The Fisheries Amendment Bill

To post in this sub-forum you must have made 100 posts or have Trust status or have completed our ID Verification

Forums › Politics › The Fisheries Amendment Bill

networkn

Networkn
32862 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 15453

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#324284 24-Mar-2026 09:39

In case anyone is looking for an easy way to make a submission on this bit of legislation...

https://legasea.co.nz/

Contains a list of email addresses and some templates if you want your voice heard (focused on objections).

SaltyNZ

8862 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9539

Trusted

2degrees

Lifetime subscriber

#3472991 24-Mar-2026 10:22

Ta. Must do this tonight.

iPad Pro 11" + iPhone 15 Pro Max + 2degrees 4tw!

These comments are my own and do not represent the opinions of 2degrees.

networkn

Networkn
32862 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 15453

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#3472996 24-Mar-2026 10:34

I asked Claude for a summary of the good and bad, focused on the negatives being aligned with negative ecological impact.

The Good

Faster catch limit adjustments. The bill enables more agile responses to changes in fisheries abundance — adjusting catch limits up or down quickly, which is better for the fishery and those who use it. Scoop Currently the process is slow and bureaucratic.

Better use of on-board camera data. The changes help ensure the fisheries management system can respond to Business.Scoop data from on-board cameras, which are providing better information than ever before.

Reducing wasteful discards. The stated intent is that undersized fish currently caught incidentally can't be sold, so they're dumped back dead. The bill creates a financial cost structure to disincentivise catching small fish, rather than just mandating discard.

Cleaner legislation. General tidying and modernisation of the 1996 Act's framework, including clearer rules around the Quota Management System.

The Bad (ecological/stock health lens)

Removal of minimum size limits for commercial catch. Minimum commercial sizes for species including kingfish, snapper, tarakihi, blue moki, butterfish, flatfishes, and red cod will be removed. Newsroom Minimum sizes exist specifically to allow fish to reach reproductive maturity before being harvested — removing them for already-stressed inshore stocks is a direct long-term depletion risk.

Overturns court-established protections. The bill seeks to overturn important court decisions that upheld sustainable fishing — including Forest & Bird's 2024 Tarakihi win in the Supreme Court. Business.Scoop That's a signal that it's actively unwinding legal safeguards, not just streamlining admin.

Not ecosystem-based management. The NZ Conservation Authority found the proposed amendments are not in line with the ecosystem-based management that is meant to underpin sustainability, and are concerned about the short-term focus favouring quota holders over the long-term well-being of fish stocks. Department of Conservation

Increased bycatch risk, less transparency. Critics argue the changes mean increased bycatch and less accountability and transparency, with a greater focus on short-term economic and export benefits. Business.Scoop
Camera footage privacy protections weaken accountability. The bill adds protections for "commercially sensitive" on-board camera footage — which cuts against using that data for independent stock health monitoring.

Two other lenses to consider the bill under.

An Oversign/accountability lens

This is arguably the most structurally concerning area. The bill introduces tighter timeframes for judicially challenging decisions, which critics warn could restrict the ability of communities, iwi, and advocacy groups to hold decision-makers to account. Waateanews
More significantly, on-board camera footage can no longer be accessed under the Official Information Act if the bill passes, and anyone who leaks the footage faces a $50,000 fine. RNZ This is a direct accountability reversal — cameras were introduced as a transparency mechanism, and this bill shields that data from public scrutiny.
Critics argue the bill smuggles through major changes that remove public and ministerial oversight from future fisheries decisions, instead enabling bureaucrats working closely with industry players to maximise commercial returns. Stuff

Consumer / Public Interest

Undersized fish could be heading to supermarkets and fishmongers if the bill passes as is. Newsroom There's no food safety concern per se — small fish aren't unsafe — but consumers would have less assurance about what they're buying, and there's no labelling requirement being introduced alongside it.
On price: NZ seafood is already expensive domestically, and the majority of NZ's seafood is exported Newsroom, meaning increased harvesting from removing size limits is likely to flow to export markets rather than making seafood more affordable locally.
The broader public interest issue is that fish are a commonly owned public resource, and critics argue the minister has a statutory duty to manage stocks for future generations — a duty this bill effectively dilutes. Stuff

nunasdream

205 posts

Master Geek
+1 received by user: 67

#3473184 24-Mar-2026 16:08

I sent an email to my local MP. He's a useless prick but I live in a safe blue seat

I can at least get him to justify why he will vote for this, because I know he will

networkn

Networkn
32862 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 15453

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#3473244 24-Mar-2026 16:47

nunasdream:

I sent an email to my local MP. He's a useless prick but I live in a safe blue seat

I can at least get him to justify why he will vote for this, because I know he will

You must be fun at parties.

