A cross-departmental group supposed to deliver holistic ocean management has been dissolved in a move slammed as short-sighted, but the minister responsible says he hadn’t seen it do anything.
Fisheries Minister Shane Jones announced he had dissolved the Oceans Secretariat earlier this week in a statement titled “Unnecessary bureaucracy cut in oceans sector”.
Jones said the move would streamline high-level oceans management, with relevant ministers only meeting on an as-needed basis “rather than regular meetings filled with officials”.
While probably not a major deal in itself, environmental groups feel dissolving the secretariat is just the latest in a string of biodiversity setbacks by the Government.
The Oceans Secretariat was set up in 2021, with the government of the day saying the current marine management system was too fragmented.
Supporting an oceans and marine ministerial group, the secretariat was hosted by the Department of Conservation and comprised officials from the Ministry for Primary Industries (including Fisheries) and the Ministry for the Environment.
“I can appreciate that they may feel that the Oceans Secretariat reshaping is another nail in the green coffin but they mustn’t overdramatize these things.”
Fisheries Minister Shane Jones
Former Oceans and Fisheries Minister (and Labour’s acting spokesperson) Rachel Brooking said it was alarming and short-sighted to remove the Oceans Secretariat.
“The secretariat works across government to prioritise the protection of our oceans and supports government agencies to work together for an ecosystems approach. Removing the secretariat and scrapping plans with no replacement for the Kermadec Marine Reserve shows this Government has no interest in the future of our oceans,” Brooking said.
They wanted it gone
Speaking to Newsroom, Shane Jones said the three government departments involved had actually submitted a paper on winding down the secretariat. He didn’t think it would have a noticeable impact or deserved to be catastrophised.
“I presume the civil servants themselves thought that how it actually operated and functioned under the last government didn’t make much sense and they wanted to repatriate the talent or the resource they had instead of contributing towards a secretariat.
“I never saw much evidence of what it actually did in practice. The paper basically invited us to go ahead and reshape it, and that’s what we’ve agreed to do.”
The briefing document from the relevant ministries, dated February 29, took a slightly different tone, saying that while in the past the departments had taken a more formalised cross-agency approach, it didn’t fit the current government.
“Given your oceans priorities are on advancing the 100-day plan, offshore renewable energy and aquaculture development, we recommend simplifying these [oceans secretariat] arrangements.”
Under the new approach, the departments said they would still work together on cross-cutting oceans issues and provide advice when needed.
“These arrangements would allow agencies to allocate resource to other priorities (such as fast track consenting and wider resource management reforms).”
Green Party environment spokesperson Lan Pham said winding up the secretariat perhaps wasn’t some end all be all, but it had to be seen in the wider context of the Government’s approach to environmental issues, including abandoning the Kermadec Ocean Sanctuary Bill, getting rid of mortality limits for sea lions and opening the door for more coal mines and gas drilling.
“The Greens campaigned in the last election that we thought that there was huge value in the establishment of an oceans commission and the secretariat was a starting point of that.
“We have all this legislation which touches on oceans but yet Fisheries or Conservation or the Environmental Protection Authority have different jurisdictions and then the regional councils have different jurisdictions and it’s a way to bring it all together.”
“I presume the civil servants themselves thought that how it actually operated and functioned under the last government didn’t make much sense and they wanted to repatriate the talent or the resource they had instead of contributing towards a secretariat.”
Fisheries Minister Shane Jones
Pham said for some reason, the Government was intent on going blind on things. “They don’t want the data to tell them fishing is impacting marine biodiversity, that it’s killing sea lions, that it’s killing dolphins and albatrosses.
“They’re happy to go in blind and make a quick buck.”
National’s policies
The move blindsided the Environmental Defence Society’s chief executive Gary Taylor who had met Jones and Prime Minister Christopher Luxon and urged the Government to continue with the Oceans Secretariat.
The importance of the secretariat was also expressed in an unofficial briefing to the incoming minister the Environmental Defence Society sent to Jones in December.
“It’s National Party policy, unaffected by any cross-cutting coalition agreements, to advance oceans reform and to explore the possibility of setting up an oceans commission and to explore the possibility of setting up an oceans commission to provide joined-up management of our cast ocean’s resource.”
“They’re happy to go in blind and make a quick buck.”
Green Party environment spokesperson Lan Pham
This is laid out in National’s “Blueprint for a Better Environment” policy document, which says it will integrate oceans management policy and consider establishing an oceans commission.
The document says, “A harmonised approach is essential for ensuring the sustainable management of our marine environment, considering treaty issues, current property rights of the fishing industry, and the responsibilities of different ministries.
