Fisheries Minister Shane Jones is intending to crackdown on judicial reviews of his fishing quota decisions and to limit the public’s right to take court action.
Sources say the minister intends to introduce a fisheries bill to Parliament just before Christmas.
However indications are that fisheries officials doing not agree with the minister’s intentions.
Minister Jones wants to limit judicial reviews of fisheries minister decisions to 20 working days after the decision is announced. However officials would rather see a three-month (90 days) deadline for catch-limit decisions and six months (180 days) for other sustainability decisions.
Another proposal is separating the function of setting catch limits from the management of fishing’s adverse effects.
Minister Jones wants more certainty for the commercial fishing industry and prevent judicial “catastrophising” according to reports..
Kahawai
Some 20 years ago the NZ Sport Fishing Council opposed catch allowances in the over-fished kahawai fishery and supported by two big iwi, the council argued the minister should take into account New Zealanders’ broad social, economic and cultural wellbeing when making decisions around fisheries resources
The New Zealand Fisheries Act aims to provide for the utilisation of fisheries resources while ensuring their sustainability, balancing economic, social, and cultural benefits with the needs of future generations and the aquatic environment, i.e. commercial, recreational and customary.
In 2021, the High Court overturned former fisheries minister Stuart Nash’s decision on tarakihi fishing limits. And this year, the Environmental Law Initiative and Northland iwi won decisions requiring Jones to be more rigorous in his decision-making for the Northland rock lobster fishery.
Jones has previously accused the Environmental Law Initiative of “recklessly litigating in all directions” and referenced its string of court cases on multiple occasions.
Shades of “Fast Track”
“Newsroom” reported Shane Jones, as saying he had borrowed legal sections out of the fast-track legislation, including the 20-day window.
“Really beneath that choice was a deep sense of exasperation with what’s become a carnival of vexatious, frivolous litigation, and I don’t think that either the fishing system or the New Zealand economy can stand what’s turned into a blood sport,” he said. “There’s a place for litigation, but not reckless. Litigation has to be reasonable litigation.”
Jones’ Cabinet paper said he considered 20 days would provide a reasonable opportunity for a decision to be considered and a review to be lodged. Officials disagree.
Footnote: “Newsroom” can be subscribed to. A full report on Minister Shane Jones move is on “Newsroom” – https://newsroom.co.nz/2025/08/27/officials-oppose-fisheries-ministers-plan-to-curb-judicial-reviews/
Minister Jones’ matey relationship with the capitalist corporates of the commercial fishing world and political donations is pretty fishy.
Shane Jones is simply a puppet for private corporate interests, weakly bending to industry to allowing the people’s oceans to be plundered for short-term profit. Doesn’t Jones remember the various fish species plundered? The orange roughy fisheries were exploited to something like 3%, 17% etc of virgin biomass. Shameful.
But a question, has Jones any inkling of democracy and that he is a public servant and not a master?
How can the litigation be “frivolous & vexatious”, or a “blood sport”, when the litigant often wins? Maybe Shane should take a closer look at his officials’ recommendations before he signs-off his decisions, which are usually based on their recommendations. Maybe Shane should ask himself why are his officials constantly dropping him in the custard? Maybe the woke ministry officials don’t like Shane very much? Maybe Shane should be asking himself whether trusting the Ministry wokesters is such a good idea after all. Just look at his (i.e. their) decision to extend the blue cod fishing ban in the Marlborough Sounds through the peak summer holidays. Based on no tangible recreational fishing data. What a great way to get about 20,000 holidaymakers to NOT EVER vote for you!
Shortening the appeal period is likely to INCREASE the amount of frivolous and vexatious litigation. Potential litigants are more likely to lodge proceedings pro forma and wait until later to get all the facts. This will clog up the system even more!