LegaSea's Oral Submission to Primary Production Select Committee

Added: 2026-05-31

[00:00:00]itself.

[00:00:02]Thank you. We'll see you later.

[00:00:03]>> seeing you later.

[00:00:05]Good luck.

[00:00:11]So, we have Katie Goodwin is Trish with you? Ah, there we are. We've got both on board.

[00:00:18]Welcome to the Primary Production Select Committee.

[00:00:21]Um, you have 20 minutes, so fire away.

[00:00:26]Thank you all. Uh, my name's Katie Goodwin. I'm a science advisor and communications advisor to Legacy.

[00:00:33]And today, chair, members of the committee, uh, today Legacy, we want to talk about trust.

[00:00:40]And what happens when it breaks. And why there is such widespread public opposition to the Fisheries Amendment Bill.

[00:00:48]New Zealanders were told, when the quota management system was introduced 40 years ago, that it would deliver sustainable fisheries.

[00:00:55]That it would put management on a scientific footing. That it would guarantee abundance in fish for our future generations.

[00:01:03]That was the promise. The public accepted it. They trusted the system and the people running it to deliver.

[00:01:10]What we got instead was four decades of declining inshore stocks, of data that masked the truth about what was happening on the water, and of management decisions that consistently prioritized the interest of commercial quota holders above the health of our fish and the rights of the public.

[00:01:29]And the cameras proved it. Cuz when onboard cameras were deployed, reported discards increased by 46%.

[00:01:37]Kingfish discard reports went up by 850% and undersized snapper discard reports went up by 1,180%.

[00:01:49]These were not new practices. They were old practices finally made visible to the public.

[00:01:55]The cameras did not change what was happening on the water.

[00:01:59]They changed what we knew about it. And what we learned was that the system that we'd been told was working was in fact not working.

[00:02:08]The public were not wrong to lose trust.

[00:02:11]The evidence shows they were right not to have had it in the first place.

[00:02:16]Tarakihi stocks on the northeast coast have declined. The rock lobster stock on the northeast coast has collapsed.

[00:02:23]The blue nose stocks have been under pressure for years, and in each case the management indicator catch per unit effort said everything was fine while the stocks were falling.

[00:02:34]The instrument was measuring the wrong thing.

[00:02:38]The warnings from independent scientists were not heated, and the decisions that could have protected those stocks were not made by officials.

[00:02:47]That is a management failure. It's not bad luck. It's not unpredictable.

[00:02:53]It's a failure of a system that was designed to produce a number that justified carrying on rather than a number that told the truth.

[00:03:02]And now we have immense public opposition. The public have responded in the tens of thousands when over 33,000 people have submitted their objections through Legacy alone.

[00:03:14]And this bill responds by removing the consultation obligations that currently give us a voice, limiting judicial review to window that most people cannot use, and exempting camera footage from public access.

[00:03:30]The system that failed our fish is now being insulated from scrutiny by the people it failed.

[00:03:37]Our coastal communities are struggling to reconcile the narrative of green ticks when they can see that our fish are disappearing off the coast.

[00:03:45]Those wheeling, screaming schools of seabirds chasing kahawai are long gone, and the ripple and rush of trevally schools are a silent memory.

[00:03:55]There are a few fish in the water. The intertidal zone is barren and there's no meaningful management response to defend the ecosystem that supports our marine life.

[00:04:06]And the public response?

[00:04:08]Our public have responded in a variety of ways to the the depletion they see daily.

[00:04:15]The proliferation of local area closures are a symptom of a much wider management failure.

[00:04:21]We can't keep expecting Ewi and Hapu to keep picking up the tab by applying customary management tools and temporary closures.

[00:04:30]Sometimes these closure proposals create conflict in the community.

[00:04:34]And that's not unexpected as everyone struggles to defend what is left after years of industrial fishing.

[00:04:42]So members of this committee, you're being asked to pass a bill that makes it easier to repeat the failures of the past 40 years.

[00:04:51]Then makes it harder for the public to know it is happening.

[00:04:56]We here today asking you to refuse.

[00:04:59]Trust once broken is not easily rebuilt.

[00:05:04]The public gave the system 40 years.

[00:05:08]They've watched our fish stocks decline.

[00:05:11]They've watched the cameras reveal what the data had hidden.

[00:05:14]And they are here today in their thousands because they've run out of patience.

[00:05:20]They understand that what is left of our fisheries cannot afford another 40 years of the same.

[00:05:27]They understand that you are the only people who can turn this bill around.

[00:05:33]So reject this bill and begin the work of building something the public can actually trust.

[00:05:40]So thank you and I'd like to ask for any questions from members online or in person. Certainly, we'll go to Solomon Court first.

