The Consumer Council of Fiji has urged parliamentarians to transfer full management of the Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) process for smaller consumer complaints to its remit, arguing it is better placed to resolve low-value disputes quickly and free up the Fijian Competition and Consumer Commission (FCCC) to pursue more serious breaches. Chief Executive Seema Shandil made the call while presenting the Council’s submission to the Standing Committee on Economic Affairs as part of its review of the FCCC 2023–2024 Annual Report.
Shandil told the committee the current split of responsibilities between agencies is unclear and could be tightened to improve efficiency. She outlined the Council’s simple complaint-handling model — receive the complaint, contact the retailer and mediate toward a resolution — and proposed a monetary threshold for ADR cases. “We could put a ceiling or threshold, like $10,000 and below could go to the Consumer Council of Fiji,” she said, suggesting such a limit would prevent the FCCC from “wasting resources on ADR mediation.” Shandil also noted that the Council’s own legislation is under review, which could accommodate any formal transfer of functions.
Standing Committee Deputy Chair Premila Kumar pressed Shandil on transparency and public trust in how consumer complaints are handled, asking whether the FCCC annual report, in her view, was sufficiently transparent to the public. Shandil responded that while naming individual businesses may not be appropriate, the FCCC report should provide more granular statistics on violations, non-compliance cases and outcomes to boost accountability and inform consumers about patterns of offending.
The Consumer Council’s pitch frames ADR as a frontline, consumer-facing service that should remain with a dedicated consumer watchdog rather than a regulatory body that also pursues enforcement and court action. Shandil argued that keeping routine ADR within the Council would allow the FCCC to focus its resources on tackling serious offenders and taking matters to court when necessary, rather than spending time on lower-value mediations.
The submission marks the latest intervention in ongoing discussions about the jurisdictional division between Fiji’s consumer protection institutions. While the FCCC currently undertakes consumer protection functions alongside competition oversight, the Council’s proposal sets a clear dividing line based on monetary value and function — mediation and redress for everyday consumers versus regulatory enforcement for systemic or severe breaches.
Committee members did not reach an immediate decision during the session; the Consumer Council’s recommendations will form part of the Standing Committee’s consideration of the FCCC annual report. If adopted, the proposal would likely require legislative or administrative changes and coordination between the Consumer Council, the FCCC and other bodies handling consumer complaints.