Recent reporting indicates the Minister of Fisheries has advanced proposals to impose significant penalties for the release of on-board fishing camera footage, despite official advice that the level of fines may be excessive. The same proposals include limiting access to that footage through the Official Information Act and constraining avenues for judicial review. These measures are presented as necessary to protect the industry and prevent misuse of information. That may be part of the rationale, but a broader issue sits beneath it.
What changes is not the presence of monitoring, but who can access its results. Cameras were introduced to provide oversight and improve compliance within a public resource. The footage exists, but access to it becomes restricted, and penalties for sharing it are increased. Taken together, monitoring remains in place, but visibility of what is recorded is reduced.
This shifts the focus from enforcement to accountability. A system that gathers information but limits who can examine it concentrates decision-making within a narrower group. Where independent scrutiny is reduced, the balance between oversight and control changes. The ability of the public, researchers, or other stakeholders to assess how rules are applied becomes more constrained.
There is also a question of consistency. Where penalties for releasing information exceed those for some forms of non-compliance within the industry, the relative weighting of actions becomes less clear. The system continues to regulate behaviour, but the signals it sends about priority and consequence may not align with expectations. Over time, this can affect how the framework is understood and accepted.
Public confidence in fisheries management depends not only on outcomes, but on how decisions are made and explained. Where official advice is set aside and access to information is restricted, confidence can be affected. This is not about any one individual, but about how the system operates. Trust relies on consistency, transparency, and the ability to examine decisions over time.
The principle is straightforward. Monitoring without visibility does not strengthen accountability; it concentrates it. Where a public resource is involved, the ability to see how it is managed forms part of the system itself.
This is not about whether cameras should exist, or whether privacy should be protected. It is about who controls what can be seen, and how that control shapes accountability over time.
What’s to hide?
The fishermen are just working aren’t they?
Why is Shane Jones so protective of commercial fishermen?
Well we know the answer to that in his past strong ties with the likes of Talleys, Sealords etc., and political donations.
I voted NZ First party vote last time ; but I’m not in November because of Shane Jones.
Give the guy a break.
Shane Jones is only continuing a seafaring tradition established by Lord Nelson at the Battle of Copenhagen when he held his telescope to his blind eye to disobey orders.
“Admiral Jones” is only blinding compliance cameras to win a shortsighted victory for the commercial fishing companies who sponsor him.
His daring will ensure that the Minister has only six months left to fill his hold with treasure before the general election in November.
the fact that nz first received 100k from Vela seafoods last month was interesting.. seems they dont care about corruption.
Shane Jones even looks like El Duce. Now he is acting like Benito controlling what we see. Why would anybody vote for his party?
By joves, I voted NZ First last election but Shane Jones has convinced me not to vote for NZ First again while they keep such a buffoon and bully in their ranks. With his political history and conflicts of interest he should not be Minister of Fisheries.