Opinion Piece by Dr Peter Trolove NZFFA executive
Fish and Game New Zealand Governance and Organisational Improvements Amendment Bill
“Like mushrooms license holders are being kept in the dark and fed bullshit”
Introduction
Like most license holders I have been loosely following the affairs of our dysfunctional Fish and Game (F&G) councils since Eugene Sage initiated her review of the organisation.
Time has rolled on and we are now awaiting the imminent release of Minister James Meager’s Bill which will determine the future governance and role of F&G
Minister Meager toured around the regions, meeting with the various F&G councils — or just perhaps the chairman and manager of each. Meanwhile the stakeholders, (license holders), were not aware. No public meetings for the fish and game public were held so license holders are unaware and have no clear understanding of what is in store.
In the face of a “command and control” government reducing every thing to profit or loss, anglers have been badly let down by those who they elected to represent their interests.
I have been unsuccessfully trying to get the official story from F&G councillors “face to face”, or from what official meeting minutes have been posted online. But to no avail. This is unsatisfactory and leaves me to voice my unsubstantiated “joining of the dots”.
It seems Minister Meager is holding a gun to their heads.
Comment
With the above qualification this is my belief — calculated guess — of what is taking place;
- The coalition government want to wrest more production from a finite amount of farm land to increase GDP or be it mining in the public’s wilderness parks etc..
- Their simplistic solution is to Fast Track irrigation or any other exploitation of resources.
- Stung by “dirty dairying”, Federated Farmers want F&G gone
- The Acclimatisation Societies’ Rakaia River NWCO (1988) held back the rape the Rakaia River from 1988 until 2013 after John Key’s constitutionally repugnant ECan Act in 2010 wrested back control to Ecan.
- Solution; block F&G from obstructing future growth/wealth creation from irrigation: AKA the
- Fish and Game New Zealand Governance and Organisational Improvements Amendment Bill.
- The Bill has been drafted by DOC and Todd McClay.
- Meager is the one charged with implementing it.
As one who knows the Rakaia River intimately, the outstanding sea trout fishery sustained by Stokell’s smelt was destroyed from 2014/15 when a maximum abstraction of 70 m3/sec was enabled through amending the Rakaia River NWCO in 2013.
The Lake Coleridge Project is a “smoke and mirrors” pretence of water storage achieved by simply “classifying” water discharged at the Coleridge Power Station penstocks. No consents have been issued for the taking and sale of the “qualifying” water.
North Canterbury F&G was allegedly paid off at the 2012 Hearing to support the scam.
TrustPower/Manawa/Contact are presently banking $millions selling public water to irrigators.
It would suit the government to head off the ongoing legal challenges to this deceit and deception of the public that are grinding slowly through the Courts.
I repeat — irrigation stuffs fisheries.
A Call to Action
National’s MP Duncan MacIntyre in 1972 lost his safe National seat when he advocated trout farming.
Outraged license holders, angling clubs, and others should initiate a similar response to let Meagher and his coalition government, who are dependent on minor parties know that the fish and game public are prepared to pay back his “unsportsmanlike methods” at the next election.
<c> Dr Peter Trolove — Public’s Fish and Game under threat
The official story about what is taking place is here:
https://www.doc.govt.nz/about-us/statutory-and-advisory-bodies/fish-and-game-councils/
This is what is in store.
Yes that is the official story and it tells us much of what is in store.
Few would disagree that Eugene Sage was correct when she recognized F&G had become dysfunctional when she called for a review of F&G.
Unfortunately such a review was always going to be influenced by political and departmental agendas.
My opinion piece stems from my concern that James Meager has indicated that the Minister will determine which court action F&G may undertake.
The Courts are THE primary means of effective advocacy as demonstrated by recent ELI, EDS, and AWA successes.
A F&G without the ability to advocate effectively is of little interest to this license holder.
Given F&G is 100% funded by license holders, ALL license holders should have been given the opportunity to participate in the drafting of Meager’s Bill.
I could find no evidence that our elected F&G councils participated on our behalf.
I could find no evidence that F&G councils have been keeping license holders informed.
Is the Bill simply the product of DOC and the Minister for F&G, Youth, and (the irrigating of) the South Island?
The proposal says that the NZC or the minister can approve legal action. The key word being “or”. So Fish and Game will be able to initiate legal action on their own. The only difference will be regions will now need the approval of the national council (or the minister), which under the circumstances seems wise.
The Clark and Mills review found that some councillors treated Fish and Game like a club. If it were a club the rank and file would get to vote on all the decisions. As a government entity, Fish and Game answer to the relevant minister not the licence holders/members. It also doesn’t matter that Fish and Game don’t receive government funding, there are plenty of government entities that are expected to pay their own way or even make a profit. The post office for example. Nevertheless, individual licence holders will get their say on the bill at the select committee stage.
Finally, I don’t see this as a hostile take over or a march towards extinction. If the minister wanted to take over F&G he wouldn’t reform, he would just do it. But it is clear that some additional oversight is necessary. It has been 5 years since the review and issues persist. F&G have been unable to make substantial changes themselves and we are at the point where doing nothing remains the real risk. In particular, the open conflict between the regions and head office is simply not sustainable and has to be fixed. The 13 councils shouldn’t be adversaries. Deciding once and for all which responsibilities fall to the regions and which are the remit of the national body should retain the best elements of the regional model (local fisheries management), create efficiencies and end the friction and infighting.