No more NZ Fish for NZ First

Petition to remove Ocean and Fisheries Portfolio from Minister Shane Jones and NZ First.

 

We, the public, believe that there is substantial evidence of breaches of public trust, ministerial rules, Cabinet rules, and the Coalition Agreement sufficient to justify the immediate removal of Minister Shane Jones from the Oceans and Fisheries portfolio.

 

The request is based on continuing concerns relating to:

 

1.      Breach of Cabinet rules. According to the official Govt and beehive website.

2.      Loss of confidence from the public. 

3.      Lengthy and well documented public perception of Conflict. 

 

Breach of Cabinet Rules as outlined below;

Rule 2.55 – Continues to 2.56 – 

In all of these roles and at all times, Ministers are expected to act lawfully and behave in a way that upholds, and is seen to uphold, the highest ethical and behavioural standards. This includes exercising a professional approach and good judgement in their interactions with the public, staff, and officials, and in all their communications, personal and professional. Ultimately, all Ministers are accountable to the Prime Minister for their behaviour.

Recent instances where this minister has gone against rule 2.56.

1)      23rd March 2026. In a live interview, Shane Jones stated that Fisherman Matt Watson had small genitals and acted in such a way because of it.

2)      Earlier in February he called Darren Shields (Multi time world and national record holder) “Just some Weekend Spearfisherman)

3)      January he called Protesters at OOP, Snaperallas, Drama Queens, Instagram kings and queens and Yamaha-Kawasaki Hikoi Experts

4)      In August 2024, Jones referred to High Court Justice Cheryl Gwyn as a "communist judge"

 

2.60 - Ministers are responsible for ensuring that no conflict exists or appears to exist between their personal interests and their public duty. Ministers must conduct themselves at all times in the knowledge that their role is a public one; appearances and propriety can be as important as actual conflicts of interest. Ministers should avoid situations in which they or those close to them gain remuneration or other advantage from information acquired only by reason of their office.

Instances where a perceived Conflict of Interest exists

1)      Brother – Trustee at Quota owner. Chair of Te Rūnanga Nui o Te Aupōuri – Who oversee ACE Quota and Aquaculture. Ko Tenei Matou | About Us. Financial report 2025 found here - https://www.teaupouri.iwi.nz/koteneimatou

2)      Son – Penetau Klescovic - General Manager at Te Aupouri (Same as above), According to Bio at Penetaui Kleskovic, Penetaui Kleskovic. Also Councillor in the Far North

3)      Wine & oysters meeting with fishing bosses
Within weeks of becoming Fisheries Minister, Jones met with senior seafood industry figures privately (Moana NZ, Sealord, Talley’s, Sanford etc.), which critics labelled a conflict of interest in policy influence.

4)      The New Zealand Herald article reported that Jones received a $5,000 donation from Aimex Group, - Aimex are the company contracted to install the Cameras. The director is also the owner of WestFleet, who was caught by these very cameras to be illegally reporting catch. He then campaigned against the very cameras he is paid to install. The same cameras that had an 80% failure rate in the first year. The same Cameras Jones is trying to remove OIA access to.

5)      Constant disclosed and strongly suspected undisclosed Political donations from Seafood Sector.

6)      Previous Chairman of Sealords 2001-2005

7)      chaired the Treaty of Waitangi Fisheries Commission (Te Ohu Kaimoana) from 2000 to 2004.

8)      When entering Politics in 2005, he instantly started receiving donations from Talleys and Sealords.

9)      In August 2024, Jones referred to High Court Justice Cheryl Gwyn as a "communist judge" during a private meeting with seafood industry representatives discussing Māori customary rights under the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Act. – Reprimanded by Judith Collins

10) A 2025 poll cited by the Integrity Institute found that 85% of New Zealanders believe Jones cannot be trusted to manage fisheries impartially due to perceived loyalties to commercial operators – Ref Integrity Briefing: Fishy Influence – How the fishing industry captured Shane Jones

11) Over $100,000 in documented contributions from seafood companies and executives have flowed to Jones and his party, New Zealand First, since 2017.

12) Seafood giant Sanford Ltd chipped in $12,000 to NZ First during 2024, at the very time it was seeking government approvals for new salmon farms –

13) In 2017, Labour Refused to give the Fisheries Portfolio to Shane Jones and NZ First. Well aware of decades of industry ties and donations

14) Polls show that 57% say MPs who accept fishing industry money have no business being the Fisheries Minister. Such distrust is unprecedented – but then, so is Jones’ situation: he is arguably the most conflicted Fisheries Minister in modern NZ history. Ref Integrity Briefing: Fishy Influence – How the fishing industry captured Shane Jones

2.63 A conflict of interest may be pecuniary (that is, arising from the Minister’s direct financial interests) or non-pecuniary (concerning, for example, a member of the Minister’s family). A conflict of interest may be direct or indirect. Ministers must consider all types of interest when assessing whether any of their personal interests may conflict with, or be perceived to conflict with, their ministerial responsibilities.

Non Pecuniary Perceived conflicts of interest.

1)      We refer to Secion 2.60, statements 1 & 2. Regarding Shane Jones Son and Shane Jones brother, both being involved in senior roles where Quota and ACE are allocated.

