I went to school and university in Dunedin in the 1980s. It was a great decade for music (hello Dunedin Sound), a questionable decade for fashion (goodbye leg-warmers) and both the best and worst of times for commercial fishing.
Not that I knew that at the time. The excesses of some types of fishing in that decade and the subsequent introduction of the quota management system (QMS) to manage our fisheries was happening outside of my orbit, as I completed my five years at Otago Girls’ High School and started my degrees in music and English at the University of Otago.
If you were coming of age in the ’80s like me, you will remember the kind of technology we had at our disposal in that decade. Notices from high school were sent home to your parents on paper. I remember poring over the microfiche at the library.
If you were planning a night out at a student pub, you had to get organised beforehand and go to the post office to withdraw your funds. There was no internet, no email, no cash machines and no cellphones.
It might not seem that long ago to many of us, but everything was paper based and manual. And that’s when the QMS and the Fisheries Amendment Act that control commercial fishing in New Zealand were enacted — in 1986.
Forty years later, I am in Wellington (although still a dyed-in-the-wool Dunedinite) where I work as the CEO of industry body Seafood New Zealand.
I have been in the role for less than a year, but it’s been encouraging to learn how commercial fishing has evolved. The work to make the whole industry more sustainable has borne fruit in a number of ways.
In general, the quota management system works well, and it has delivered an outcome where 97% of our fish stocks by volume are in good shape today.
However, many of the rules that were introduced in 1986 need an update. That’s the origin of the proposed amendments to the Fisheries Act, which are in the consultation phase right now.
In 2017, major changes to our fisheries reporting system started. We moved from the slow, error-ridden paper-based system to an electronic near real-time system which included precise GPS locations. Then in 2021 the roll-out of on-board camera monitoring began.
Now, in 2025, we have electronic reporting for all commercial fishing — we know where and what’s being caught while it is happening. All catch, including accidental capture of protected species, must be recorded.
To ensure this reporting is accurate, over 190 inshore (smaller) vessels have cameras and dozens more will be getting them. Deepwater vessels have around 50% observer coverage.
What this means is that we now have a lot more data a lot faster and we can trust it. But these days some of the ways of making decisions about our fisheries are out of date.
Why? Because our legislation didn’t envisage, and therefore doesn’t provide for us to draw on, the new technologies we are using and the data they deliver.
The proposed changes to the Fisheries Act seek to bring that up to date. It seems like common sense to us to use the information you get from electronic reporting and cameras to manage our fisheries more effectively and regularly. The current approach is very resource intensive and out of 642 fish stocks in the QMS, only about 20-30 go through a catch limit review each year.
We strongly support the proposed changes, but you may have heard concerns about the proposals from very vocal lobby groups. For example, they suggest the changes will make the system less transparent by reducing camera monitoring — not true. Cameras and electronic monitoring are staying put. In fact we need them for a more responsive system.
The consultation seeks to restrict public access to the camera footage for privacy reasons — this is similar to how other government-collected industry information is protected. However, to ensure transparency, the Ministry for Primary Industries will continue to publish the information collected from cameras on its website.
Detractors are also suggesting that a more responsive, fast-reacting system will somehow be less democratic. Also not true. The proposed changes would still require the minister to consult widely with the public and tangata whenua for all decisions on managing our fisheries.
What it does mean is that after a consultation, a plan could be put in place for a particular fishery for up to five years. This gives more certainty and transparency about how a fish stock will be managed in that time. If unexpected changes are detected in a fishery within those five years, officials can step in to address them.
A lot has changed over four decades. I welcome it. Change can be a very good thing. Just imagine if we were still writing out cheques and scrabbling in pockets for coins to make a phone call.
Updating our fisheries legislation will help the whole system be more efficient. That in turn, will help keep our fishers in business, which keeps the fish available to all of us.
Fish ’n’ and chips at St Clair Beach anyone?
• Lisa Futschek is the chief executive of industry body Seafood New Zealand.