[00:05:52]Oh, great. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[00:05:54]Um Thanks, Katie.

[00:05:57]Look, I'm really interested is uh how how you think in your submission that the implementation of the changes means the minister won't be able to comply with Fisheries Act.

[00:06:13]How is that possible? Why do you think that?

[00:06:17]Trish, would you like to answer?

[00:06:20]Sure.

[00:06:22]Thank you, Solomon. Uh the bottom line is that the minister has to comply with the purpose and principles of the Fisheries Act, and the current bill uh does not put sustainability um as the bottom line.

[00:06:39]So, um yeah, the minister will be able to make decisions uh without him information from the public, um and part of the decision-making process at the moment is to actually consult with the public, uh take into account uh people's views, and ensure that the productivity of the marine environment remains so that the foreseeable needs of future generations are provided for.

[00:07:11]And all while having particular regard to quality of the quota, and none of those uh elements uh that we see are in the current bill.

[00:07:24]Okay. Thanks. Thanks, Mr. Chair.

[00:07:27]Uh Steve.

[00:07:30]Thank you, uh Mr. Chair, and thank you both for your very strong submission. It's very clear that you are asking us to throw out the bill in its entirety.

[00:07:39]>> [sighs and gasps] >> But, you allude to the 40-year regime we've had uh under the quota management system, how effective do you think it's been broadly? Or do you think there are fundamental structural problems with it, so a bill like this should be tightening it even further?

[00:07:59]Now, trust you want to answer? I can. Um yeah, Steve, look, the the fundamentals of the quota management system, you know, like 40 years ago were were okay.

[00:08:11]It's just been corrupted over time. It's the implementation that has failed over time.

[00:08:18]Um the idea that that you have a certain amount of catch and and in a particular area.

[00:08:26]Um yeah, but that was in conjunction with a Fisheries Act that said you've got to um yeah, take into account the wider ecosystem as well as the target species.

[00:08:40]You have to take into account the non-target species and the impact that you're having on the marine environment.

[00:08:47]If you put all that together, uh you know, the quota management system, if it was managed with the Fisheries Act as it was intended, would be probably okay.

[00:09:02]>> [clears throat] >> Just a follow up on that, Mr. Chair.

[00:09:04]Yep.

[00:09:06]So, do you think that it's sort of been a a death by a thousand cuts in a sense to uh an effective working of that system and this bill represents kind of a an even greater extension of that um undermining of the original uh vision?

[00:09:23]Absolutely, because everything depends on maintaining fish abundant fish stocks.

[00:09:31]And over time, that that level of, you know, the level that we manage for stocks at has been argued down and down and down. And so now we're we're at the stage where instead of asking or you know, having fish stocks managed at B40 B50, um we're now talking about fish stocks that are at B20 B10 and maybe even below. So, you know, so now we're getting closed areas and now we're getting closed fisheries when we should all be you know, happy and abundant fisheries.

[00:10:10]Yeah.

[00:10:11]Rightly. Um thanks, Tia. Um thanks, Katie and Trish. I've got lots of questions, but I think I'm going to stick to one around data, actually.

[00:10:19]Um you know, data allows us, obviously, to make really good decisions and I think one of the challenges that's been raised is yes, we do capture good data from commercial fishing.

[00:10:31]I guess there is a question how how much we capture from from um the reef fishing side, but then also, do we have good enough data on what's actually left?

[00:10:39]Yes, we can we can say this is what we're seeing and we obviously have a lot of tools that are used by industry to capture the data of what's left in the sea, but do you have any observations around the quality of the data we have across our fish stocks and what we need to do to improve the data to actually help us make better decisions?

[00:11:00]Good question.

[00:11:02]Yeah.

[00:11:03]Uh yeah, so the Fisheries Act covers off the fact that there's any doubt, the minister must act with caution, right? And so yes, we know how many fish are are landed by commercial fishers. We don't actually know how many fish are actually die in that process, um but the Fisheries Act enables the minister to set aside an to allow for the fish that died in the fishing process.

[00:11:37]Um and in terms of non-commercial fishing, the Minister has an obligation to set aside enough fish to provide for customary Maori needs.

[00:11:50]Um and also set aside enough fish to allow for uh recreational take.

[00:11:58]All right? And if there again if there's any doubt about that, then act with caution, Minister, and be you know, be conservative about how much fish you give this year because next year if you've got it wrong and there's more fish than what you thought, then give a little bit more, but always err on the side of caution.

[00:12:23]Thank you. Um we're moving now to Grant McCallum. Now, I've got a question. Um do you think there's a distinction as you look at the fishery overall in the QMS?

