NZFFA NEWSLETTER June 2026

Welcome to the latest newsletter of the NZ Federation of Freshwater Anglers (Inc). There are plenty of issues for devotees of the sport of angling to ponder; some affect angling directly while others concern the environment in a broader context:

Fish & Game reforms

On 5 June 2025 the Minister for Hunting and Fishing, the Hon James Meager, announced a wide-ranging reform was intended for Fish & Game New Zealand.

The minister summarised key elements of the reform:

• Clarifying the roles and responsibilities so that regional Fish & Game councils focus on delivering hunting and fishing opportunities on the ground, with the New Zealand Council responsible for administrative tasks and policies.
• Shifting to a nationalised fee collection system to reduce double handling of licence fees and ensuring funding follows the demand on the resource.
• Making more licence holders eligible to vote and stand in Fish & Game elections and requiring councillors to comply with professional standards.
• Requiring Fish & Game councils to better consider the interests of other stakeholders such as farmers and the aviation sector in decision-making.
• Requiring a national policy around advocacy and restricting court proceedings to within that policy.

Fish & Game license holders need to examine these proposals very carefully. There is a red flag in the last one; the government intends that Fish & Game’s advocacy functions will be “revised” so regional Fish & Game Councils will be able to take court action in relation to advocacy only if explicitly approved by the New Zealand Fish & Game Council or the Minister and within a new restricted advocacy policy. Note: how the policy will be worked out (and who will do that) has not been made clear.

The requirement to “better consider” the interests of farmers (and the aviation sector) is clearly the result of lobbying by rural groups. The farming and aviation sectors should be able to look after their own interests.

Legislation devoted solely to Fish & Game New Zealand is to be introduced later.

It is worth remembering that National’s outdoor policy in July 2023 stated:

“Support Fish & Game New Zealand and protect trout and salmon fishing.”

To a politician “support” is a very broad term capable of a wide variety of meanings.

Conservation land for sale?

Law changes in a Bill before Parliament will see public land with conservation values open to more commercial development. The Conservation Amendment Bill, introduced on 7 May 2026, contains proposals for:

• potential sales or disposal of up to 60% of public conservation land,
• mining and other forms of development “to the greatest extent practicable” under the Conservation Act 1987 and other Acts,
• more “amenities areas” on conservation land with minimal controls on development, and
• concentration of power among ministers and limitation of input from communities.

The Conservation Act 1987, s 6(e), currently states that one function of the Department of Conservation is:

“(e) to the extent that the use of any natural or historic resource for recreation or tourism is not inconsistent with its conservation, to foster the use of natural and historic resources for recreation, and to allow their use for tourism:

The paragraph will be replaced by two requirements:

“(e) to foster the use of land and other natural resources and historic resources managed by the Department for recreation to the extent consistent with their conservation:

(ea) to recognise the economic opportunities that arise from the use and development of land and other natural resources and historic resources managed by the Department, and to enable this use and development to the greatest extent practicable under this Act and other enactments”

As one commentator has said, the Bill places a clear obligation on DOC to enable economic development, whenever possible within the bounds of the law. 

Tony Orman has noted public access to recreational resources is being slowly diminished in favour of private interests (see Egalitarian Public Ownership of Fish and Game on “Endangered List” | Council of Outdoor Recreation Associations of NZ Inc).

The Environment select committee is scheduled to report on the Bill on 12 November 2026 (a few days after the general election).

Anyone concerned that these changes will adversely affect access by the public to fishing and hunting locations should make a submission on the Bill and make sure to send a copy to his/her local MP. As a citizen, you have the right to make your voice heard!

Public submissions can be made on this Bill to Parliament’s environment select committee: en.legislation@parliament.govt.nz. The last date for a submission is 2 July 2026.

Forest & Bird Society fights Ruataniwha dam scheme (again)

In 2017, after years of legal wrangling, the NZ Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society won a court case, successfully arguing that the Director-General of Conservation unlawfully consented to a proposal for 22 hectares of protected conservation estate to lose its conservation park status and be swapped for 170 hectares of nearby private farmland. The former conservation land could then be flooded as part of a scheme to dam the Makaroro river, a Tukituki river tributary. The scheme is not intended to provide hydro-electricity but to provide irrigation to surrounding farmland. Presumably that means intensive dairy farming and nitrate pollution of waterways, just like in Canterbury.

Hawkes Bay Regional Council is said to have spent some $20 million of ratepayers’ money on the dam proposal.

Because the decision came from the Supreme Court, our highest court, it might be thought that the matter was at an end. But thanks to the government’s economic priorities, the Ruataniwha dam scheme refuses to go away. Renamed the Tukituki Water Security Project, the scheme has been listed for speedy treatment under the Fast-track Approvals Act 2024.

