A proposed law to protect the Hauraki Gulf/Tīkapa Moana is being amended to allow some commercial fishing in high protection areas, and people aren’t happy about it. The details so far are few, but here’s what we do know.

On Sunday, traditionally a day for sleeping, praying and eating roast meat, environmentalist groups fired up. Minister of conservation Tama Potaka had released a statement about the Hauraki Gulf/Tīkapa Moana Marine Protection Bill, which proposes to extend marine protection over the gulf. It appeared to be mostly good news: cabinet had agreed to pass the bill, but with amendments. Among the nice platitudes about “restoring the health and mauri” there was “ring-net fishing will continue… in protected areas”. The thorn among the roses did not go unnoticed. 

Environmental groups sent out press releases, spoke to journalists, created social media videos and wrote open letters addressed to the prime minister for the public to sign. Hauraki mayor and co-chair of the Hauraki Gulf forum Toby Adams said the move was “like a kick in the face”, while WWF described it as a “betrayal of Aucklanders”, asking people to sign an open letter pleading for a reversal of “this rash, last-minute decision”. Forest and Bird posted a video of its Hauraki Gulf campaigner Bianca Ranson saying this change set a “dangerous precedent”. Then, the headlines appeared, most along the lines of “Campaigners slam ‘unconscionable’ last-minute permit for commercial fishing in Hauraki Gulf sanctuary”. 

We’ve covered the bill before, and so were in a good position to put together one of our in-depth explainers on the changes everyone was so angry about. I settled into my wheelie chair on Monday afternoon and set about finding all the details.

There was just one problem. There were hardly any. 

So what do we know about the changes?

“Limited ring-net fishing will continue for a small number of fishers in protected areas who supply local communities,” said that short media release from Potaka. “This method has very little impact on the environment beyond the target species.”

When questioned in the house by opposition MPs on Tuesday afternoon, Potaka revealed a few more details. He said the final drafting of the bill was yet to be done, but “a small number of known fishers who operate on very small waka no bigger than six metres” would be allowed to ring-net fish between March and August in protected areas to supply four species to local communities. The arrangement would be reviewed every three years. “We will make sure there are relevant conditions that make this a very small and narrow exception,” said Potaka.

Word on the street is that the amendments respond to one particular submission (out of 7,677 submissions) made late in the select committee process (it’s worth noting the select committee did not recommend this amendment). The submission, penned by three fishers on behalf of commercial net fishers fishing within the gulf, said that for six months of the year most of their key fishing grounds are located within the proposed high protection areas (HPAs). They said that with their ring-net methods, “there is very little or no bycatch of fish, other marine life, or disturbance of seaweed or benthic habitats”. The fishers also said “the fish we supply daily is the freshest and most affordable source of protein available and is a cultural favourite amongst Māori and Pacific Island communities”.

This appears to be the information fisheries minister Shane Jones referred to in an interview with the Sunday Star Times. He cited the cost of living crisis and the provision of protein to Māori and Pacific Island communities in South Auckland as reasons to allow this fishing. Jones also said, “the amount and the locations that we’re talking about are not inordinately large. In fact, the commercial industry is most displeased that these concessions are so tiny.”

What’s the deal with the fishing method, and what are they catching?

Exactly what ring-net fishing means in this context is unclear. In their submission, the fishers said “our fishing is 100% sustainable as demonstrated by fishing in the same areas for 30 years”. They described it as “small scale, highly targeted, very clean with little to no unwanted catch”, targeting grey mullet, kahawai, trevally and rig/spotty dogfish, which are not generally considered key species for conservation. In the 2023 State of our Gulf report, insufficient information was available to determine the status of grey mullet and rig. Kahawai and trevally were around target levels. 

Importantly, the fishers said that because of sedimentation and pollution, “We have no alternative fishing areas within the inner Gulf that are available to us.” 

Of course, the submission is written by people who do not support the bill. The first red flag is easy to spot. Even with the new high protection areas, fishing will only be prohibited in only about 6% of the gulf – is there really no other places to fish in the remaining 94% of it? One marine scientist I emailed said he found it “hard to believe”.

Another marine scientist, Tom Trnski, head of natural sciences at the Auckland Museum, said the four types of fish they are targeting are highly migratory, so are not found only within the areas that will be protected. “They don’t go hide… They move around the entire gulf,” he said. “They will not go broke if they can’t fish in those areas.”

The fishers submission says that ring-net fishing has “very little or no bycatch”. Trnski gives this a bit of a side-eye – “saying it doesn’t have much bycatch tells you something, it still has bycatch”. He says the nets target fish based on their size, so “will still catch non-target species of the same size, plus sea birds, potentially sharks, and you know, in rare instances, turtles”.

I wanted to ask official sources about ring-fishing and its environmental impacts, but Fisheries New Zealand palmed me off to the Department of Conservation, which said it couldn’t comment because the bill is still before parliament. Niwa said I should go to Fisheries NZ. I went back to them and they said “we’re aware there are a range of views regarding ring fishing. We’ve got no comment to make on that specific submission.” Shane Jones’s press secretary referred me to Potaka, since it’s technically his bill. I did not receive a reply from Potaka’s office.

Are there any other changes?

It would appear so. According to Potaka’s release, “Our amendments also ensure we are putting in place modern marine protection that balances the needs of communities, the environment and the economy. For example, by carefully ensuring the continuation of customary non-commercial fishing rights.” Allowing customary take within the protected areas is already part of the bill. Part 1 reads “This Act must be interpreted and administered so as to give effect to the principles of te Tiriti o Waitangi/the Treaty of Waitangi.” So it’s not clear what these amendments are referring to.

Why all the fire?

The Hauraki Gulf/Tīkapa Moana Marine Protection Bill has been in the making for over a decade. In that time, the public has become well aware that the Hauraki Gulf is facing ecological problems and is under pressure from fishing, contamination from surrounding land use and climate change.

First there was the 2017 Sea Change Marine Spatial Plan, which made 180 recommendations for managing the gulf. Then there was a four-year wait until the government responded with a plan for the future of the Hauraki Gulf Marine Park/Tīkapa Moana that was announced in 2021. A bill was finally introduced to parliament by the previous government on August 22, 2023, passing its first reading a week later under urgency. 

The final report from the select committee was presented on June 20 this year, with only minor recommended changes. Many involved in environmental and marine protection celebrated. The report said that although many submitters requested changes to the protection areas, the proposed areas were the result of an extensive consultation period, were “both pragmatic and fair”, and any changes “would upset this balance”.

Opposition to the changes announced on Sunday was in part due to their sudden and last-minute nature. In a statement, Hauraki Gulf Forum co-chair Nicola MacDonald said that years of collaboration by successive governments with iwi, communities and industry had been undermined. WWF-New Zealand’s CEO Kayla Kingdon-Bebb suggested the changes were a result of “sleazy, backdoor lobbying” that “makes a mockery of all the years of work”. 

Groups like Forest and Bird and Live Ocean also pointed to the undermining of the integrity of the high protection areas and the reason they exist – to protect. Trnski said that allowing even limited ring-net fishing “will reduce the benefits of the marine protected areas and high protection areas”. That’s because protection is about whole ecosystems, not just individual species. 

What’s next?

The third reading of the bill in parliament is expected to be soon. Perhaps only then will we see the full details of the changes, but the groups that have been working for these protections for over a decade are unlikely to give up in the final months of the fight.