A Lot Of Nonsense Over Something That’s Common Sense

Friday, 21 March 2025, 11:44 am
Press Release: Seafood New Zealand

Lisa Futschek is the Chief Executive of Seafood New Zealand. In this week’s Update she reacts to some of the egregious misinformation being put into the public domain about the proposed amendments to the Fisheries Act.

If you’re a fisher, I urge you, please get yourself ready to submit on the proposed changes to the Fisheries Act. Why? Because your voice is needed as a counter weight to the absolute nonsense being served up by opposing groups.

Recently the Minister for Oceans and Fisheries announced the Fisheries Reform, a suite of proposals to help improve our fisheries management system so that it is more responsive, certain and efficient. And it’s not just for the benefit of the fishing industry – improving the way we manage fisheries is a win for all Kiwis, communities and our oceans.

The 71-page proposal is detailed and sensible, but I suspect many of those opposing it haven’t read it. Otherwise they would have to acknowledge that their alarmist claims are well off track.

So far, the reform has been referred to as a “scam”, and the proposals are said to be “shrouded in weasel speak”. This couldn’t be further from the truth. I want to encourage people to look beyond the nonsense; and see the proposals for what they are - common sense changes that recognise how technology and fishing practices have evolved and improved. Enabling better and more efficient management.

So, on behalf of the seafood sector, I want to set the record straight on a few things.

Claim: the proposals will adversely impact sustainability.

Fact: sustainability remains number one.

Sustainability is at the core of the reform – you see this clearly throughout the Ministry for Primary Industries’ (MPI) consultation document, which you can find on the MPI website. Sustainability is also vital for industry. Without it, we have no future. Nobody wins if we were to lower the sustainability standards/framework of the Fisheries Act.

Claim: camera coverage on fishing boats is being watered down.

Fact: no, in fact cameras will be relied on more under these proposals. And if we’re fishing, the cameras will be on.

The proposed privacy changes for cameras mean the footage itself won’t be released under the Official Information Act, but all the data that comes from those cameras WILL be. Anyone who wants to will still be able to access the data.

Why take the actual footage out? Because cameras are intended to be a tool for verification not vilification. Making footage available to groups that want to destroy commercial fishing is not transparency. It's enabling bullying. It’s also putting at risk the natural privacy of individuals. Blurring won’t cut it, because thanks to developing technologies, it can’t be relied on. The circumventing by AI of NZ court-imposed name suppression orders is a case in point.

It is the role of the regulator, which has people who know what to look for, to review the footage – that’s what they do. And already, MPI shares the data gathered from cameras quarterly on their website, it’s all very transparent. We support this.

Suggesting that the proposed changes would allow fishers to turn cameras off when fishing is utterly false. Cameras must always be on when fishing occurs – it’s the law – the repercussions are harsh. The changes will make sure fishers know when they can have their camera off – for example when traveling through a non-fishing area - and when it has to be on.

And, if you have a read of the proposed changes, you’ll see that it’s also about making the cameras more cost effective and enabling fishers and fisheries management to realise the benefits of the cameras. With AI becoming a very real option, we think in future we’ll see more cameras used in commercial fishing, not fewer.

Claim: reported discards have exploded in number since cameras were installed.

Fact: you need to understand the numbers.

We urge people to mind the percentages. For example, we have seen this being used, “discards of kingfish have exploded by 950%”. That seems like an alarming number. But when you boil it down, this is an average of 7.7kg per fishing event, so a fish or two per fishing event. Put in perspective, two fish out of a catch where ALL fish are reported doesn’t seem like an ‘explosion’.

Also, for the record, our fishers aren’t tossing these fish - some of which are alive - back willy nilly. They are required by law to return a number of fish species when undersized, and cameras are there to make sure they do just that.

Claim: the proposals are taking away people’s rights and handing the industry the keys.

Fact: public consultation is not being taken away and the same strict rules apply to fisheries management.

We are baffled by those claiming that the reform is taking away people’s chance to have a say. This is simply not the case.

Our fisheries management system is unique in that all government science working groups are open to the public. All sustainability decisions, like setting catch limits, undergo a public consultation. None of the proposed changes will reduce people’s ability to have a say on sustainability measures and it definitely doesn’t provide the commercial sector any special treatment or opportunities above other New Zealanders.

What is being proposed is that the Minister, in some cases, would be able to make some decisions in advance or approve a rule that would set out when, why and how a catch limit would be changed. These initial decisions would still require input from public and tangata whenua and would have a timeframe of five years. This does not reduce the ability for people to have input. It is about the efficient and responsive management of 642 stocks.

We are always keen to get around the table.

Seafood New Zealand is always keen to sit down with individuals, groups and organisations who have opposing views. We are always keen to talk, cooperate and work together to make sure we have healthy oceans and plenty of fish.

I encourage all Kiwis to look beyond the nonsense being pushed into the public arena about these proposals. If you have time, read the consultation document yourself. Go straight to the source. And I am calling on all fishers and seafood industry folk to submit – share your experiences and views. Let’s get the truth out there.

New quicker way to have your say on common sense changes

Seafood New Zealand is working on an automated submission form which will make it easier for you to make your submission. In the meantime if you would like to submit today, check out the tips below.

Other ways to have your say:

1. Read what is being proposed on the Ministry for Primary Industries' consultation page.
2. Read over our helpful summary pages on the Seafood New Zealand consultation page.
3. Make a submission: Currently, there are a couple of ways to do this:
   • Use the online submission form on the MPI website.
   • Or, you can use the Seafood New Zealand submission template as a start. This document outlines Seafood New Zealand's position on each of the proposals and provides space for you to personalise it (it will have more impact if you are able to add your own voice, insights, and relevant examples). You will need to download the template from our website, add your information and then email it to fish.reform@mpi.govt.nz. 

© Scoop Media