The dam promoters have also sought an even larger land swap than that originally deemed unlawful by the courts.

Council consents for the dam were to expire in June 2025. The promoters sought a last minute extension and the authorities decided to allow it. The Forest and Bird society has filed judicial review proceedings in the High Court challenging the extension decision.

Dirty dairying convictions

A small number of farmers continue to ensure that the dairy industry maintains its poor reputation in the eyes of the public. Large fines for water pollution are regularly reported in the media.

Because the courts must take a person’s financial capacity into account when imposing a sentence, some offendors suffer little real penalty. The court first estimates the appropriate penalty and then whittles that figure down for various reasons, such as remorse, ill-health, a guilty plea, good character(?) and financial stress.

In some extreme cases there is no financial penalty at all, apart from legal fees. A Stuff report from January 2025 (https://www.stuff.co.nz/nz-news/360518645/fines-environmental-offending-never-get-paid) notes that while regional councils bring the prosecutions, it is the Justice Department that enforces payment. In some cases the offendors plead poverty and the debt is remitted. At times the council that brought the prosecution is not even informed of that indulgence.

A Stuff report in 2018 noted that two Northland farming companies fined $225,000 for dairy pollution would never have to make payment because they had no assets. That left local ratepayers out of pocket as the local council had spent $50,000 on the prosecution.

Examples from 2025 and 2026 include:

Waikato Regional Council v Thompson. The defendant was the farm manager. An irrigator was left in a stationary position on a steep area of land above a tributary. One of the irrigator arms permanently blocked off, so that the irrigator was operating as a “stationary cannon”. Ponding around the irrigator and effluent had flowed across land before discharging into the tributary.

The Court found that discharge was not deliberate but was foreseeable and resulted from a failure to properly monitor the system. The court calculated a starting point of a $75,000 fine but reduced it to $5,000 payable over 18 months, and added 150 hours of community service.

Waikato Regional Council v Apex Farming Ltd. Effluent actively overflowed from a pond, causing an overland flow of effluent for approximately 40m. The effluent discharged into a farm drain, which connected to a tributary stream. The discharge was caused by infrastructural failings, including a lack of available effluent storage facilities. Fine was set at a starting point of $70,000, reduced to $49,000.

Waikato Regional Council v Rawhiti Environmental Park Limited. A pig farming company was fined $437,000 for a very bad case of pollution. Repeated non-compliance by the business over many months forced the Waikato Regional Council to ask a court for an interim enforcement order in August 2023, requiring the defendant to immediately cease unlawful discharges and take steps to reduce pig numbers and lower effluent pond volumes.

The court imposed a record fine of $437,000 and made enforcement orders requiring illegal discharges to cease. At sentencing the offending company was said to be experiencing financial difficulties; whether the fine has been paid is not known.

Waikato Regional Council v GIB Farming Limited (29 April 2026). The prosecution arose from an overflowing effluent storage pond some 20 metres from a stream feeding the Waikato river. The persons involved had a history of non-compliance with water pollution rules.

The court started from a fine set at $60,000, then noted that the company had ceased trading and had no unallocated cash or liquid assets. It imposed a fine of $30,000 to be paid off in instalments over five years. Will the company still exist in the short term?

Santana mining application in train

An Australian company, Santana Minerals Ltd, has applied for permission to establish four open pit gold mines in Central Otago. The application has aroused enormous opposition because the mining process will involve cyanide processing to extract the gold. That will necessitate the construction of a massive dam to store toxic waste that will remain – so the mining company suggests – for all time. The dam capacity is estimated at 18 million cubic metres and will require a rock wall higher than the Clyde dam on the Clutha river.

Santana’s application is being dealt with under the Fast-track Approvals Act 2024. A panel began considering the application in May 2026.

Objectors making submissions to the panel include the Department of Conservation, Fish & Game New Zealand, the environmental group Sustainable Tarras (https://sustainabletarras.com/) and winery businesses in the region.

Erecting a huge tailings dam in a catchment containing some of the South Island’s best trout fisheries is an obvious threat when the likelihood of earthquakes is considered. According to GNS Science the Alpine Fault is thought to have a high probability of rupturing in the next 50 years.

After hearing expert evidence and deliberating on the issue, the panel is scheduled to give its decision in late October 2026.

New environmental laws planned

In December 2025 the government introduced legislation that will replace the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA). There are two Bills before Parliament:

• the Natural Environment Bill (establishes a framework for the use, protection, and enhancement of the natural environment)
• the Planning Bill (establishes a framework for planning and regulating the use, development, and enjoyment of land).