Taylor said the secretariat was a precursor to this, “It’s made up of those entities that would need to be involved, getting together and talking about reform. This appears to be completely contradictory to existing National Party policy.”
This is not to say the change was against National’s wishes – the coalition has already gone against another element of National’s “Blueprint for a Better Environment” in halting the Kermadec Ocean Sanctuary, after the Cabinet decided to remove the bill that would have established it in late March.
Conservation Minister Tama Potaka and Environment Minister Penny Simmonds didn’t respond to requests for comment.
While Jones said it wasn’t something worth catastrophising, he could understand the perspective of environmental groups with fisheries protections facing set back after set back.
“I can appreciate that they may feel that the Oceans Secretariat reshaping is another nail in the green coffin but they mustn’t overdramatize these things.
“Our Government is highly driven to boost our economic performance because of the dire situation that we’re in and we need to address our balance of payments, and the way to do that is grow our exports.”
He said his dialogue with the green constituency had been robust, “But they’ve got to accept the country has voted for a change in direction, and when the nation votes in a particular way, such votes have consequences. And we’re now seeing some of the consequences.”
Greenpeace oceans campaigner Ellie Hooper said it was a short-sighted power grab by Jones that risked less Department of Conservation input.
“Getting rid of the Oceans Secretariat is another power grab by Shane Jones. It’s designed to keep the actual Department of Conservation – who are mandated to look after protected marine species – completely sidelined when it comes to decisions that will affect those very species including dolphins, fur seals, sea lions and endangered seabirds like the albatross.
“It’s simply another short-sighted move that favours industry profit over the wellbeing of the ocean and the planet.”
DOC influence
Early this month Fisheries Minister Shane Jones axed the acceptable death limit for sea lions in the southern squid trawl fishery, saying it was no longer necessary, despite evidence last year that the annual count of sea lion pups on the Auckland Islands was down by 30 percent.
A Ministry for Primary Industries’ release on the decision showed it had rejected options to set the acceptable death limit at 33 or 69, opting for no limit on the basis that the risk to sea lions had been mitigated by sea lion exclusion devices adopted by trawlers.
According to the Ministry 88 percent of sea lions that enter a midwater net and 57 percent that enter a bottom trawling net with a sea lion exclusion device make it out.
Between five and seven percent of the escaped sea lions run out of air and drown before reaching the surface.
“They’ve got to accept the country has voted for a change in direction, and when the nation votes in a particular way, such votes have consequences. And we’re now seeing some of the consequences.”
Shane Jones on changes to New Zealand’s environmental policies
The Department of Conservation had supported the lower of the two mortality options put to the minister.
“This is the only option that agrees with the bycatch reduction goal of the Aotearoa New Zealand Biodiversity Strategy,” it said in the document, dated mid-December but released this month.
On the proposal to remove the fishing related mortality limit altogether, the department acknowledged it wasn’t the most effective tool for managing fishing impacts on sealions, advocating for the development and adoption of a new coordinated approach to managing risk to the Antarctic sea lion populations.
The impact of fishing on vulnerable species has also become more clear as Jones looks at reviewing cameras on fishing boats.
Figures released by the Ministry for Primary Industries comparing stats with and without cameras, found a 3.5 times increase in report in Albatross incidents, a 6.8 times increase in dolphin incidents and a 46 percent increase in fish discarding.
Earlier associated figures also found a 12.8 multiple hike in undersized snapper being caught and returned to the oceans and a 9.5 times rise in the amount of kingfish being discarded.
“I can do it and I will” – Shane Jones has gone power mad. What about his conflict of interest in relation to fisheries, where is National’s commitment to evidence based decision making. Jones is roaring like a lion over a kill, trumpetting his power. I am truly frightened for our country and our future.
What a surprise, the fishing industry found under-reporting every mortality and bycatch statistic after cameras were installed! The imperative of having these on-board is obvious but that won’t stop Jones from removing them to sidle up to his masters.
A very small number of people in this our country voted for Jones’ sort of change. How can we stop this incredible damage?
Jones claims: “They’ve got to accept the country has voted for a change in direction, and when the nation votes in a particular way, such votes have consequences. And we’re now seeing some of the consequences.”
That might be true if we lived in a genuine democracy. When the commercial mass-media are mouthpieces for corporate self-interest – and those same corporates are both funding the Nats & ACT and systematically lobbying MPs, our democracy is somewhat flawed.
And let’s not mention future generations of Kiwis, who will inherit the economic consequences of the broken ecosystem that this government is leaving them.
How come a member of a party that received just over 6% of the vote last election has this much say? There is something wrong here with our democracy.