Changes announced to Fish & Game this morning are another move in the Coalition Government’s handover of power to intensive farming and other polluting commercial interests, and will result in the further degradation of our rivers and freshwater, say freshwater campaigners.
Choose Clean Water spokesperson Tom Kay says the changes announced today are clearly designed to remove Fish & Game’s ability to advocate for the health of rivers.
“Fish & Game has used its statutory purpose as a strong advocate for the health of rivers across New Zealand, and as such has helped protect numerous rivers from pollution and degradation.”
“There are some things about the system that do need fixing, but this is not only about that—this is the Coalition Govt taking advantage of an opportunity to reduce Fish & Game’s influence over polluters.”
“When environmental groups, local community groups, or iwi can’t afford to legally challenge a damaging activity or poorly made decision, Fish & Game is often there to ensure waterways are protected—working on behalf of their members to protect habitat for fish. But this Government is trying to stop that.”
The Coalition has stated that Fish & Game’s advocacy functions will be “revised” so regional Fish & Game Councils will only be able to take court action in relation to advocacy if explicitly approved by the New Zealand Fish & Game Council or the Minister and within a new restricted advocacy policy.
This morning’s press release from Minister for Hunting and Fishing James Meager on the changes states they will restrict the organisation’s ability to undertake court proceedings and require “Fish & Game councils to better consider the interests of other stakeholders such as farmers and the aviation sector in decision-making”.
“It’s telling that the Government has said specifically that it wants Fish & Game to better consider farming interests. Why not public health interests? Why not the interests of future generations? Why not the myriad of other commercial interests that operate in our communities? This demonstrates that this decision is another example of the Government enabling more pollution in rivers, lakes, and drinking water sources, and the handing of more power over our water to polluting commercial interests like intensive farming.”
“We know how detrimental the influence of Ministers can be over the statutory purposes of agencies like the Department of Conservation to protect our environment, for example. This is another case of Ministers being given the power to step in and stop actions that would protect our environment.”
Fish & Game led the processes to secure many Water Conservation Orders—similar to National Parks—for our rivers, protecting them for anglers and the public alike to enjoy. In 2002 they launched a large campaign against “Dirty Dairying” and the conversion of land into intensive agriculture, particularly in the South Island.
More recently, Fish & Game took up a legal challenge against ongoing extreme pollution of Southland’s waterways where dairy interests were wrongly claiming “there is no evidence of diffuse discharges from farming activities, either individually or cumulatively, causing adverse effects, including significant adverse effects on aquatic life”.
“Proponents of damaging, intensive agriculture and other major polluters are all over this Government’s decisions. This decision stinks of undue influence.”
