Fishy Influence – How the Fishing Industry Captured Shane Jones

Fisheries Minister Shane Jones has pushed through the most significant rollback of fishing regulations in decades – and it coincides with a tidal flow of cash from fishing industry donors into his coffers. Over $100,000 in documented contributions from seafood companies and executives have flowed to Jones and his party, New Zealand First, since 2017. These donations form a clear money trail that raises a disturbing question: have political donations purchased influence over fisheries policy? Jones’ sweeping pro-industry reforms, which dramatically favour commercial fishing interests over environmental protection and public transparency, make that question unavoidable.

Jones insists there’s no quid pro quo. But his actions tell another story. This Integrity Briefing examines how Jones’ extensive financial and professional ties to the fishing industry align with policies that the industry has long wanted. The evidence reveals a classic case of regulatory capture, in which a sector’s money and lobbying have seemingly “hooked” the regulator. From industry donations and cosy dinners to an overhaul of laws that benefits those donors, the pattern is, well, very fishy. 

Following the money

The money trail connecting Shane Jones to the fishing industry is extensive and spans multiple election cycles. The largest benefactor is the Talley’s seafood empire. Talley’s Group and its billionaire boss Sir Peter Talley have together poured at least $66,900 into Jones’ political campaigns and NZ First’s funds over recent years. Much of this was channelled subtly: between 2017 and 2019, Talley’s and Sir Peter donated $26,950 to the clandestine NZ First Foundation, splitting the sum into four parts just under the public disclosure threshold. For example, Peter Talley chipped in $15,000 – exactly one cent below the level that would trigger public disclosure. By structuring contributions in small amounts, Talley’s effectively kept these transactions hidden until investigative journalists uncovered them.

Talley’s largesse didn’t stop there. In the 2017 election, the company also donated $10,000 directly to Shane Jones’ campaign, plus another $2,000 to NZ First colleague Fletcher Tabuteau. And in 2020, Talley’s gave Jones an additional $5,000 for his run. All of these were declared publicly, underscoring the pattern: across multiple elections, Jones and NZ First have been bankrolled by one of the country’s biggest fishing firms. As a result, Talley’s stands out as perhaps the most influential fishing-industry donor in recent New Zealand politics. 

Other fishing magnates joined in ahead of the 2023 election. Westfleet Seafoods and Aimex Ltd – both controlled by West Coast fishing baron Craig Boote – together donated $7,000 to Shane Jones’ 2023 campaign (Westfleet gave $5,000; Aimex $2,000). Boote, who owns half of Westfleet (the other half is owned by Sealord, a company Jones once chaired), later confirmed he had actually funnelled a total of $10,000 to Jones by splitting it between his companies. Not hedging his bets, Boote also admitted giving $10,000 to National’s West Coast candidate (Maureen Pugh) and $10,000 to the Act Party, covering all three parties that formed the current coalition government.

This was no ordinary supporter spreading goodwill – Boote soon met Jones at an exclusive “wine and oysters” dinner in Nelson to press the Minister on loosening fishing regulations, especially the use of cameras on boats. It’s a textbook example of money buying access: Boote’s donations bought him face time with the new minister to push for policy changes that would save his companies money. 

The donations kept coming. Longtime fishing investor Sir Peter Vela provided the single largest known contribution to NZ First’s 2023 campaign – $50,000. (Vela, notably, gave an equal amount to the Act Party that year as well.) Seafood giant Sanford Ltd chipped in $12,000 to NZ First during 2024, at the very time it was seeking government approvals for new salmon farms. Smaller industry players joined the fray too – e.g. United Fisheries gave $2,000 to a NZ First candidate in 2023. 

All told, well over six figures of fishing industry money has lined the war chests of Shane Jones and NZ First in recent years. This generosity was often strategically timed and targeted. Donations surged when Jones returned to Parliament with NZ First in 2017, again ahead of the 2020 campaign, and once more in 2023 as NZ First re-entered government. 

The pattern is hard to ignore: the fishing industry has bankrolled Jones and his party through multiple elections, coinciding with Jones attaining power over fisheries policy. As we see, those same donors now appear to be reaping the rewards of their investment.

