Fishing in NZ waters overhaul - 'cock up' or 'once in a lifetime shot'?

New Zealand’s fishing system is either a global success story or it's failing the very environment it relies on, depending on who you ask. Now Minister Shane Jones wants to introduce law changes to "boost productivity", a prospect filling environmentalists with dread. Gill Higgins reports.

The controversial changes to fishing in NZ waters - Watch on TVNZ+

Before the end of March, an amendment bill is due to be introduced to Parliament and sent to select committee giving New Zealanders a chance to have their say on how the country’s oceans are managed.

It comes as fisheries policy increasingly shapes up as an election issue, cutting across the economy, the environment, Māori interests, and food affordability.

New Zealand's seafood industry contributes around $2 billion in export earnings and employs more than 16,500 people. In a commercial context, the story is often framed as a triumph.

But to others the system is in crisis, a suggestion Oceans and Fisheries Minister Shane Jones rejects.

“I don’t accept this catastrophisation,” he said. “The stocks are in great health.”

Jones has made no secret of his priorities, describing himself to me as a “pro growth, pro development, pro jobs, nationalist politician”.

At a 2025 Seafood New Zealand conference, he told industry leaders there was “considerable scope for making the system more efficient, boosting productivity,” calling the reforms “a once in a lifetime shot”.

But critics question whether the goals of economic growth and ocean health can both be satisfied. Those concerns are voiced most sharply by people who spend their lives on — and under — the water.

TV personality, passionate recreational fisher and former commercial fisher Matt Watson says the system has lost its way.

“The fact of the matter is it’s not being looked after,” he says. “When you’re destroying the very food of the ocean it’s a cock up.”

He’s been outspoken in his opposition to the reforms.

“I’ve been around for a while, and I’m just not afraid anymore,” he says. “I can share what I think is right and wrong with how we manage our fishery.”

The Government’s position is that the system works, so that when stocks come under pressure, catch limits are reduced.

“All species of fish go through ebbs and flows,” says Jones. “The system is designed to restrict, prohibit and stop extraction if sustainability is threatened.”

But Watson says the system is focused on maximising profits rather than ensuring the long-term health of the stocks.

Official data from the Ministry of Primary Industry shows about 75% of stocks meet biomass targets, but a quarter don’t and need rebuilding. And 13% are considered at risk of depletion, with some fisheries closed altogether.

A note on biomass targets. The idea is that fishing is sustainable if a stock sits at 40% of its original biomass level, as if no fishing had ever taken place. So 75% of stocks sit at or above that level. The argument is that this maximises the amount of fish that can be taken while allowing enough fish for breeding to continue.

Critics argue 40% is too low. It should be set higher, especially for long-living species that take years to reproduce. They support this argument with the fact that a workable system shouldn’t lead to bans on harvesting species.

International examples loom large in the debate. Western Australia, which operates a similar quota system, recently imposed permanent bans on several prized species after stocks were found to be depleted by up to 85 percent.

Back here, environmental groups have mounted legal challenges against government stock management decisions over the years and won. Arguments have focused on catch limits being set too high, and the lack of regard for the ecosystem as a whole when setting the limits. Successful cases include ones for tarakihi and, most recently, red spiny rock lobster, better known as crayfish which, as of April 1, cannot be harvested at all along the East Coast of Northland.

This has recently caused a lot of tension among the fishing community in Northland.

For underwater cameraman Steve Hathaway the ban was necessary. He's been diving in the area for almost 40 years and has watched the environment change over decades.

“I used to be able to get my limit of crays whenever I wanted to here… these days, you’ll struggle to even get one.”

One depleted species has a knock-on effect. With crayfish and snapper numbers dropping, kina populations have exploded, stripping reefs of kelp.

Hathaway describes what scientists call a kina barren. “Animals need somewhere to live. They need places to eat. But when you lose it, you lose everything.”

In the crayfish case, the 2024 High Court challenge came from a small charity, the Environmental Law Initiative, along with two local hapū.

The ruling from the judge against then Minister Stuart Nash was that his catch setting was unlawful. After a period of consultation the total ban on harvesting crayfish for at least five years was put in place.

But one of the new reforms being proposed by Shane Jones is to limit those kinds of legal challenges.

Shane Jones has argued the system “cannot tolerate vexatious, protracted litigation that glugs the system up”. He’s proposing strict time limits on challenges and narrowing the grounds on which decisions can be contested. He wants any cases brought against catch decisions to be limited to the effects on specific species, rather than allowing for arguments relating to wider ecosystem concerns.

“I want to make sure that an ecosystem-based approach doesn't become an ideological weapon to wipe out commerce,” says Jones. “Fish managers can't be held responsible for the entire health of an oceanic environment.”

Matt Watson sees this as stopping the voice of the people. “That’s not democracy.”

Another proposed reform is to change onboard camera rules, including stopping public access to footage taken on commercial fishing boats. The Minister also wants to give commercial fishing companies greater flexibility around discarding fish at sea.

1News spoke to at least six commercial fishers about their views on the proposed changes. Few of these fishers now hold quota themselves, they mostly fish for larger companies.

Two agreed to talk on camera – but after weeks of attempts to make this happen, both pulled out. Another commercial fisher who has recently left the industry warned me that few commercial fishers would feel they could be honest about their views.

Eventually, I found Curly Brown, an inshore trawler who used to run a family business but now fishes for Moana Seafood. He was happy to give his opinon. He said he was 100% behind Shane Jones’ reforms and that they gave hope to fishers like himself.

He argued his privacy as a fisherman shouldn’t be breached and that camera footage taken on his boat had no place in the public’s hands. He also felt the new discard rules would rarely be used but could be a practical tool.

But those against the reforms argue making it easier to discard fish is a slippery slope. It’s been made illegal in the EU and Norway and critics would like to see the same here.

Furthermore, restricting access to footage and the fact it could be harder to challenge catch decisions in court only heightens concern if rules around discards are about to be loosened.

Ngāti Manuhiri Settlement Trust chair Nicola MacDonald says the biggest worry that I have around the reforms is “the challenge it’s going to create to bring companies to accountability”.

With the upcoming bill and select committee process, the Government says it’s listening.

The next chance to influence the future of New Zealand’s fisheries will come first through submissions and then at the ballot box in November.

For Matt Watson, the necessary direction is clear. “We need a healthy, productive commercial fishery… but we need one that lasts, that lasts for everyone.”

The controversial changes to fishing in NZ waters - Watch on TVNZ+