[00:12:32]Um in the in the in the time of the fish stocks and so forth, a distinction between the inshore and the deepwater fishery? Do you draw any kind of distinction to that and see them as different fisheries or or as one total?

[00:12:44]Yeah, they inshore and our deepwater fishery are very different fisheries.

[00:12:49]Our inshore fishery has very different stresses and different stakeholders as well uh compared to the deepwater. And so we need to have a management system that manages the two separately because one thing may work for our deepwater, but something else may not work for our inshore stocks.

[00:13:10]So um sorry. Um You talked a bit about Hang on, I'm just going to go through my notes here.

[00:13:17]Um areas that have collapsed or collapsing fisheries um due to the quota a system.

[00:13:27]We had um a number of submitters this morning talking about um particularly cray eight, which is down at the southwest of the South Island and around the bottom of the South Island where the uh fisheries have been rebuilt over the since 1992, I think it was QMS.

[00:13:47]Because of the QMS, why would it have worked there where it hasn't worked, in your opinion, um and um other areas?

[00:14:00]Uh several reasons for that. One, it's it is an abundant fishery and it has very good environmental conditions to allow crayfish to thrive down there.

[00:14:12]Um two, the um you know, the the crayfish fishery is is is uh managed by commercial interests.

[00:14:25]Obviously, in the interests and for many years uh after the fishery was rebuilt because it it it did get to a very very low level and took quite a while for it to rebuild. But once it rebuilt, uh the markets that the commercial people found uh preferred a particular size crayfish.

[00:14:50]So, for many years they have left the bigger ones, put the bigger ones back in the water, and taken the the medium-grade fish. Um so, they have had uh by default, they have been maintaining the population purely uh and luckily for us, obviously, it is and and the fish is because the the um marketable fish were not the most productive. So, the big daddies, big mamas were being put back in the water.

[00:15:26]And they were having lots of good quality babies amongst themselves.

[00:15:31]That's the short answer.

[00:15:33]And is that not the case in the cray one, for example?

[00:15:38]Well, cray one is a is a completely different fishery altogether.

[00:15:44]Uh the environmental conditions are different. Um and uh cray one commercial effort uh and recreational effort has been concentrated on the East Coast for uh a very long time. Um but as the East Coast has become depleted, commercial effort has moved to the West Coast, which is more productive, and out to the Three Kings Islands.

[00:16:10]Um so there's completely different uh stresses in that fishery. And obviously, you know, with uh more people fishing and with a greater population on the coastline, there are uh places that have more environmental uh you know, and land management issues than they do out at the Three Kings.

[00:16:33]Yeah, and I think on Trisha's point as well, it's important to have that localized management because a lot of our fisheries are managed across really vast areas. Mhm. Um and it doesn't account for those differences and abundance and stresses across that wide area.

[00:16:51]Okay, uh um Just a quick follow up on that, if it's all right. Yep. Um just so just on that point. So, cuz like cray one's quite a large area. Um my understanding is that the parts of it of the the cray the crayfish is in reasonably good shape up the top, as you've been talking about, on the top of the country. This is the the and other localized areas where there's been more fishing pressure and more uh environmental pressure.

[00:17:15]Would that be fair comment? Do they need to be managed differently even within an area like Cray 1.

[00:17:23]Um I think yeah, we've been advocating in our submissions over the a number of years to split the quota management [clears throat] area for Cray 1.

[00:17:31]Okay. Okay. Thank you.

[00:17:34]Any further questions?

[00:17:37]Right.

[00:17:39]Oh, Steve.

[00:17:47]My phone is heating up because I'm in 4G, so it just it's cooking and not working so well. Um my my question is just about the extent of um public feeling that you've been the recipients of as Legacy in terms of obviously you said 33,000 submissions you received on this bill, but over the course of the last year or so in terms of fisheries amendments, what what sort of um public feeling are you receiving on on on this these matters?

[00:18:18]Well, in so in the reform proposals last year in 2025, we had over 25,000 people opposed the initial reform proposals. And in this year, we had 33,000 uh Kiwis opposed the proposals. And we were at the boat show over the weekend, and I just wanted to say the amount of people who were aware of the bill and were so concerned for the future of our fisheries and our future generations was immense. We were getting people to stick a fish on the wall, the killed the fisheries amendment bill, and my golly, there were thousands of stickers on that wall. So, Kiwis are aware, and they are really concerned.

[00:19:01]Thank you.

[00:19:05]All right, thank you very much, Katie and Trish. Really appreciate your submission. Yeah.

[00:19:11]Um and we'll move on.

[00:19:14]Thank you. Thank Thanks your time. See you. Thank you.