Oceans and Fisheries Minister Shane Jones is pushing for restrictions on the public release of footage from cameras installed on commercial fishing boats, arguing that allowing open access would amount to “state surveillance” and could unfairly damage the industry’s reputation.
His stance has sparked debate among environmental advocates, industry leaders, and government officials over the balance between transparency, regulatory oversight, and the rights of fishing operators.
A Controversial Measure for Industry Oversight
The rollout of on-board cameras, initially introduced to improve reporting and reduce bycatch of protected species such as dolphins and seals, has been one of the most significant regulatory changes in New Zealand’s fishing industry in recent years. Launched in 2022 and expanded to 158 vessels so far, the initiative aims to ensure compliance with fishing regulations and provide independent verification of reported catches.
However, Jones has been vocal about his opposition to making footage publicly accessible under the Official Information Act (OIA). While acknowledging that he lost the broader debate on the cameras’ implementation, he remains firm in his position that the footage should be restricted to government agencies for enforcement and regulatory purposes.
“I do not accept state surveillance of industry,” Jones told 1News’ Q+A. “I’m going to advocate as much as possible that camera footage be reserved for the state to undertake prosecutorial, regulatory, and educational [activities].”
Jones warned against what he called the “court of TikTok,” expressing concerns that activist groups could selectively use footage to misrepresent industry practices. “[It’s] the state’s place to make judgments about what’s in the recordings, not people burning bonfires and not Salem trials,” he added.
Proposed Changes to the Fisheries Act
Jones has proposed amendments to the Fisheries Act that would exempt camera footage from the OIA, preventing its release to the public. His justification includes privacy concerns for fishers, the protection of commercially sensitive information, and the risk of reputational damage to the industry.
The government’s consultation document, which is open for public feedback until March 28, outlines two options: allowing the Ombudsman to ensure publication practices align with the law or fully exempting footage from the OIA. The document acknowledges that exempting footage would result in a “small reduction of transparency” but argues it would provide greater privacy protections and regulatory certainty.
Prime Minister Christopher Luxon has stated that privacy concerns need to be considered, while Act Party leader David Seymour has also signalled reluctance to make footage widely available. “If you want to get to a world where the Government has cameras everywhere and people can then request footage as public information that’s been taken on your private property, I think that there’d be a lot of people who would say, ‘Hang on a minute, I’m not sure we want to go to that world,’” Seymour said.
Industry Reactions
The fishing industry itself is divided on the issue. Some companies, such as Moana Pacific, have voluntarily implemented cameras on nearly all their vessels, citing sustainability and accountability benefits. Moana Pacific Chair Mark Ngata noted that having cameras had helped the company make “good sustainability decisions” while acknowledging privacy concerns for workers.
However, other industry figures have expressed reservations about the cost of compliance and the potential misuse of footage. Seafood NZ Chief Executive Lisa Futschek welcomed Jones’ proposed changes, calling them a “win for consumers, common sense and sustainability.” Fishing company Sealord has also supported the idea of limiting footage access, arguing that selective video clips could be taken out of context to unfairly portray the industry.
Environmental Groups Push for Transparency
Conservation groups have strongly opposed Jones’ proposal, warning that restricting public access to the footage could undermine efforts to protect marine life and hold the industry accountable.
Greenpeace oceans campaigner Ellie Hooper said cameras were essential for transparency and preventing illegal or unethical fishing practices. “We’ve been given every excuse under the sun since cameras started being talked about a decade ago as to why it will not be possible to have cameras on commercial fishing boats,” she said. “If they’ve got nothing to hide, then they shouldn’t have anything to worry about.”
WWF New Zealand also criticised the proposed restrictions, with CEO Kayla Kingdon-Bebb arguing that the changes could weaken sustainability efforts. “Having cameras on boats provides much better reporting data, which is required to underpin an adaptive management approach,” she said.
University of Otago marine scientist Steve Dawson questioned the necessity of Jones’ push for privacy protections, noting that his own Official Information Act request to view footage for research purposes had been denied by the Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI). “If MPI won’t release footage even to bona fide marine scientists, I’d have thought that advocacy groups don’t have a chance,” he said.
Future of the Camera Programme Uncertain
As the consultation period continues, the future of the camera programme remains uncertain. While Jones has suggested that the programme itself could be overhauled, he has stopped short of confirming whether the expansion of cameras on additional vessels will proceed as planned.
MPI is currently reviewing industry feedback and preparing advice for the government on the next steps.