businesses in Fiji already navigate a complicated regulatory environment.
Depending on the nature of the business, an operator may deal with municipal councils, fire authorities, health inspectors, environment approvals, maritime requirements, land issues, employment regulations, tax compliance, liquor licensing, food safety, building permits, business licensing, investment approvals and more.
Each regulator interprets their rules with either scant care or understanding of how the industry works, or that the business operating environment is no longer the same as it was in the 1950’s or 1960’s when their Act was first created. For larger businesses, this compliance is convoluted and time-consuming. For smaller businesses, it can be overwhelming and easier to be non-compliant.
The new Act introduces a requirement for tourism enterprises to register and provide a legal compliance declaration. On paper, this makes sense. Operators should be compliant with Fiji’s laws. But the practical question is how realistic self-compliance will be and how we support operators to get there. As the private sector’s peak tourism body, we have the depth of experience to ensure we can support compliance regulation development efforts to provide the required understanding for the many industry segments to ensure there is no rollout of a “one size fits all” agenda. Failing to recognise the diversity of operations and imposing uniform requirements would be inequitable to such a segmented industry, undermining both compliance outcomes and the inclusive growth the Act seeks to achieve.
The same applies to self-assessment under the tourism criteria. A tiered recognition pathway is a good idea because it allows businesses to progress over time rather than be judged against a single standard from day one. But self-assessment only works if the criteria are clear, the evidence required is reasonable, and the process is not designed only for operators with strong administrative capacity.
We must avoid creating another system where responsible operators spend weeks filling forms while less prepared operators simply tick boxes. That helps no one. If recognition is to mean something, it must be credible, accessible, and simple enough for new and small operators to complete without needing consultants.
There is also a wider ease-of-doing-business opportunity. Fiji has spoken for years about improving the investment climate, removing duplication, reducing red tape and making approvals faster. Tourism is often used as a national success story, but tourism operators know that the success has often been achieved despite the system, not because of it.
Licensing renewals remain a persistent pain point. Operators often face repeated requests for the same information from different agencies that really don’t care why they are requiring the duplication. Approvals can move slowly. Requirements may differ between locations. One agency may approve what another questions. Most digital systems do not speak to each other. In some cases, businesses spend more time proving they are allowed to operate than actually improving the quality of their operations.
The new Act must not add to that problem. If the Tourism Enterprise Register becomes yet another standalone requirement on top of all existing licences, then the industry will not feel reform, just more paperwork. The goal should be a single-window approach, or at least a coordinated system where information already held by one government agency does not have to be resubmitted repeatedly to another.
The Act gives the PS a role in coordinating with relevant agencies on issues affecting tourism, including environment, land use, transport, health and safety, labour, investment, maritime management and consumer protection. This is important, but coordination must be more than a word in legislation. It must become a working mechanism that is recognised as a stepping stone for moving developments in the right direction, increasing investments and solving bottlenecks.
For operators, the question is simple. Will this Act make it easier to get compliant and stay compliant? Will it reduce duplication? Will it speed up renewals? Will it help investors and existing businesses move through approvals more predictably? Will agencies share information? Will small operators receive guidance before penalties?
Will recognised businesses receive real benefits, not just another certificate?
These are the questions that matter from the ground.
The Tourism Fund is another area that will require transparency. While positive that fees, renewals, reinstatements, fast-track charges and fines can be used to support training, guidance, technical assistance, MSMEs, community tourism and tourism infrastructure priorities, it must be transparent and managed well to directly support industry readiness and help smaller operators meet standards.
But operators will rightly ask how fees are set, how funds are used, who qualifies for support and whether the money collected from industry is visibly reinvested into industry. Fee creep is always a risk once a new fund is created. The regulations must make the structure clear, fair and accountable.
Data collection also needs careful handling. Better tourism data is essential to provide clarity on enterprise performance, employment movement, investment opportunities, environmental impacts, community benefits and destination competitiveness. But businesses will need assurance that commercially sensitive information is protected, that data requests are not excessive and that reporting requirements do not become another monthly burden. No. More. Forms.
Inspections and spot checks are also reasonable in principle. Ensuring standards are being met is important, but this industry is already swimming in overlapping inspections and duplicative checks that often prove moot, consuming resources without meaningfully improving compliance or visitor confidence. Operators will require the confidence that this will be done far better than the current multi-regulatory agencies’ inspections that expect transport, meals and overtime payments or risk non compliance. With clarity around how findings are recorded and disputes resolved.
The appeal and review provisions also deserve attention. If a recognition certificate is suspended or cancelled, the business can seek review. But the fact that an appeal does not automatically suspend the decision may create real commercial risk. Shutting down a large brand or a small operator means job losses and government tax loss.
For tourism businesses, reputation and market confidence matter. A suspension can affect bookings, partnerships, insurance, financing and staff confidence. There should be room for urgent action where there is a serious safety or legal issue, but for ordinary administrative or disputed matters, businesses should have reasonable protection while a review is underway.
The next phase must involve deep and practical consultation on the regulations, forms, fees, criteria, tiers, timelines, inspection procedures, data reporting rules, appeal processes and the operation of the National Tourism Council. The Act creates the framework. The regulations will decide whether the framework works. And this is one industry that knows all about regulations – old, good, bad and downright ugly and outdated.
For FHTA, the priority will be to ensure that implementation reflects the realities of tourism operations across Fiji. A five-star resort, a backpacker lodge, a dive operator, a transport provider, a cultural tour, a village stay, a small island operator and a tourism supplier do not all operate in the same way. The system must recognise and embrace that diversity. Because it is that diversity that is fuelling tourism’s current and future success.
We absolutely support higher standards, better data, sustainability, cultural protection, inclusion and climate resilience. And we support a modern tourism law that reflects the true size and complexity of the sector. But support for reform must also come with taking on the honest feedback we provide on what will and will not work in practice.
While not at the finish line yet, we believe this is the start of a much harder phase. The Government has delivered the legislative reform. Now all of us – government, industry, communities and development partners- must make sure it becomes a practical tool for better tourism, not just a new compliance file on an already overcrowded desk.
If we get the implementation right, the Tourism Act 2026 can strengthen Fiji’s position as a responsible, competitive and inclusive destination. If we get it wrong, we risk modernising the law while leaving the old frustrations untouched.
The industry needs smarter, targeted regulation that reduces duplication, aligns oversight with actual risk, and delivers consistency without drowning operators in checks that add little value.
That is the real opportunity now before us.
Fantasha Lockington – CEO, FHTA (Published in the Fiji Times on 04 June 2026)
Fiji Hotel and Tourism Association
The Voice of the Industry
