The Justice Ministry, Commerce Commission and Office of the Ombudsman have all sounded alarm bells over the Government’s controversial new fishing law proposals, according to briefings obtained by the Herald.
Oceans and Fisheries Minister Shane Jones personally requested that people, including government workers, be fined $50,000 if they leak video from commercial fishing boats - and today he doubled down.
“I would actually like the fine to be higher,” he told the Herald.
Pushback on the Fisheries Amendment Bill ranges from criticism about human rights being curtailed to concerns about anti-cartel laws being circumvented and excessive fines.
A draft Cabinet paper from February 20, obtained by the Herald under the Official Information Act (OIA), shows Ministry of Justice officials warned the Oceans and Fisheries Minister that a $50,000 fine for leaking footage from commercial fishing boats was “unreasonable”.
As part of proposed changes, the public would be blocked from using the OIA to obtain video of illegal fishing.
The draft Cabinet paper, sent to Jones from the Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI), shows Jones himself requested a penalty for leaking video, and that it be set at a maximum of $50,000.
“You requested a standalone non-sharing offence,” the briefing states.
In an interview with the Herald, Jones didn’t resile from pitching a $50,000 fine – even though it far exceeds many other infringements – saying footage should be held exclusively by the state and those caught leaking should face stiff penalties.
“What drove me to start at the figure of $50k was to ensure that people are well apprised of the fact that access [to footage] from the state is a privilege, and if it’s manipulated or demonised to destroy the name of the fishing industry, I’m just not going to have it,” he said.
“Agency feedback” in the briefing detailed the Ministry of Justice’s concerns.
“They [Ministry of Justice officials] consider that the proposed maximum penalty of $50,000 is unreasonable, and that a maximum fine between $5000 and $10,000 would be more appropriate,” the briefing said.
Jones said the Ministry of Justice was entitled to its opinion, but if he had it his way, “I would actually like the fine to be higher”.
The Environmental Law Initiative (ELI) director of research and legal, Dr Matt Hall, said that while it’s not unexpected that ministers would seek to shape legislation, the process would normally be informed by independent advice and align with other offences and the wider public interest.
“In this case, those safeguards appear to have been disregarded by the minister,” Hall told the Herald.
He said restricting access to footage and introducing disproportionate penalties would make independent scrutiny of marine wildlife deaths “extremely difficult”.
Green Party fisheries spokesman Teanau Tuiono said the expectation of ministers is that they listen to advice from officials.
“But what we see is often he [Jones] ignores this advice,” he told the Herald.
The Ministry of Justice further noted that both the plan to protect footage by exempting it from the OIA, and limiting time periods for judicial reviews of fisheries decisions, may have implications for the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act (NZBORA).
The latter would create a time limit of 20 working days for fisheries decisions to be challenged in court – a move the ELI called a “brazen attempt to avoid or curtail judicial scrutiny” in a submission on the bill.
Tuiono said given responses to OIAs often take longer than working 20 days, the clause would make it “pointless” trying to gather data ahead of seeking intervention from the court.
“It’s a bad look and it reduces accountability,” he said.
Ministry of Justice officials planned to produce a NZBORA vetting report “ahead of the bill being introduced” to assess whether the proposed laws are consistent with fundamental human rights, the briefing said.
The document also included comments from the Office of the Ombudsman, which “strongly reiterated” the agency’s opposition to plans to exempt on-board camera footage from the OIA.
“An exemption may curtail fundamental human and constitutional rights to access information without sufficient justification,” the Ombudsman said in the briefing.
In another draft Cabinet paper obtained by the Herald from July last year, the Commerce Commission raised concerns about part of the bill promoting anti-competitive behaviour.
The commission took issue with proposals that allow commercial fishers to “shelve” or stockpile quota if they don’t catch their total allowance, saying the impact could be “contrary to the anti-cartel provisions in the Commerce Act 1986″, the briefing said.
A commission spokesman told the Herald that cartel conduct occurs when competing businesses agree not to compete. It takes many forms, including price-fixing, sharing markets, rigging bids or restricting output of goods and services.
He said the bill’s provisions could lead to agreement being reached between competing companies which could break the law.
Hall said he understood why the commission was looking closely at this part of the proposed legislation.
“Where a large majority of quota holders can collectively decide to defer and then increase catch, it raises questions about whether that amounts to co-ordinated behaviour,” he said.
Jones said the select committee process would allow for tweaks to the proposed laws.
“If we need to reconsider provisions in the proposed fisheries legislation on the back of feedback, that’s how democracy works,” he said.
In a speech to Auckland business leaders on Wednesday, he said “if the bill does survive, it’ll survive in a vastly different form” to what was originally envisaged.
Attempts to get raw footage of illegal fishing has been historically difficult, even when requesting video under the OIA.
In 2016, MPI was embroiled in a scandal when managers decided not to prosecute commercial skippers despite having video evidence of illegal behaviour, including “systemic” illegal dumping of fish and footage of dolphins entangled in trawl nets.
Following an investigation by Michael Heron, KC, who determined the decision not to prosecute was “flawed”, MPI released some of the onboard camera footage.
However, that was the only time raw video from fishing boats was released by the agency, and it was only published due to the significant public interest around MPI’s decision making, and because some still images of the offending were leaked.
Recent attempts by the Herald to use the OIA to access footage or still frames of illegal fishing have been declined, with MPI citing the need to protect the identity of fishermen, protect the commercial interests of those in the videos, and ensure fishermen keep supplying the video to MPI.
Proposals to stop footage being released under the OIA are not new. In 2017, fishing industry representatives wrote to MPI requesting footage be exempt from the act.
At the time, the industry said those with an “anti-fishing agenda” could paint the sector in a poor light.
Then-Fisheries Minister Stuart Nash rejected the proposal, saying protections already existed under the provisions of the OIA that would ensure privacy and commercial sensitivity were safeguarded.
The Herald asked Jones if the industry had lobbied him to ensure footage was exempted, to which he replied: “Over many years the fishing industry has advocated to protect and safeguard their good reputation. They’re entitled to do that, and I find this line of questioning is further evidence of trying to stigmatise the fishing industry.”
Michael Morrah is a senior investigative reporter/team leader at the Herald. He won News Journalist of the Year at the 2025 Voyager Media Awards and has twice been named reporter of the year at the NZ Television Awards. He has been a broadcast journalist for 20 years and joined the Herald’s video team in July 2024.