A “Fishy” conflict of interest 

With such a clear money trail from fishing companies to Jones, it’s little wonder that many see a conflict of interest in his role as Fisheries Minister. Barry Weeber, co-chair of the Environment and Conservation Organisations of NZ, put it bluntly: a politician funded by the fishing industry “should not be in charge of fisheries” – the conflict is “clearly” apparent.

Environmental groups have been raising red flags since the government was formed. They note that while industry “barons” gained the new minister’s ear over fine wine and seafood, conservationists and iwi groups struggled even to get a meeting. The optics are undeniably bad: donors got private dinners and a receptive audience, while other stakeholders were left out in the cold.

Jones’ early conduct as Minister in the current Government only deepened those concerns. Just weeks into the job, he convened a private dinner in Nelson with seafood CEOs and lobbyists – a who’s-who of industry heavyweights. In attendance were executives from Moana NZ, Sealord, Talley’s, Sanford, and Seafood NZ’s lobby – notably, companies and groups that have bankrolled NZ First or Jones personally. Over “wine and oysters,” these industry leaders had Jones’ full attention. They wasted no time lobbying for their wish-list: cut the red tape, slash regulatory costs, and roll back conservation measures that, in their view, could “terminate the existence of the fishing industry”.

Within days, Jones echoed their grievances publicly. He spoke of “trimming the sails of the state” in fisheries management and put the brakes on initiatives the industry opposed – such as expanding cameras on boats and creating new marine protected areas. It certainly looks like policymaking by donor demand. The Nelson dinner was essentially a strategy session for deregulation, and Jones emerged as the industry’s eager champion.

Captured

Unsurprisingly, critics cried foul. The environmental NGO Forest & Bird warned that Jones was effectively “captured” by fishing interests and could not be trusted to prioritise the oceans. Even the perception of undue influence, they note, can badly damage public trust in policy integrity. The Integrity Institute has repeatedly highlighted how policy capture – when special interests steer decisions – erodes democracy as much as outright corruption. In Jones’ case, the perception is backed by hard facts: the money trail and his own actions align too neatly.

To his credit, Jones has never hidden his industry affinities. He famously calls himself an “apostle of industry”, and argues that being “well known to the industry” – including having chaired a major fishing company – makes him “eminently suitable” to regulate fisheries. But as his tenure unfolds, that claim rings hollow. Every move he’s made appears to benefit those who bankrolled him, at the expense of environmental oversight.

New Zealanders would be right to have reduced confidence in the political process after watching this unfold. When policies are pushed through that so nakedly appease a donor-rich industry – when scientific evidence is ignored, and when the public is shut out from monitoring what happens at sea – people can see that something is wrong. The fisheries reforms fuel a public perception that deals are being cut behind closed doors, that economic elites hold sway in Wellington, and that the ordinary citizen’s voice – or the silent voice of nature – carries little weight in comparison. 

Industry Connections

In the final analysis, the evidence points to systematic regulatory capture of New Zealand’s fisheries management by commercial interests. Shane Jones’ 30-year career of industry connections, ongoing financial links, and policy decisions demonstrate how political donations can translate directly into favourable regulations for big fishing companies. The pattern is stark: fishing industry money has purchased policies that undermine environmental protection, reduce public accountability, and even shift costs from private companies to taxpayers.

Without serious reforms to our political donation laws and conflict-of-interest rules, episodes like this will recur. New Zealand’s reputation as a world leader in sustainable fisheries management will continue to deteriorate, while marine ecosystems pay the ultimate price. The Integrity Institute urges that we learn from this “fishy” case. Democracy and environmental stewardship both demand vigilance against the corrosive influence of money in politics. When “money talks” as loudly as it has in Shane Jones’ fisheries portfolio, it is the public interest – and the oceans themselves – that fall silent.

Footnote: For full article see https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/fishy-influence-how-fishing-industry-captured-shane-jones-edwards-yja4c?utm_source=share&utm_medium=member_android&utm_campaign=share_via