2.65 A conflict may arise if people close to a Minister, such as a Minister’s family, whānau, or close associates, might derive, or be perceived as deriving, some personal, financial, or other benefit from a decision or action by the Minister or the government. Ministers must therefore be careful not to use information they access in the course of their official activities in a way that might provide some special benefit to their family members, whānau, or close associates. Passing on commercially sensitive information, or encouraging others to trade on the basis of such information, may also breach the insider trading regime.

1.      Wine & oysters meeting with fishing bosses
Within weeks of becoming Fisheries Minister, Jones met with senior seafood industry figures privately (Moana NZ, Sealord, Talley’s, Sanford etc.), which critics labelled a conflict of interest in policy influence.

2.      The New Zealand Herald article reported that Jones received a $5,000 donation from Aimex Group, - Aimex are the company contracted to install the Cameras. The director is also the owner of WestFleet, who was caught by these very cameras to be illegally reporting catch. He then campaigned against the very cameras he is paid to install. The same cameras that had an 80% failure rate in the first year. The same Cameras Jones is trying to remove OIA access to.

 

2.66 Similarly, it may not be appropriate for Ministers to participate in decision-making on matters affecting family members, whānau, or close associates, for example, by:

(a) attempting to intercede on their behalf on some official matter;

(b) proposing family members for appointments; or

(c) participating in decisions that will affect the financial position of a family member.

 

·       We refer to both Shanes Son and his brother who are both senior executives at Quota Holder and ACE holder entities. Thus, meaning rules that Shane Jones makes or promotes, directly impact the financial position of said family members.

 

2.68 Public perception is a very important factor. If a conflict arises in relation to the interests of family, whānau, or close associates, Ministers should take appropriate action.

 

·       Multiple and continual meetings with shareholders in NZ’s largest fishing companys, lobby groups and Quota holders. Mr Jones continues to not apologise and calls himself the apostle of the industry. In one instance claiming “I owe the seafood industry and substantial gratitude” – He has done nothing to take appropriate action here.

 

2.70 Ministers should take care, however, to ensure that they do not become associated with non-government organisations or community groups where:

(a) the group’s objectives may conflict with government policy;

(b) the organisation is a lobby group; or

(c) the organisation receives or applies for Govt funding

 

Instances

 

1)      Meeting and dinner with Seafood NZ, Lobby Group

2)      Meetings with Sealord and Seafood execs. Groups objectives

 

2.85 It is a valid and appropriate aspect of a Minister’s role to engage with representatives of non-government and commercial organisations. Care should be taken, however, to avoid creating a perception that representatives or lobbyists from any one organisation or group enjoy an unfair advantage with the government.

Further to 2.85 – Rule 3.10 Ministers have a duty to give fair consideration and due weight to free and frank advice provided by the public service.

 

·       Jones and Co have never shown any consideration for any group other than the commercial sector and the lobby groups. Some examples below;

 

3.57 The relationship between Ministers and companies in the public sector differs from the relationship between Ministers and agencies in the public service. Although the nature of the relationship with a particular company will vary, some general principles are common to all.

(c) Avoidance of conflict between public duty and personal interests: As in all areas of their portfolio responsibilities, Ministers should take care to ensure that no conflict exists or appears to exist between their public duty and their personal interests

 

·       There has never been an occasion where the minister has taken any care or recourse to ensure or attempt to show that no conflict exists and specifically non appears to exist in the many instances when the appearance of conflict is prevalent.

 

Further to the above examples there have been previous precidents set by other ministers who have been asked to step aside, forced to step aside, or had portfolios removed for far less than what Minister Jones and NZ First have been doing blatantly and arrogantly right in the publics faces for decades.

 

Some previous examples are:

 

1. Michael Wood (2023)

As Transport Minister, Wood failed to properly disclose and manage shareholdings, including shares in Auckland International Airport.
He was initially stripped of the Transport portfolio.
When further undeclared shareholdings were discovered, Prime Minister Chris Hipkins accepted his resignation from all ministerial positions.
Relevance to Jones and NZ First: A minister lost portfolios and ultimately resigned because conflicts of interest were not adequately managed, even though there was no finding of corruption. The perception was there, however the perception of Jones and NZ First doing worse is far greater.

 

2. Judith Collins (2014)

Faced allegations of a conflict of interest over interactions with dairy exporter Oravida, where her husband was a director.
Prime Minister John Key publicly reprimanded her and described her as being on a "final warning".
Later in 2014 she resigned as a minister amid controversies that included questions about conduct and judgement.
Why relevant: Not a direct removal solely for conflict of interest, but a major example where perceived conflicts seriously damaged ministerial standing.

 

3. Clare Curran (2018)

Failed to properly disclose meetings, including discussions involving technology entrepreneur Derek Handley.
Was first removed from Cabinet and later resigned as a minister after mounting pressure.
Why relevant: Demonstrates that failures of transparency and disclosure can be sufficient grounds for loss of ministerial responsibilities. Jones and NZ First have a long history of undisclosed meetings with the fisheries sector.

 

In final

 

New Zealand Govt has previously removed ministers from portfolios when conflicts of interest or unmanaged perceived conflicts undermined public confidence. The same standard should apply consistently to all ministers. Especially looking at Michael Woods who was the closest example to Jones and NZ First, was under the same government, and was far less flippant than how Jones and NZ First act in relation to their conflicts.