Why is the government ignoring high profile Kiwis and strong public sentiment opposing its controversial fisheries reforms?
A groundswell of social media commentary, led by fishing advocate Matt Watson, marathon swimmer Jono Ridler, and advocacy group LegaSea, and an outpouring of public reaction has highlighted the far-reaching negative impacts of the Fisheries Amendment Bill.
“The government is ignoring strong public sentiment by not taking the thousands of comments, emails and messages into consideration and dismissing it simply because it is not part of its parliamentary process,” says Sam Woolford, LegaSea Project Lead.
Ridler, who recently completed a record-breaking 1,400km swim down the east coast of the North Island, launched a petition against bottom trawling which has been signed by over 80,000 people.
NZ spearfishing champion Darren Shields also made a plea to Oceans and Fisheries Minister Shane Jones to ban bottom-trawling, highlighting trails of dead fish he comes across regularly in Northland.
“The government’s dismissive attitude of public feeling and insights from high profile ocean and fishing experts fuels the growing distrust the public has in the management of our fisheries.
“The coalition government is seriously underestimating the depth of feeling about this issue and it will impact voting in the upcoming election.”
Numerous changes presented in the Fisheries Amendment Bill were consulted on last year and more than 90% of the 27,000 public submissions at the time rejected many of these proposed changes.
Woolford said public awareness and support had increased significantly since then, including thousands of emails sent to the Prime Minister and MPs ahead of the bills first reading on March 31.
National’s promise?
In parliament Miles Anderson, chair of the Primary Production Select Committee stated that while National supports the bill at first reading and its progress to Select Committee, it does have concerns.
National MP, Grant McCallum echoed Anderson’s statement.
“Some worry their voices won’t be heard, and that we won’t listen. But let me assure you, we will. National will listen, I will listen.”
Following the first reading of the Bill, an extremely short consultation period was set with submissions closing on April 29. This gave the public just 16 working days to provide feedback ahead of the Primary Production Select Committee hearing.
Woolford says the short consultation timeframe is not consistent with National’s promises.
“They say they will listen but at the same time they go ahead and expediate the Select Committee process by offering a very limited time frame for the public to make submissions.”
Public consultation key
To support this groundswell of public opposition, an alliance of fishing and environmental groups have written to Prime Minister Christopher Luxon asking for an extension to May 29 to provide a more acceptable timeframe for public submissions.
The groups, led by the New Zealand Sport Fishing Council and including LegaSea, Forest and Bird, Green Peace, and One Ocean, believe the coalition government is deliberately limiting the public’s right to have its say on the Fisheries Amendment Bill by rushing legislation through parliament.
“The timeframe is inadequate for the public to consider a complex issue that cuts to heart of Kiwi culture,” says Woolford.
“The magnitude of the changes requires a fair and robust consultation process to ensure decisions of this importance are informed by comprehensive public input rather than fast-tracking it through parliament.”
The people have spoken
Scott Macindoe, President of the New Zealand Sport Fishing Council, says the proposed backtrack by Fisheries and Oceans Minster Shane Jones to remove crucial changes, such as catching and selling undersized fish, was a direct result of public pressure.
“The Bill is in direct opposition to the primary objective of the current Fisheries Act which is to manage the fisheries sustainably, not prioritise seafood exports. That strikes a chord with Kiwis who understand that these reforms will have far reaching economic and environmental impacts for New Zealand.”
He says while changes, such as removing undersized fish is a start, there are other serious concerns about the reforms lowering environmental standards, legalising dumping of unwanted catch (including undersized fish), and the privatising of New Zealand’s public fishery.
Other concerning changes include:
- Reducing fines for commercial fishers who exceed catch limits
- Imposing a $50,000 fine for anyone leaking camera footage to the public
- Restricting the ability of the public to challenge Ministers’ decisions in court
- Limiting public consultation on future fisheries decisions
“The deeper you dive into the Bill the worse it gets. It must go back to Cabinet for reconsideration. As it stands, it is being promoted as a way to increase the value of seafood exports. However, it is prioritising commercial interests over public access and the long-term sustainability of New Zealand’s fisheries and marine environment,” says Macindoe.