MikeB4

MikeB4
18775 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 12765

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#3473251 24-Mar-2026 17:01

@networkn kudos for the great info in your second post. Thanks heaps for that.

Here is a crazy notion, lets give peace a chance.

quickymart

14940 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 13953

ID Verified

#3473286 24-Mar-2026 18:42

nunasdream:

I sent an email to my local MP. He's a useless prick but I live in a safe blue seat

Sounds like mine, my local National MP is basically invisible unless it's election time.

Not sure if he would support this bill or not though.

Mighty Ape

Shop now at Mighty Ape (affiliate link).

networkn

Networkn
32862 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 15453

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#3473431 25-Mar-2026 11:11

My Local MP replied within a day.

Thank you for taking the time to reach out to me and to share your feedback. I acknowledge that I have received multiple emails regarding this issue, and I want to assure you that your concerns have been noted and passed on to the Cabinet for consideration.

On a personal note, I share your opposition to the Fisheries Amendment Act. It is crucial that we ensure sustainability and maintain a long-term balance within our ecosystem. Any changes to the allowable size of fish caught by commercial fisheries risk disrupting the ecosystem and its long-term sustainability.

As the process moves forward, the bill will proceed to the select committee stage following its first reading (if it passes). This stage allows for public submissions and hearings. I strongly encourage you to make a submission to ensure your voice is heard and to help prevent the bill from advancing to a second reading.

Thank you again for your engagement on this important issue.

It seems a reasonable personal response honestly. I wasn't expecting much more than that.

Seems based on this language, National is obliged to support this past first reading. I've asked for clarification.

networkn

Networkn
32862 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 15453

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#3473601 25-Mar-2026 14:24

Wicked!

Following up on my email from this morning, I wanted to provide you with the latest update. National backs our recreational fishers, and we have heard your concerns.

The Prime Minister spoke with New Zealand First Minister Shane Jones this morning. As a result, the Government has committed to removing the sections of the Bill that would eliminate minimum size limits at the Select Committee stage.

I completely understand why this issue matters so much. As I mentioned in my previous email, protecting our ecosystem and ensuring sustainability are incredibly important. It is about making sure future generations, including our kids and grandkids, can continue to enjoy healthy, abundant fisheries.

I also recognise there are broader concerns with the Bill, and your perspective is important. I strongly encourage you to make a submission during the Select Committee process when it opens for public input. This is a real opportunity to have your say and help shape the outcome.

Recreational fishing means a great deal to many New Zealanders, and it is essential that the Bill reflects its importance.

Handle9

11923 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9674

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#3476283 31-Mar-2026 19:13

Removing the undersize catch provisions is good. Unfortunately the rest of the bill remains. It's essentially written by the New Zealand First donor base and bordering on corruption.

The bill hides camera footage from the public scrutiny, makes court challenges harder and normalises dumping fish at sea. The undersize provisons were just the tip of a very dirty iceberg.

elpenguino

3576 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2938

#3478959 8-Apr-2026 09:03

Yup.

Shane Jones has to pay the piper. It is the fishing industry calling the tune.

https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/96106426/fishing-company-talleys-bankrolling-shane-jones-nz-first-campaign

This bill deserves to be dumped overboard to sink without a trace.

Most of the posters in this thread are just like chimpanzees on MDMA, full of feelings of bonhomie, joy, and optimism. Fred99 8/4/21

MikeAqua

8024 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3817

#3479743 10-Apr-2026 11:11

Handle9:

Removing the undersize catch provisions is good.

As a marine biologist, and a former commercial fisher ... it isn't that simple.

Fishery management is generally biomass modelling. Fish stock management generally doesn't care about individual fish, it cares about biomass of fish in the total stock. A stock is usually defined by a species and geographical area. For example SNA1 is snapper in the NE of the North Island.

Commercial fishers have ACE (annual catch entitlement) for x tonnes in particular stock. Whether they catch x-tones of small fish or x-tonne of large fish doesn't matter all that much. Better that they are able to land the fish they do catch (regardless of size) and have to use their ACE for it (or if they lack ACE pay punitive deemed-value).

Larger fish are often more fecund. I've heard kaumatua explain that Māori used to take small fish and leave the big fish as a breeding population.

There is a risk in catching small fish - that you don't have small fish coming through and so eventually you end up with bunch of large old fish and limited replacement. There is also a risk in taking large fish - that you remove too many breeders from the population. Both risks can be managed by monitoring the age structure of the population and adjusting ACE. Adjustment is easy to do in a commercial fishery, because you can control the total biomass of fish caught by changing ACE for one or more seasons.

A disclaimer that I'm generalising here and fishery management is stock specific.

Mike