Commentary on the Bills lists the government’s objectives, with a strong emphasis on economic development:

• “ … make it easier to get things done by-
  • unlocking development capacity for housing and business growth:
  • enabling delivery of high-quality infrastructure for the future, including doubling renewable energy:
  • enabling primary sector growth and development (including aquaculture, forestry, pastoral, horticulture, and mining).”

The Natural Environment Bill contains various goals that form a fundamental part of the new environmental management system; for example, using and developing natural resources, no net loss in indigenous biodiversity and protecting human health. However, unlike the tiered objectives listed under section 7 of the RMA, there is no hierarchy for goals and the new goals carry equal weight.

These broad goals are to be implemented using national policy directives.

For anglers, there is one significant omission. The RMA, section 7(h), made specific reference to the protection of the habitat of trout and salmon. That requirement does not appear in the new legislation.

At the first reading of the Bill in December 2025 the Minister responsible for RMA reform, Hon Chris Bishop, said:

“The intention of the bill is to permit or allow more use of the natural environment, within limits. “

Coming from a minister whose government gave us the Fast-track Approvals Act 2024, that comment seems ominous.

At the time of writing, the Environment select committee had not reported to Parliament.

Nitrates controversy in Southland

Levels of nitrate in waterways continue to be a major issue for Southland residents.

In mid-July 2025 the tap water used by Gore residents was found to have 11.4mg of nitrate per litre; just over the prescribed 11.3mg limit. For several days the town’s water was undrinkable.

An Environment Southland (ES) report Nitrogen Contamination in Southland Groundwater (January 2026) looked at the magnitude, distribution and risks of nitrate contamination in Southland groundwater. The report noted the expansion of dairying in Southland since the 1990s coincided with the widespread increase in nitrate concentrations. (Southland’s dairy herd grew from 38,000 to 668,000 cows between 1990 and 2022, an increase of 1668%).

An Otago Daily Times report (16 May 2026) told of internal emails showing ES officials were divided on the question whether intensified agriculture (particularly dairying) was the main reason for increased nitrate levels. ES managers considered their communications plan should stress intensive land use generally and refer to multiple sources for nitrogen loss to water, including arable and horticultural activities.

Spectre of trout farming

Trout farming seems to have eternal attraction for politicians and others in Wellington.

In August 2018 Parliament’s primary production select committee recommended a petition to allow trout farming be given “serious consideration”.  Committee members seemed more than happy to expose New Zealand’s sport fisheries, said to generate more than $1 billion per year, to risks from speculative fish farming ventures.

In July 2025 the Ministry for Regulation issued a statement showing it sees trout farming as a goldmine waiting to be exploited. Officials predicted that if the current ban on trout farming cold be removed it would bring “significant economic growth opportunities with more local jobs for rural people. “

But trout farming carried on overseas shows it is capital intensive, high risk and gives poor returns. A New Zealand trout farmer could never compete against the large scale operations conducted by Asian competitors who are much closer to markets.

Ministry officials were equally bullish that risks could be contained if trout farming started in New Zealand, stating:

“Getting rid of the rules against Trout farming would bring us into line with other countries – Australia, Canada, the United Kingdom and Europe. 

Existing laws – including the Fisheries Act 1996, Conservation Act 1987, and Resource Management Act 1991 – would continue to make sure the risks were managed.”  

Given the constant battle fisheries inspectors are fighting against criminals who poach paua, snapper and other marine resources to feed a buoyant black market, anglers may feel entitled to reject these optimistic comments.

Individuals matter

With so many issues confronting anglers, it can seem overwhelming. But it is still possible for the individual to have a say.

If you are concerned about an issue concerning your sport – the Fish & Game reforms, for instance – you can write or email your member of Parliament. For contact details of MPs, see https://www3.parliament.nz/en/get-involved/have-your-say/contact-an-mp.

You can also write to a newspaper giving your views. Either way, it is important to put environmental matters affecting our fisheries into the public eye.

Stand up for your sport!

“The meeting closed with unanimous agreement that anglers’ interests could only be protected in the long term by the formation of a national body comprising anglers themselves which would be able to speak with one voice for all New Zealand’s fishermen.”

[ANGLERS ASSOCIATION TO PROTECT FISHING RIGHTS, Taupo Times, 8 February 1972, p 9]

The NZFFA was created back in the 1970s in response to the threat posed by trout farming proposals. Since that time the rivers, lakes and streams anglers rely on for world class trout fishing have been placed under huge pressure from irrigation, hydro-electric dams and pollution.

The equation is simple: no healthy rivers = no trout fishing

The NZFFA needs the support of trout fishing clubs nationwide. Contact NZFFA at the website https://nzffa.com/about-us/executive/