Changes To Fish & Game Continue Coalition's Handover Of Power To Polluters
Press Release – Choose Clean Water
Choose Clean Water spokesperson Tom Kay says the changes announced today are clearly designed to remove Fish & Games ability to advocate for the health of rivers.
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.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
NZ Herald
9 hours ago
- NZ Herald
Letters: Absence of economic evaluation of commercial GMO raises concerns
Photo / Food HQ Letter of the week Gene technology - at what cost? The Government is hypocritical in claiming it is over-riding local government powers for economic reasons when it is already doing so in the Gene Technology Bill without any economic risk-benefit analysis. The absence of an economic evaluation of the
NZ Herald
9 hours ago
- NZ Herald
The real cost of Government retreat on gender equity
Dellwyn Stuart is critical of the Government for halting pay equity claims and gutting the Equal Pay Amendment Act. Photo / Marty Melville There's a reason The Emperor's New Clothes is an enduring story. It's not just a children's tale – it's a sharp allegory for political vanity, wilful blindness and the cost of silence. In the story, the emperor is convinced to parade through town in invisible garments, woven only for
Newsroom
10 hours ago
- Newsroom
Seymour's ‘light up' message alarms tobacco researchers
Deputy Prime Minister David Seymour's comments to a London audience calling smokers 'fiscal heroes' – and declaring people should 'light up' to save their government's balance sheet – are reprehensible and make light of addiction, tobacco researchers say. Seymour largely stands by his remarks, arguing smokers are a net economic positive through tobacco tax and reduced superannuation from early deaths – but has conceded he was wrong to describe as 'quite evil' the Labour government's plan to create a smokefree generation. Early in its term, the coalition Government sparked controversy by repealing a law that would have banned the sale of tobacco to anyone born after January 1, 2009 and dramatically reduced both the number of outlets able to sell tobacco and the nicotine levels in cigarettes. Seymour spoke about the decision following a speech to the Adam Smith Institute, a neoliberal think tank based in London, during a visit to the UK this month. Asked about the smokefree generation concept, which has been taken up by the British government, Seymour said the New Zealand policy had been 'quite evil, in a way' and described smokers as 'fiscal heroes'. 'If you want to save your country's balance sheet, light up, because … lots of excise tax, no pension – I mean, you're a hero,' he said to laughter from the audience. Seymour told Newsroom his remarks were based on arguments he made before about the role of the Government when it came to smoking. 'I'm not seriously suggesting that we should encourage people to smoke to save the Government money. It's clearly an absurd statement, but you do have to have a bit of a sense of humour in this life, otherwise it would be too dull.' The state should make sure the public was aware of the dangers of smoking, while stopping smokers from doing harm to others (such as through second-hand smoke) and ensuring they did not impose financial costs on others. 'As far as I can tell, that condition is well and truly satisfied: I mean, the Government gets $2 billion of tax revenue from about, what is it now, 8 percent of the population?' (The Customs Service collected $1.5b in tobacco excise and equivalent duties in 2023/24, while that year's NZ Health Survey reported a daily smoking rate of 6.9 percent.) Seymour said it was 'just a sad fact' that smokers were also likely to die younger, reducing the amount of superannuation they collected, while he was unconvinced their healthcare costs would be markedly higher than those who died of other illnesses. 'If anything, smokers are probably saving other citizens money.' However, he backtracked on his suggestion the last Government's smokefree generation plans were 'quite evil', saying: 'I'm not sure that was the right word, on reflection. 'I certainly think the idea that, in 30 years' time, someone's going to have to prove that they're 49 rather than 47 does seem draconian – it seems almost a bit of an Orwellian situation.' While the Adam Smith Institute's event page billed Seymour as the Deputy Prime Minister, he said his speech was delivered in a private capacity rather than on behalf of the Government, while he had not used taxpayer money for his travel (he also confirmed the Institute did not cover any of his costs). Labour health spokesperson Ayesha Verrall says the last Labour government's smokefree policy was fundamentally based on humanitarian grounds. Photo: Marc Daalder Labour Party health spokesperson Ayesha Verrall told Newsroom the minister's remarks showed the Government had the wrong priorities when it came to its smokefree policy. 'They are prioritising balancing the books on the misery done to smokers due to the harms of tobacco.' Verrall said there was clear evidence of tobacco's cost to the health system, and the last government's smokefree generation policy had been 'fundamentally based on humanitarian grounds'. 'This is an addictive product: it is unique in that it kills half the people who use it. It's not like the more nuanced debates we have about … social media for kids.' University of Otago associate professor Andrew Waa told Newsroom Seymour's 'perverse' arguments were further evidence of the Government placing tobacco tax revenue over other concerns. 'It's literally blood money: it's money that the Government taxes on a deadly product, and yet they're still treating it as a profit margin for them.' Waa said the minister's comments ignored the social costs of tobacco, and would only help an industry 'intent on exploiting addiction at whatever cost'. 'I don't know if it's naive, or if it's [his] ideology that it's all personal choice – there's no choice when it comes to smoking some of these things. 'There's a reason why certain communities are more likely to smoke, because they get tobacco products shoved in their face all the time; by the time they decide to think that they don't wanna use the stuff, it's too late.' Janet Hoek, the co-director of tobacco control research partnership ASPIRE Aotearoa, told Newsroom that the comments were 'really ridiculous and reprehensible'. 'It just seems incredibly disappointing that Mr Seymour apparently thinks it's amusing to suggest that addiction, and early and often painful death, are a good way to generate government revenue.' Hoek said the environmental and productivity costs associated with smoking also needed to be taken into account, as did the social harm done to communities when their loved ones died prematurely. While some politicians dismissed public health experts as 'muppets … living in ivory towers', the suggestion that smokers were making an informed choice was itself out of touch with reality.
