Choppy waters
Hunters and anglers group Fish & Game is embroiled in internal conflict, sources say, and faces Government intervention. Charlie Mitchell reports.
The Government is planning an independent review of Fish & Game, following internal strife and a looming financial crisis that has the group in disarray.
It comes as the group famous for its aggressive environmental advocacy – including founding the ‘‘dirty dairying’’ campaign, which kicked off mainstream concern about agricultural pollution of rivers and lakes – is moderating its stance amid an internal shake-up.
The national Fish & Game council has ordered chief executive Martin Taylor, alongside other national staff, not to make proactive press releases containing negative statements about farmers.
Last week, the national council’s long-time chairman, Lindsay Lyons, was removed without explanation through a majority vote by councillors.
It seemingly came as a surprise to Lyons, who has been chairman for six years, and on the council for
12. His replacement, Paul Shortis, says he expects the group will take a different approach to environmental advocacy. It is understood this will include an effort to work alongside organisations such as Federated Farmers.
Several former and current Fish & Game members spoken to by
Stuff expressed concern about the organisation’s direction, and say the internal ructions show resistance to efforts to reform the group, which has remained virtually unchanged since it was established 30 years ago.
It also reflects increasing farming influence on the organisation’s regional bodies.
Fish & Game’s environmental advocacy has traditionally been aggressive, and frequently targeted the agriculture industry.
It has caused friction with some farmers, who need to buy licences from the organisation to hunt or fish, but don’t support the tenor of its lobbying.
Fish & Game has been one of New Zealand’s most successful environmental organisations. It is responsible for 12 of 15 water conservation orders protecting the values of major rivers, and it frequently pushes for stronger regional rules around water pollution, including through the Environment Court.
Although it has a national body, Fish & Game is largely driven by its 12 regional counterparts, which act semi-autonomously. Each region reports separately to the minister of conservation, and conducts its own field operations.
The national body is responsible for advocacy and setting national policy. It comprises members appointed by each of the regional bodies.
Several people familiar with the internal dynamics said that, since
2018, there had been a concerted effort among the regions to resist increased control from the national council. In the past two years, at least five national councillors have either resigned or been replaced by their regional body.
‘‘It’s been the culmination of a long series of attacks on the proenvironment lobby,’’ one source said.
‘‘It’s imploding at the moment.‘‘
The review
The Government is understood to want an overhaul of the organisation, which is a statutory agency set up under the Conservation Act.
A recent national council meeting, held over Zoom, was joined by Conservation Minister Eugenie Sage and Mervyn English, a senior manager at the Department of Conservation.
Both said the idea of a review was in its early stages, and could take a number of possible forms. It is understood both Sage and English favour a significant intervention, which would include an external review and an independent chair to run the council.
English – brother of former prime minister Sir Bill English – alluded to his concerns at the meeting on April 16.
‘‘One of my observations about Fish & Game is that I often get different people tell me different things, and they all get suspicious about each other’s agendas and what’s really happening,’’ he told the councillors, according to a recording of the meeting seen by
Stuff.
‘‘There’s no secret agendas here, there’s no complications. We’re concerned for the organisation, and we want to work with you in the most constructive way possible.’’
Sage confirmed to Stuff on Thursday that a review would take place, but said the scope had yet to be finalised. It would be undertaken by an independent reviewer.
‘‘No formal review of Fish & Game as an organisation has been done for some time,’’ she said.
‘‘It’s useful for any organisation to have a regular health check on how it is performing against its statutory purpose and functions and what, if any changes are needed.’’
When asked about Fish & Game seemingly moderating its environmental advocacy, Sage said the group had been an important check against freshwater pollution, particularly in its work pushing for water conservation orders on major rivers.
‘‘Fish & Game has stepped up where regional councils have failed to act,’’ she said.
‘‘Advocacy is part of Fish & Game’s statutory functions. I have enormous respect for its work advocating for healthy waterways and the interests of anglers and hope that continues.’’
Simmering tensions
Several sources say internal conflict has been building over time, but started in earnest around two years ago.
Since Fish & Game was formed in 1990, there had been no review or audit of the national body or any of its regional counterparts.
That changed with three audits in quick succession, each in response to complaints about specific regional bodies. All three found management or financial problems, to varying degrees.
An audit of the North Canterbury branch found issues around the handling of money bequeathed by a Christchurch man, as well as ‘‘serious issues with management and office practices’’. An audit into the Central South Island region followed a complaint about alleged conflicts of interest with former chairman Gary Rooney; the audit found those conflicts of interest had been appropriately managed, but it ‘‘did not manage the perception as well as it could have’’.
