Following an amendment to Hauraki Gulf / Tīkipa Moana Marine Protection Bill last month I made an Official Information Act (OIA) request to Fisheries New Zealand (FNZ) asking for data on customary fishing inside the 12 proposed High Protection Areas (HPAs).
The request had two parts:
- Customary fishing data (2022–present) – including authorisations, catch returns, or summaries.
- Any reports or analyses (since 2022) assessing the potential biodiversity impacts of customary fishing inside HPAs.
The reason for this request was simple: without knowing how much customary fishing occurs in these areas, it is impossible to assess whether the HPAs will deliver the biodiversity outcomes the public has been told to expect. I asked for and received this data in 2022 but it was in poor shape.
The response from Fisheries New Zealand
FNZ declined my request the day after the house had finished debating the amendment.
- They stated that under current regulations, authorised representatives are not required to report what they have approved or what has been caught under a customary authorisation.
- Some representatives voluntarily provide authorisation records, but FNZ treats this information as confidential. The request was declined under section 9(2)(ba)(i) of the OIA, which allows withholding to protect information supplied in confidence.
- FNZ confirmed that it has not produced any internal or external reports or analyses quantifying the biodiversity impacts of customary fishing in the HPAs. This part of the request was refused under section 18(e) – on the basis that no such documents exist.
In short: FNZ does not hold comprehensive customary catch data for the Gulf HPAs and has not assessed the biodiversity implications of customary fishing in these areas.
What has changed in the law
Originally, the Marine Protection Bill required biodiversity objectives for HPAs, and customary fishing had to align with them. That safeguard was contained in Clause 66 and Section 19.
But in July 2025, the Government amended the Bill. The amendment removed the link between biodiversity objectives and customary fishing. Customary non-commercial fishing in HPAs will now be regulated solely under the Fisheries Act 1996, with no requirement to align with biodiversity objectives (AP No 260).
This means biodiversity objectives will no longer manage customary fishing at all.
Why this is disappointing
The Environmental Defence Society has stated it is “concerning that customary fishing will not be subject to biodiversity objectives.”
I think the changes create a serious gap in marine protection:
- Unknown fishing pressure: We do not know how much customary fishing will take place in HPAs because reporting is not mandatory.
- No biodiversity safeguard: There is no mechanism to ensure customary fishing aligns with biodiversity objectives for HPAs.
- No impact analysis: FNZ has done no work to estimate the ecological effects of customary fishing within these areas.
- Public confidence undermined: HPAs are promoted as “high protection,” yet the level of protection is uncertain and potentially weak.
The bottom line
The Gulf desperately needs effective marine protection. But protection must be real, not just symbolic. Right now, FNZ cannot say how many fish will be removed from HPAs, nor what impact that removal will have on biodiversity.
Worse, the recent amendments to the Bill mean biodiversity objectives—the very tool designed to ensure ecological recovery—no longer apply to customary fishing.
That is deeply disappointing. If HPAs are to succeed, they must be based on evidence, transparency, and enforceable biodiversity objectives. Anything less risks creating “protected” areas in name only.
Together with the allowance for commercial fishing in two of the HPAs, the reality falls far short of what the public expects from “high protection.” As MP Lan Pham put it in the House this week:
“My proposed amendment is to actually replace the definition of ‘High Protection Area’ with ‘Compromised Protected Area’.”
It’s hard to disagree.