By Marc Daalder of 
Oceans and Fisheries Minister Shane Jones. Photo: RNZ / Angus Dreaver
Environmentalists are questioning the economic basis for the government's decision to weaken proposed marine protections in the Hauraki Gulf, after official advice revealed the exempted fishers caught just $13,852 worth of fish in the zones last year.
In October, the government surprised community advocates and environmental NGOs when it upended a cross-partisan consensus on the Hauraki Gulf Marine Protection Area, announcing there would be limited commercial fishing permitted in two zones.
At the time, Conservation Minister Tama Potaka and Oceans and Fisheries Minister Shane Jones said the exemption was needed to protect the livelihoods of a small number of ring net fishers who provide food to south Auckland over winter. The ministers declined to comment for this article.
Advice from the Department of Conservation and Fisheries New Zealand, released under the Official Information Act, shows both agencies opposed the changes. Department officials told Potaka the move would "undermine biodiversity outcomes", be "incompatible" with point of protecting vulnerable areas from fishing, and "be seen as unfair" by the public, the NZ Herald reported.
The Fisheries NZ advice, seen by Newsroom, contains similar concerns. The changes could "be inequitable to other commercial and recreational fishers" and "reduce the effectiveness of the marine protection proposals", officials warned Jones.
They noted the legislation was considered by a select committee for nearly 10 months. MPs ultimately recommended no substantive changes be made, even after hearing from the ring net fishers and others as part of the submission process.
Further information, released under the OIA, shows the revenue from commercial ring net fishing within the 12 high protection areas is relatively small. In 2022-23, it was under $14,000, though it ran as high as $48,000 two years earlier.
Just two high protection areas will be subject to the exemption, so the revenue saved by the exemptions could be much smaller than the historic $14,000 to $48,000 previously obtained from all 12 areas.
The decision to slightly roll back the protections came after an intervention by Seafood New Zealand, which asked for five changes to the legislation. The ring net fishing exemption was the only one accepted by ministers - and in limited form.
"We think this small exception the right thing to do - these family businesses and one-man operators deserve a just transition. And remember, these exceptions are grandfathered, meaning once these fishers leave the profession, no one else can fish where they fish," Seafood NZ chief executive Lisa Futschek told Newsroom.
"Seafood New Zealand has supported the fishers affected to have their voices heard as part of the democratic process. All they have ever been asking for is fairness. Information on where they fish was not available during the development of these marine protected areas. Most people can accept that it is fair to adopt a just transition and allow them to continue to function as fishers while shutting down the area over time."
WWF New Zealand chief executive Kayla Kingdon-Bebb said there was no economic rationale for the exemptions.
"The late stage carve-out that Tama Potaka has agreed to - clearly at the behest of Seafood New Zealand and Shane Jones - is honestly pretty shocking. It's worth only $14,000 a year," she said.
"It's astonishing how far the government is willing to go to pander to the demands of industry lobbyists, even if it means undermining more than a decade of work by the local community and tangata whenua and ignoring all the evidence."
Labour Party conservation spokesperson Priyanca Radhakrishnan called on the government to reverse the changes when the legislation returns to the House this year.
"There's nothing good that's coming out of these changes that Shane Jones is pushing through. All of the advice to date has been very clear that the proposed changes will reduce the effectiveness of the proposed protections," she said.
"The economic argument is really weak, overall. It clearly says that the revenue and value that is impacted by the proposed marine protections is minimal. It's really a benefit for a few private individuals at the expense of the public good."
Futschek said Seafood NZ doesn't believe the $14,000 figure.
"We also dispute the figures offered about the cost to the fishers of being forced to leave the area. Fishing in these areas is how they get their income over winter and how they provide fish to less well-off communities in south Auckland, including more than 30 marae. Without access, they lose a critical source of income for a key part of the year; that puts in jeopardy their entire business. Sadly we ourselves don't have the resources to provide an alternative economic analysis," she said.
"We want to express our concern about the very real risks to the wellbeing of the fishers concerned when their rights to continue to work and function are under constant public attack. These are people who are doing good work, providing high quality seafood at a low cost to communities who need it."
Nicola MacDonald, co-chair of the Hauraki Gulf Forum, said the legislation was the result of the decade-long Sea Change process involving industry, conservationists, local government and iwi. For the government to progress significant changes on the tail end of that lengthy endeavour "really draws into question the intention and integrity of our conservation minister", she said.
"To bring amendments in such as commercial fishing in marine protected areas - high protection areas - for $14,000 really doesn't stack up."
This story was first published by Newsroom
