Meanwhile, Seafood New Zealand says it is ironic the change has resulted in an outcome that is “not great for the environment”, and doesn’t provide the incentive to avoid catching small fish.
The Fisheries Amendment Bill – as drafted – would have ditched most commercial size limits, effectively allowing commercial vessels to land and sell baby fish, including snapper and tarakihi.
Fishing legislation proposal should be scrapped, from RNZ’s First Up 26/03/2026
Recreational fishers argued the changes would decimate future populations.
Fisheries Minister Shane Jones has argued the change would prevent wastage, but was forced into a major U-turn over his plans.
As recently as Monday, he was entirely unapologetic about the change, describing critics as just “noisy voices”. But on Wednesday, coalition parties announced on social media that they had listened to public feedback and would no longer proceed.
ITM Fishing Show host Matt Watson told RNZ’s First Up it was a start and called it a “win” for demonstrating what “people power can do”.
However, he said while the bill had “one of the terrible things taken out of it”, it hadn’t been “thrown out”.
“There is a lot more stuff in there that is equally as bad, if not worse.
“There’s still legalised fish dumping in there. There is still reduction in fines for fishes that overfish their quotas, there’s a removal of environmental considerations, and it does nothing to move us away from destructive fishing methods.”
He called on New Zealanders to “stay vigilant”.
LegaSea – a non profit organisation dedicated to restoring the marine environment – said the minimum size limit proposal was just clickbait.
Project lead Sam Woolford told RNZ the change was too little too late. He said if there was an issue with the amount of fish being caught, or the techniques being used, that should be dealt with first, rather than legislating an outcome.
“It’s completely unacceptable that it’s taken this huge public outcry for the government to pay attention.
“It’s particularly unreasonable they think removing one small aspect of this legislation is going to placate New Zealanders.”
The Environmental Law Initiative (ELI) was also concerned with other changes included in the bill, including the siloing of environmental considerations.
ELI director research and legal Dr Matt Hall said as a whole, the bill systematically weakened sustainability provisions in the current Fisheries Act.
He said the bill could lead to impacts of fishing on the ecosystem being ignored, the use of non-regulatory measures to potentially justify higher take, and the strict limitations on judicial review of fisheries decisions.
Hall said the changes were contrary to New Zealand’s obligations under the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea.
But Seafood New Zealand chief executive Lisa Futschek told RNZ she was disappointed because the proposal would have strengthened the incentives for commercial fishers to avoid catching small fish.
“We don’t want to catch small fish, our processors don’t want to process small fish, and this proposal would have provided incentives not to catch small fish.”
She said the change would have meant those catching small fish would have needed to balance that fish against their quota: “In other words, they would have to pay for it.
“As it turns out, removing that clause means that the status quo remains. That is, fishers that catch small fish, return them to the sea, as they were required to do under the legislation – and they don’t pay for it.”
She said the proposed changes were “net positive for the environment and for sustainability of our resource”.
Asked about the coalition referencing feedback it had received in making the decision, she said fisheries and seafood were “a very emotive topic”.
“They are part of our culture and our heritage, and understandably, people are passionate about it, and they want to have their say in this situation.”
She said the level of disinformation around what the clause was seeking to achieve led to a whole range of speculation around the motives behind the change, “which were frankly wrong”.
This article was originally published on rnz.co.nz, the author was ,
