Recreational fishing advocacy LegaSea says Fisheries Minister Shane Jones Fisheries Amendment Bill is more alarming than just legalising the harvest of juvenile snapper. Controversy erupted over the bill which removed minimum size limits for commercial. That proposal appears to be headed for the rubbish bin but there are several other aspects among the remainder of the bill that are of deep concern.
As public opposition to the Fisheries Amendment Bill grows, critics are calling for the bill to be voted down ahead of its first reading tomorrow .
“Removing crucial changes such as undersized fish is a start, but there are other controversial elements much more alarming than legalising the harvest of baby snapper. This includes a number of reforms not consulted on in 2025 that need to be removed,” said Sam Woolford from LegaSea.
With LegaSea’s “Kill the Bill’ campaign continuing to gain traction, concerns about the reforms include lowering environmental standards, legalising dumping of unwanted catch (including undersized fish), and the privatisation of New Zealand’s public fishery.
“If you think killing baby snapper is bad, there are many other elements of the Bill that will have far reaching economic and environmental impacts for New Zealand.”
“The Bill is being promoted as a way to increase the value of seafood exports, but it is prioritising commercial interests over public access and long-term sustainability.”
He said the Bill is a direct conflict to the primary objective of the current Fisheries Act which is to manage the fisheries sustainably, not prioritise seafood exports.
“For an issue of this magnitude, where is the harm in making haste slowly? The public of New Zealand have had little over a week to digest this dense piece of legislation. The initial reaction made it clear it is not popular meaning the government should not be so intent on rushing it through the legislative process.”
Key issues
- Legalising the landing and sale of undersized fish
- Lowering environmental protections
- Increased allocation to commercial interests
- Lack of transparency, including restricted access to camera footage
- Introduction of new clauses not consulted on in 2025
- A proposed 20-day limit on judicial review
- The Bill must go back to Cabinet for reconsideration.
“People are outraged that this government is prioritising feeding wealthy overseas diners while Kiwis struggle to catch fish to feed their families,” Woolford said. “They may not be able to digest 50 pages of amendments, but they do understand that gifting more fish to commercial interests, legalising dumping, and denying public access to camera footage is not a recipe for long-term sustainability.”
Also alarming is the proposal to slash the right of the public to have say.
“The public will not accept a 20-day limit on judicial review. Every New Zealander has a stake in how our fish stocks are managed, and restricting the right to challenge ministerial decisions is unacceptable.”
Call to action:
LegaSea is encouraging New Zealanders to contact their local MP and call for the Fisheries Amendment Bill to be voted down.
Media contact:
Sam Woolford
LegaSea Project Lead
027 539 4566
Sam Woolford _”kill the bill.”
Taken together, these changes point toward greater commercial flexibility, reduced oversight, and tighter limits on challenge. Each element may be arguable on its own, but the cumulative effect alters how the system operates and who it serves.
Legislation of this scale requires time for scrutiny. Introducing new provisions without adequate consultation, and advancing the bill at pace, risks unintended consequences. Good process is not delay; it is part of sound decision-making.
A 20-day limit on judicial review compresses the ability to properly assess and challenge decisions of significant public interest. Fisheries decisions have long-term consequences, and the mechanisms to review them should reflect that scale and duration.
Restricting access to on-board camera footage reduces visibility into how the system operates in practice. Without transparency, confidence in compliance depends on trust rather than evidence, and that is a weaker foundation for managing a public resource.
Allowing greater flexibility to discard unwanted catch does not solve waste; it risks normalising it. A system that permits fish to be caught and then discarded without full accountability weakens both data integrity and stock management.
The Fisheries Act is built on sustainability, not output. Policies that prioritise export value over stock health risk reversing that hierarchy. Once sustainability becomes secondary, recovery becomes harder and more costly.
New Zealand’s fisheries are a public resource held in trust. Any reform that shifts allocation, access, or control must be assessed against that principle first. If the outcome is reduced public access or increased concentration of benefit, the balance has moved away from that trust.
The Bill as written will not enhance Jones’s standing in the public eye – it is clearly pro-commercial fishing and simply adds fuel to the fire that Jones was given the portfolio to advance his former industry colleagues interests. Certainly looks as though their investment in the coalition party funds is paying off in spades.
Shane Jones has no respect for democracy. Slashing the right of the public to have a say is totally unacceptable.
His strong links in the past to the point of political donations from fishing companies is a conflict of interest.
Why doesn’t he want cameras on boats. He cited “an invasion of privacy.” Rubbish! The crews are working fishing a public resource.
A very accurate assessment, Shane Jones thinks he’s omnipotent, NZ’s version of Trump that can dismiss critics with arrogant dismissal of reasoned argument. He is an embarrassment to NZ democracy
I voted NZ First last election but Shane Jones disdain of democracy and his arrogance, leave me cold. I won’t be voting NZ First party vote because of him. How on earth was he allocated the fisheries portfolio given his baggage around political donations from fisheries corporate companies?
The kahawai fishery is in big trouble. Kahawai were put under the Quota Management System and it has been a failure just as with other species.
The QMS needs a credible, non-political enquiry into it – as does the Ministry.
Full marks to Legasea for standing up for the one million plus rec fishers.
The arrogance and blatant disregard for the future of the New Zealand Fishery, shown by Jones shows he’s using his power and not his brain, this stinks of corruption
Sadly some politicians believe that we (MMP) have given them cart blanche to enact every selfish/greedy/ self-serving wish they have ever had. This is shown by the minimal time now allocated for select committees etc. Jones and Co no doubt believe they were given the power by some “god” to rule. The last English King to think that was Charles the First and look what happened to him. On that theme perhaps we need an Environmental Magna Carta for the politicians.
Jones can do what he likes because he is on “The List” for NZ First. The only way to stop him is to not give NZ First any party votes as Anon suggested.
Thanks to Shane Jones and his bully boy, anti democratic tactics you won’t catch me voting for NZ First this election.
Jones just killed my chances of party voting for NZ First on November 7. He is a political embarrassment, a disgrace to democracy and a clown and bully.
Seen his latest tirade in Parliament? Who was the fellow MP grinning in the background?