Thanks for the response. I'm sorry to hear that NZ system for making these decisions is inefficient, or even corrupt. That way lies madness. In the US, the big fishing boats (at least in Alaska) are required to take along a government employed observer/biologist to make sure that things are done legally, to monitor by-catch, monitor animal health, etc. The smaller operations fall in line due to expensive government monitoring and huge fines, and the legislators rely on recommendation from well regulated panels of experts, not activists, or industry reps. It generally works to keep the fishing industry chugging along in a sustainable way, which naturally results in maximum long term profits, and also satisfies the more reasonable of the environmentalists. There's no satisfying the zealots on either side, so they are (somehow) kept mostly out of the process, to the benefit of everyone.
It sounds like maybe the industry people have the system rigged in NZ, which would be a shame. I fear that the balance may be tipping in California (where I live) as the integrity of science is slowly undermined by some "scientists" misusing science to promote environmental dogma. I hope that I'm worrying for nothing, but the total amount of coast line closed to sport fishing in California has increased several hundred percent in recent years, with the howels of sportfishermen falling on deaf ears.