Controversial fisheries bill delayed as Shane Jones declares war on recreational fishers
Thursday, 18 June 2026
Shane Jones’ controversial fisheries reforms have been pushed to November’s election, with the Oceans and Fisheries Minister telling MPs the highly contested bill needs more work and suggesting voters may ultimately decide its fate.
Appearing before Parliament's Primary Production Committee on Thursday, Jones confirmed he had written to the committee chairperson seeking an extension to the bill's consideration, citing widespread opposition from across the fisheries sector.
The delay means one of the Government’s most contentious reforms won’t return to Parliament before the election.
Jones acknowledged there was “a tremendous amount of white water” around the legislation and “not a lot of harmony” among stakeholders.
Read more:
Fishing industry ‘let off the hook’ as conservation funding falls short
High Court showdown over who pays for fisheries surveillance
Commercial fishers receive exclusive access to a publicly owned resource.
“I think if we can take more time and improve the bill, probably better for the sector,” he said.
“It's a highly contested space, and maybe the whole election process will enable each party to campaign on what they think is important about fisheries and, after the next election, let's wait and see where the chips fall.”
Jones said opposition to the bill extended across environmental groups, recreational fishers and some Māori interests, with younger iwi leaders increasingly advocating stronger sustainability measures and restrictions on some fishing practices.
'If I'm going to take responsibility for it, I am the author of the bill, and if it can be improved by some more panel beating, then I'm up for that,' he said.
The hearing also exposed sharper edges in Jones’ relationship with recreational fishing groups, after he was asked whether he would meet stakeholders seeking input into the reforms.
He pointed to a previous meeting that did not proceed, saying some representatives had been “grossly discourteous and disrespectful” to NZ First MP Jenny Marcroft, and warning:
“I would not be willing to meet with people if that was the level of their disrespect … if that’s the way they treated her, you’ll get a different response if you talk to me like that.”
Pressed further on how he would engage with the sector, Jones said he himself was a recreational fisherman.
“I’m a recreational fisherman … I talk with myself.”
The Government was proposing sweeping changes to the Fisheries Act, aimed at making the industry more efficient, profitable, and quicker to respond to changes in fish stocks.
He previously called the reforms a “once-in-a-generation” overhaul of fishing rules. But earlier this year Jones was forced to back down on a contentious plan to scrap most minimum size limits for commercial fishers, effectively allowing them to land and sell baby fish, including snapper and tarakihi.
Later in the hearing, Jones has escalated his criticism of recreational fishing groups while defending his broader fisheries agenda, telling MPs he has “absolutely no granular knowledge” of their catches and accusing sector leaders of running a “medieval crusade” against commercial operators.
He contrasted reporting requirements between commercial and recreational fishing, arguing the latter was insufficiently monitored.
“I can tell you to the nth degree what the commercial sector catches in their quota, because they have to report every single kilo,” he said. “But I cannot tell you what the recreational takers are.”
Jones also dismissed recreational fishing leadership as “a very ill-informed group” and said they “resent any regulation of their activities”.
The remarks came during discussion of wider fisheries policy settings, including sustainability measures and the future balance between wild catch and aquaculture.
Jones argued that if commercial wild catch was reduced the country would need to rely more heavily on imported or farmed seafood.
“If we are going to reduce the wild catch of a commercial nature, then where’s the protein going to come from?” he said.
He pointed to imported fish products, arguing New Zealand would risk replacing high-quality domestic seafood with lower-standard overseas alternatives.
Jones also signalled a longer-term policy shift, saying his party would push for a new marine farming framework if returned to government.
“We will be pushing for a brand new marine farming act that is dedicated to accelerating fish farming in New Zealand,” he said.
He argued that global trends were moving toward reduced wild catch fisheries and greater reliance on aquaculture, and warned that recreational fishers would eventually find themselves at odds with environmental advocates.
“At the moment they think they are joined at the hip with the Greenies,” he said. “They are sadly mistaken.”
WWF‑New Zealand Communications Manager Caitlin Owers said the coalition Government had backed away from what she described as undemocratic, shoddy law‑making that put the demands of the fishing‑industry lobby ahead of the interests of New Zealanders when faced with a General Election — the ultimate test of mandate.
“This is a significant win for everyone who spoke up for a healthy ocean for future generations,” she said.
“The delay means New Zealanders will now have the chance to scrutinise where political parties stand on ocean protection before this legislation progresses any further, and will have an opportunity to make their voices heard on this issue at the voting booth.”
Seafood New Zealand says it is disappointed by the decision not to progress the bill this term.
Chief executive Lisa Futschek said the Bill contained “a range of practical reforms that modernises New Zealand’s fisheries management system and ensures it remains fit for purpose in a changing world,” describing it as an effort to move away from a slow, one‑size‑fits‑all process toward a more responsive framework.
Futschek said debate around the Bill had been dominated by claims and campaigns that did not accurately reflect many of the proposed changes. “A lot of attention was given to what people feared the Bill might do, rather than what the Bill actually did,” she said, adding that “some genuinely worthwhile reforms have been lost in the noise”.
She said the challenges the Bill sought to address had not disappeared, noting the sector operated in a highly regulated environment that must continue to evolve.