The government body tasked with managing fishing and game hunting is plagued with governance problems and requires sweeping changes, a ministerial review has found.
Fish & Game struggles to be effective due to its bloated management structure, and some individuals had conflicts of interest that could not be adequately managed, the review found. The group was almost exclusively run by Pkeh men, fuelling a perception it was an old boys club hostile to outsiders, which was inappropriate for a Government body, the review concluded
The review was commissioned last year by then Minister for Conservation Eugenie Sage, in response to internal conflict and apparent governance problems at Fish & Game.
Current and former Fish & Game staff have previously told Stuff the organisation was imploding. Late last year, chief executive Martin Taylor resigned amid ongoing tensions between him and the national council, which itself had rolled its long-time chairman months earlier.
READ MORE:* Fish and Game ‘imploding’ as Government plans intervention* Fish & Game boss resigns suddenly amid internal tension* Fish and game suffer while the organisation charged with looking after their interests and habitat founders
The review, conducted by Belinda Clark and John Mills, was asked to investigate the governance of the group, which was formed 30 years ago and remained largely unchanged. Its recommendations are not binding.
Beside managing fishing and game hunting licences, Fish & Game is tasked with environmental advocacy, and has been among the countrys most effective freshwater lobby groups. It has won a string of important court victories, including conservation orders for several major rivers.
Cawthron Institute senior scientist Dr Susie Wood talks about toxic algae in New Zealand rivers, explaining how to stay safe and what you need to look out for. (Video first published in January 2017)
It has done so in spite of major governance problems.
Fish & Game currently comprises 12 regional bodies and one national body, each with 12 elected councillors. The regional councils are largely responsible for operational matters, while the national council which is made up of members from each regional council is responsible for national strategy and advocacy.
The result is 144 elected (and unpaid) councillors spread across 12 regions, which the review noted was an extraordinary and unnecessary level of governance for an organisation with around 70 staff and annual turnover around $11m. There are more Fish & Game councillors than there are members of Parliament.
The review recommended slashing those numbers significantly, proposing six regions with eight councillors each. That alone would remove nearly 100 councillor positions
Of the remaining 48 councillor positions, half would be appointed by the Minister for Conservation, reducing elected positions by nearly 85 per cent.
Bloated governance was just one of several aspects of poor governance the review encountered.
Fish & Game has been plagued with problems around governance practice since its inception, the review said.
Despite having the services and assistance of an experienced governance expert for the whole time, there is near universal agreement that the organisation still lacks good governance.
Other examples included councillors intruding into operational matters, and poor handling of conflicts of interest. Such issues were themes within recent audits of three Fish and Game councils, raising issues which contributed to the Ministerial review.
Richard Cosgrove/Fish & Game
A salmon fishing competition on the Rakaia River.
OLD BOYS’ CLUB
A major plank of the reviews findings concerned a lack of representation and an insular culture.
Among the 144 elected councillors, only three were women (2 per cent), one of whom was appointed, the review said. Data shows around 24 per cent of angling licence holders are women.
There were also few Mori councillors, young councillors, and non-Pkeh councillors in general, perpetuating the old boys club image of the organisation.
These factors give rise to the perception of Fish and Game as being very clubby and not welcoming of outsiders, the review said.
It is widely acknowledged that Fish and Game does not reflect the wider community. Since Fish and Game are a government body, and, in effect, have a monopoly, this is not appropriate.
The organisation had started efforts to widen its licence holder base, which was having some success, the review noted.
It had also led to distrust between Fish and Game and others in the community, including Mori, landowners, and other habitat users. While it was required in its management plans to have regard to other users, Fish & Game rarely, if ever took that into account, the review said.
The majority of the feedback was that Fish and Game was very difficult to deal with, being unnecessarily aggressive and confrontational.
The group was also criticised for its use of public excluded meetings.
Much like local or regional councils, Fish & Game is subject to transparency rules, but can exclude the public from its meetings in specific circumstances. The review heard criticism that such provisions had been repeatedly abused and that publicly excluded meetings were frequently held without justification, contributing to an old boys club atmosphere.
TREATY PARTNERSHIP
There were numerous recommendations to improve the relationship between Mori and Fish and Game.
That relationship is inherently fraught.
Fish & Game is primarily responsible for introduced species, such as trout and salmon, which compete with native species such as tuna (eels), which are a taonga.
Some submitters believed mana whenua should not require licences to practice mahinga kai, and tino rangatiratanga granted under the Treaty of Waitangi which includes protections for fisheries applied to introduced species such as trout and salmon. While these represented differing perspectives between iwi and Fish & Game, they had some crossover interests, including protection of freshwater.
There is a widely held view among Mori that Fish & Game as an organisation does not adequately recognise, let alone accommodate, Mori interests in freshwater and the protection of native species… In contrast, FGCs (Fish & Game councils) see the relationship in a much more positive light than do Mori.
The review recommended amending the law to emphasise Fish & Game’s obligation to Mori as Treaty partners.
It also suggested a national advisory panel on Treaty issues, providing for Mori membership through Ministerial appointments, and formal policies on consultation and engagement with Mori.
REACTION
Acting Minister of Conservation Dr Ayesha Verrall said the review had outlined changes Fish & Game could make to become a more fit-for-purpose organisation.
These opportunities to strengthen governance and good practice are something Fish & Game can proceed with immediately in fact some of these actions are already underway, she said.
Some recommendations required legislative changes, on which she would seek further advice from the Department of Conservation, Verrall said.
In the meantime Fish & Game has sufficient work to do on implementing best practice. The review gives them good guidance.
A steering group would be set up to implement the changes, led by current Fish & Game national chairman Ray Grubb.
In response to the review, Grubb said he welcomed its endorsement of the organisation’s environmental advocacy.
It is encouraging that it is a ringing endorsement of our strong environmental advocacy on behalf of our 150,000 anglers and game bird hunters, he said.
It also provides a template for future results.
There were a range of views on how Fish & Game should be run, and the review provided solutions to some of the more contentious issues.
What the reviewers identified is a huge disparity in views on the future structure. The review report, therefore, provides solutions where consensus was not going to be possible.
Former Fish & Game chief executive Martin Taylor said the review confirmed the existing structure was dysfunctional, ineffective and inefficient.
In his first public statement since his resignation, he said issues had been identified long ago but attempts to change the organisation had been frustrated.
Unfortunately, change has been impossible due to the parochial nature of the regions which has led to unnecessarily high licence fees, duplication and inefficiency, he said.
Now is the time to modernise Fish & Game and the recommendations do that by strengthening the governing body and centralising corporate functions. Ultimately, this will save the organisation and make it more relevant and better placed to meet the needs of future generations