A recent audit into Hawke’s Bay Fish & Game – which multiple sources say is known to be dysfunctional – found a host of problems, including complaints of a ‘‘toxic culture’’. The national council requested branch chairman Bruce Bates resign following the audit’s release, but he did not, and remains the chairman.
As this was happening, there was growing concern within the organisation about the tone of its environmental advocacy.
Under the law, the organisation is required to advocate for the interests of anglers and hunters, including the management and protection of habitats.
Its aggressive approach to freshwater issues – championed by former chief executive Bryce Johnson, who ran the organisation from its inception until 2017 – had made the group enemies, particularly in the agriculture industry.
At the most recent Fish & Game elections, held in 2018, a campaign by Federated Farmers to elect farmers onto the regional Fish & Game councils was moderately successful. Around a dozen of the newly elected representatives were farmers, joining numerous other farmers already on the councils.
At the time, chief executive Taylor said it appeared to be an effort to blunt the organisation’s environmental advocacy.
Following the elections, there was high turnover on the national council. The council is now almost entirely different from three years ago.
A change in tenor
The most significant sign of a change in direction came when the council, in November last year, passed a resolution in a publicexcluded session forbidding the chief executive from making statements seen to be negative towards farmers.
It was ostensibly because the council wanted a survey of councillors and licence holders about their views on the group’s advocacy work. The results of the survey have not been released, and the order remains in place.
It has already changed the tenor of the organisation’s advocacy. In a March press release, revealing the results of the organisation’s latest Colmar Brunton environment survey, comments attributed to Taylor make no mention of farming.
In a similar release two years earlier, responding to that year’s survey results, Taylor made repeated mention of farming, including ‘‘dirty dairying’’, the phrase the organisation popularised.
The national council has also inquired about starting a national environmental awards programme to highlight good farming practice.
Current and former members of the organisation spoken to by Stuff said the growing farmer influence happened parallel to the regional resistance to overhauling Fish & Game, but both had the effect of undermining the national body.
Reform efforts had been pushed by Taylor, who was appointed chief executive in 2017, with a mandate to make changes.
‘‘Martin has ruffled a few feathers,’’ one source said. ‘‘He has a very clear idea of what is good governance and what is not.’’
Another source said Taylor’s interest in reform – including his support of an external review – had led to ‘‘kickback’’ from the regions.
On Thursday, Taylor said the organisation was comfortable with a Government review: ‘‘We know it hasn’t been reviewed in its lifetime and that’s very odd in government – our legislation is quite old.
‘‘This is an appropriate time to do a review, and we look forward to working with the Minister of Conservation in terms of the process and what we need to do to bring this to a start and a finish.’’
When asked about the constraints on his media statements, Taylor said he was ‘‘happy to follow the direction’’ of the board.
‘‘As a chief executive, you have to follow the direction of your board, and boards have differing views at different times’’, he said.
The Government itself is long understood to have wanted changes in the organisation, even prior to the current coalition Government.
It is understood there have been multiple complaints made to Sage about issues within regional offices, some of which prompted at least one of the recent audits.
The combination of various tensions culminated in the removal of Lyons as the national council chairman last week.
Lyons – who declined to comment when approached by
Stuff – was asked by councillors to step aside as chairman. He did not, prompting a tense standoff among the councillors, which culminated in his removal.
Shortis, his replacement, is a member of the Wellington Fish & Game council. He told Stuff the change reflected a desire for new leadership.
‘‘It was probably time for a change, in the majority of the councillors’ minds. Lindsay didn’t agree with that, which was unfortunate. Like any organisation, you occasionally go through periods of tension and a little bit of dysfunction, and we’ve just been through that.’’
The national council was not necessarily opposed to a Government review, he said.
‘‘There are normal reservations any organisation would have to an external review. We’re quite happy to progress discussions around a review and in what form that might take and what timetable it might have.
‘‘It’s probably time to have an external look at the way we do stuff. We’re probably capable of doing it ourselves internally, but we’d probably get someone external to assist us anyway.’’
He declined to comment in detail about changes to the tenor Fish & Game’s advocacy, but confirmed it would change: ‘‘I don’t see it being the same.’’
The organisation is also facing considerable financial pressure as a consequence of Covid-19.
Much of its income comes from overseas hunters and anglers. Locals have been unable to hunt or fish under level four restrictions, and a shortened game bird season is likely under level 3 restrictions.
A financial status report released this week assumed that Fish & Game would lose all of its non-resident licence income, and 10 per cent of its local licence income. It could lead to a loss of $2m this year and $1.5m the following year.
The same document made broader observations about the organisation and its finances.
It noted that 78 per cent of regional expenditure was in the form of salaries and human resources costs. It said: ‘‘There is a significant lack of financial transparency across the organisation’’ and ‘‘there is little or no external review of decisions’’.